289 replies to this topic

[Balloon guy]

Since we really only allow the death penalty for murders, then we can declare with confidence that the death penalty does in fact deter crime in one particular case.So far no one who has been killed with lethal injection has gone on to break the law ever again.But it is a cute mob mentality; 'give us a catch phrase to confuse the issue so we don't have to think about it'."It doesn't deter crime"Why would anyone associate the killing of a person for their crimes with a desire to send a message?The only other people who kill people to 'send a message' are terrorist.So unless you are saying that liberals are in fact terrorist coddling ignorants...then your argument is irrelevant.I don't ever want our government killing someone to send a message. I want them killing people who have been found guilty of crimes worthy of their death.Oh but some innocent people have been killed in the past....Every one of the victims of the guilty were innocent too, but let's ignore them.Since we cannot be perfect with punishment, we should never enforce the punishment is your argument.Let's carry that through to its logical conclusion....there are people in jail for life who are innocent. Let's therefore never send anyone to jail for life.

[LongLiveYorke]

Balloon guy, on Saturday, June 11th, 2011, 8:59 PM, said:

Since we really only allow the death penalty for murders, then we can declare with confidence that the death penalty does in fact deter crime in one particular case.So far no one who has been killed with lethal injection has gone on to break the law ever again.But it is a cute mob mentality; 'give us a catch phrase to confuse the issue so we don't have to think about it'."It doesn't deter crime"Why would anyone associate the killing of a person for their crimes with a desire to send a message?The only other people who kill people to 'send a message' are terrorist.So unless you are saying that liberals are in fact terrorist coddling ignorants...then your argument is irrelevant.I don't ever want our government killing someone to send a message. I want them killing people who have been found guilty of crimes worthy of their death.Oh but some innocent people have been killed in the past....Every one of the victims of the guilty were innocent too, but let's ignore them.Since we cannot be perfect with punishment, we should never enforce the punishment is your argument.Let's carry that through to its logical conclusion....there are people in jail for life who are innocent. Let's therefore never send anyone to jail for life.

There's a lot of sense in this post...

[Balloon guy]

CaneBrain, on Saturday, June 11th, 2011, 8:00 AM, said:

lol Anne Coulter. please stop trolling me. The only difference between a liberal mob and a conservative mob is a conservative mob will have more guns. I like the title though. Really fits her usual themes. You completely ignored my point (as usual). In the process of killing Mr. 20 scalps, we will inevitably kill an innocent person. It happened before and it will happen again. Of those 46, how many were innocent? 1? 2? Is there a number that would bother you? The fact that this loss of innocent life doesn't bother you is hypocritical given the standard conservative stance on sanctity of life.It's the same hypocrisy that causes most Southern states to have excellent records on fetus' rights and horrific records on infant mortality rates. Once it's born, who cares?I don't fight swimming pools for the same reason I don't fight cars (which kill hundreds per month). But the death penalty is perfectly controllable and it can be unequivocally proven that innocent people have been sentenced to death. Nice try attempting to compare an accident to intentionally killing someone though. Please don't worry about my thinking.

? Please site proof that a 5% innocent rate/death penalty is standard.Also please supply evidence that southern states horrible conditions are not results of democrat control for decades resulting in their current medical conditions.I'm not against saving innocent human life ( like Jews from being suicide bombed in Israel ), but I don't understand how you guys are so worked up over every single human life no matter how horrible, unless it is in the US military. Cause then you guys want to tie their hands with your silly ROE etc.More humans have died from the removal of DDT than from all death punishments from all countries through out human existence. And that would not be an accident, we know exactly what's happening and why we wanted to protect bird eggs more than small black children.

[Balloon guy]

LongLiveYorke, on Saturday, June 11th, 2011, 6:05 PM, said:

There's a lot of sense in this post...

I must have been hacked.

[mtdesmoines]

SilentSnow, on Saturday, June 11th, 2011, 2:03 PM, said:

A college professor and a rancher are tasked with accurately assessing the impact of the death penalty in our society. Who do you think wins?Not everybody believes that anti-intellectualism and deliberate ignorance is a virtue. You're going to have to work on your anecdotes if you want to persuade anyone. Wait, I thought you were all for "practical" arguments? Maybe you don't want to argue the death penalty on practical grounds because you know it fails there as well. At the risk of going completely off topic, you are also using an inconsistent argument. You seem to be implying that "academic intelligence" is irrelevant. But when the issue is racial differences you act as if academic intelligence(IQ) is extremely important.

Wait. Wat?

[AmScray]

SilentSnow, on Saturday, June 11th, 2011, 12:03 PM, said:

A college professor and a rancher are tasked with accurately assessing the impact of the death penalty in our society. Who do you think wins?Not everybody believes that anti-intellectualism and deliberate ignorance is a virtue. You're going to have to work on your anecdotes if you want to persuade anyone. Wait, I thought you were all for "practical" arguments? Maybe you don't want to argue the death penalty on practical grounds because you know it fails there as well. At the risk of going completely off topic, you are also using an inconsistent argument. You seem to be implying that "academic intelligence" is irrelevant. But when the issue is racial differences you act as if academic intelligence(IQ) is extremely important.

"Anti Intellectualism" and "Deliberate Ignorance" are two, completely different things. There is deliberate ignorance that comes from averting a knowledge type that might run contrary to your ideological profile, then there is deliberate ignorance that takes the shape of theories and studies that only exist to rationalize that very same ideological profile, in the face of a much more elegant, simple and appealing conclusion that may be ideologically offensive to some people.To wit:"Ya know, this idea that different groups on different continents raised in different climates over thousands of years... This idea that by sole virtue of a common humanity we're all magically "equal" might sound good, but it just doesn't seem to line up with what I'm seeing in the real world. It's possible that not all people are equal, physically or intellectually. Hell, you needn't look much further than the NFL or the Ivy League to see that!"The response from Academia: 500 pages of "Guns, Germs and Steel" where logic couldn't possibly be tortured any further without dying all together- or, deferring the question to their Apologetics wing, well funded in the world of Academia, where the various 'ologies will be put to work developing theories to explain why 1 + 1 really doesn't equal 2.And on the overall importance of "academic intelligence", again, you're employing your own definitions that are not accurate. "Academic intelligence" in terms of being able to conceive and design an airplane or a light emitting diode- something Caucasians and Asians seem to be supremely good at, but sub-Saharan Africans most definitely aren't- is not the same thing as "academia's" role in creating left-bent theories to influence social policy, or continuing to ask questions once the answer is already in the rear view mirror, just because they happen to dislike that answer.

[speedz99]

AmScray, on Saturday, June 11th, 2011, 10:56 AM, said:

A college professor and a rancher are tasked with raising beef cows. The college professor has studies, the rancher, an intimate knowledge of the issue at hand.They're both given 200 acres and 200 head.Who do you think wins?

It depends, really. For this to be a legitimate question, the professor would obviously have to be in a field closely tied to raising cattle. You have to assume the professor has at least a bit of hands-on knowledge, and the rancher has done some aggie schooling and/or read a thing or two about his chosen profession. Putting each of them in an equally strange situation, the 200 acres being on neutral ground and the 200 head being a from a line neither has worked with, and it'd be closer than you think. The rancher could obviously do better in a vacuum, being able to do almost everything on his own, but the professor would be able to hold his own and in plenty of situations do better after a short adjustment period and with the appropriate help. I'll put it this way...after taking a two credit class on "feeds and feeding", which was heavy on raising cattle, I could walk onto many, if not most farms and very quickly lower their costs and improve output based just on the proper feed ratios proven in academic settings. That's just one of many examples, and from a second year vet student, not a professor who has dedicated a lifetime to the academic study of cattle raising. He couldn't do everything on a farm like a rancher could, but he could learn the basics, and his studies would be incredibly helpful in terms of improving the efficiency of a standard farm.So, I have no idea how this pertains to your arguments about the death penalty, but your example isn't a good one if you're trying to prove that having gone to prison makes you more fit to make recommendations for how our criminal justice system should work than an academic. Not that it matters. I just felt like writing something; I'm bored.

AmScray, on Saturday, June 11th, 2011, 10:56 AM, said:

The death penalty issue is straight ideology. Arguing it on practical grounds fails 100% of the time, save for 'undesirable association'... and I really don't know how 'undesirable' China is.

On human rights issues? Really? If that's your best example of how it's not only fucked up countries that use capital punishment...

Balloon guy, on Saturday, June 11th, 2011, 4:59 PM, said:

Since we really only allow the death penalty for murders, then we can declare with confidence that the death penalty does in fact deter crime in one particular case.So far no one who has been killed with lethal injection has gone on to break the law ever again.But it is a cute mob mentality; 'give us a catch phrase to confuse the issue so we don't have to think about it'."It doesn't deter crime"

Ok, that's true. People in prison for life could continue committing crimes while in prison. Crimes against other criminals. That's just like a conservative to coddle prisoners by sheltering them from the worst of the worst.

Balloon guy, on Saturday, June 11th, 2011, 4:59 PM, said:

Why would anyone associate the killing of a person for their crimes with a desire to send a message?The only other people who kill people to 'send a message' are terrorist.So unless you are saying that liberals are in fact terrorist coddling ignorants...then your argument is irrelevant.

True terrorists crave martyrdom. That's just like a conservative to indirectly give terrorists exactly what they want by reacting exactly as expected.

Balloon guy, on Saturday, June 11th, 2011, 4:59 PM, said:

I don't ever want our government killing someone to send a message. I want them killing people who have been found guilty of crimes worthy of their deathOh but some innocent people have been killed in the past....Every one of the victims of the guilty were innocent too, but let's ignore them.Since we cannot be perfect with punishment, we should never enforce the punishment is your argument.Let's carry that through to its logical conclusion....there are people in jail for life who are innocent. Let's therefore never send anyone to jail for life.

This is so silly I can't even make a joke about it. An innocent man sent to prison for life has a lifetime to be proven innocent, as has occurred hundreds, probably thousands of times. An innocent man put to death is just dead. If, due to some horrific set of circumstances, you're ever wrongly convicted of a crime, you'd probably vomit at the realization that you ever argued life in prison and the death penalty were equal in terms of being awful for the Andy Dufresnes of the world.

LongLiveYorke, on Saturday, June 11th, 2011, 5:05 PM, said:

There's a lot of sense in this post...

Heh.

[AmScray]

speedz99, on Sunday, June 12th, 2011, 5:16 PM, said:

It depends, really. For this to be a legitimate question, the professor would obviously have to be in a field closely tied to raising cattle.

No, the question was legitimate, just not adequately clarified.It was in response to this.

Quote

Going beyond the obvious correlation, lots of studies have shown that there seems to be no crime reducing effect whatsoever when the death penalty is in place.Maybe it's liberals ability to accurately see the flaws of the criminal justice system that make them oppose the death penalty, while conservatives' simplistic and "rosy" outlook makes them ignore reality.

A Humanities Professor and a Cattle Rancher.Now, who wins? PhD, after all... And studies! Lots and lots and lots of studies!And studies of studies, and studies of studies of studies, and counter-studies, and counter-counter-studies! By golly, we have every possible variable and conclusion fully codified into a study of some kind and a PhD to make it appear a credible affair...I'm firmly convinced that the next rung up in intellectual development is realizing what a counterproductive joke present-day "academia" has devolved into and more importantly, not buying into their lie that intelligence or insight is somehow related to the number of hours someone sat in a college classroom, listening to a professor who believes the same thing. So much of what originates from the 'pantheons of thought' is nothing more than theoretical horseshit with ideologically-tied, self serving ends that accomplishes nothing more than confounding the obvious answer.Some call it 'nuance'. Really, it's just a seeming inability to commit to an answer, or trying to explain away an answer you do not like.

[speedz99]

AmScray, on Sunday, June 12th, 2011, 4:35 PM, said:

A Humanities Professor and a Cattle Rancher.

Oh, well, yeah. As long as you're saying SilentSnow is the professor and you're the rancher, not generalizing the correlation to liberals and conservatives in general.

AmScray, on Sunday, June 12th, 2011, 4:35 PM, said:

I'm firmly convinced that the next rung in intellectual development is realizing what a counterproductive joke present-day "academia" is and not buying into their lie that intelligence or insight is somehow related to the number of hours someone sat in a college classroom, listening to a professor who believes the same thing.

It really depends on the subject at hand, but I think you need people that have been entrenched in any given profession their whole lives and know the nuts and bolts, as well as having people in academia looking at big picture, game-changing ideas. Plus, I don't think it's fair to say that academics believe only high levels of education make someone worthwhile in any given field. I think most would admit that, in the grand scheme of things, the guy who actually knows how to take apart and rebuild an engine is more vital to society than the guy working in a lab setting to make one specific part work more efficiently.

[Balloon guy]

speedz99, on Sunday, June 12th, 2011, 5:16 PM, said:

Ok, that's true. People in prison for life could continue committing crimes while in prison. Crimes against other criminals. That's just like a conservative to coddle prisoners by sheltering them from the worst of the worst.

So you are for cruel and unusual punishment as long as they deserve it?Just like a liberal to tear up the constitution if it means making a black man suffer.

Quote

True terrorists crave martyrdom. That's just like a conservative to indirectly give terrorists exactly what they want by reacting exactly as expected.

True terrorist crave terror. Killing them prevents them from terrorizing. If the living choose to martyr them, they have a constitutional right to.Just like a liberal to tear up the constitution to try to prevent innocent people from thinking a way different than what they want them to think.But thank you for introducing the reality of life after death through your argument. We can move into your responsibility to God anytime you want.

Quote

This is so silly I can't even make a joke about it. An innocent man sent to prison for life has a lifetime to be proven innocent, as has occurred hundreds, probably thousands of times. An innocent man put to death is just dead. If, due to some horrific set of circumstances, you're ever wrongly convicted of a crime, you'd probably vomit at the realization that you ever argued life in prison and the death penalty were equal in terms of being awful for the Andy Dufresnes of the world.

So a person like say...Hitler, deserves the right to tie up our court system for the sake of disrupting things even though his guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt?Just like a liberal to do stupid things that results in hurting innocent people who need their day in court. People like little Becky Miller who had a wrongful injury lawsuit against a manufacturing company but she died before the case could be brought to trail because PRISON INMATES CASES ARE GIVEN PRIORITY over other cases.Also, please provide some remote proof that 'probably thousands of times' a person was sent to death row only to be found innocent. Cause we aren't talking about any other criminals. At least I'm not because as a conservative I don't try to muddy the waters to justify some feelings that they are probably right because they saw a movie or read a bumper sticker.If I am ever wrongly convicted and given 10+ years of preferred court dates to prove my innocence and I can't, I would not hold the system at fault, I would blame my scumbag lawyer who got rich off my case even though they failed completely.

[SilentSnow]

Balloon guy, on Saturday, June 11th, 2011, 4:59 PM, said:

1.Since we really only allow the death penalty for murders, then we can declare with confidence that the death penalty does in fact deter crime in one particular case.So far no one who has been killed with lethal injection has gone on to break the law ever again.2.But it is a cute mob mentality; 'give us a catch phrase to confuse the issue so we don't have to think about it'."It doesn't deter crime"Why would anyone associate the killing of a person for their crimes with a desire to send a message?The only other people who kill people to 'send a message' are terrorist.So unless you are saying that liberals are in fact terrorist coddling ignorants...then your argument is irrelevant.I don't ever want our government killing someone to send a message. I want them killing people who have been found guilty of crimes worthy of their death.3.Oh but some innocent people have been killed in the past....Every one of the victims of the guilty were innocent too, but let's ignore them.4.Since we cannot be perfect with punishment, we should never enforce the punishment is your argument.Let's carry that through to its logical conclusion....there are people in jail for life who are innocent. Let's therefore never send anyone to jail for life.

1.You are looking at it wrong. The comparison is innocent people executed by the state vs escaped death row inmates who have murdered someone. It has probably happened, but I can't remember anyone ever escaping from death row and then killing someone. 2.This section is nonsensical. 3.We are trying to ask the question of what is better for society- life in prison without parole or the death penalty. That the victims were innocent is absolutely irrelevant. We are trying to prevent future victims. Nothing we do will bring back the dead. 4.No, our argument is that since the legal system is flawed and the death penalty does no apparent good then we should abolish it in order to prevent some innocent people from being executed(along with possibly other less tangible benefits). The logical conclusion is that cases should be reviewed for accuracy since mistakes are routinely made in trials.

[SilentSnow]

AmScray, on Sunday, June 12th, 2011, 7:55 AM, said:

"Ya know, this idea that different groups on different continents raised in different climates over thousands of years... This idea that by sole virtue of a common humanity we're all magically "equal" might sound good, but it just doesn't seem to line up with what I'm seeing in the real world. It's possible that not all people are equal, physically or intellectually. Hell, you needn't look much further than the NFL or the Ivy League to see that!"The response from Academia: 500 pages of "Guns, Germs and Steel" where logic couldn't possibly be tortured any further without dying all together- or, deferring the question to their Apologetics wing, well funded in the world of Academia, where the various 'ologies will be put to work developing theories to explain why 1 + 1 really doesn't equal 2.And on the overall importance of "academic intelligence", again, you're employing your own definitions that are not accurate. "Academic intelligence" in terms of being able to conceive and design an airplane or a light emitting diode- something Caucasians and Asians seem to be supremely good at, but sub-Saharan Africans most definitely aren't- is not the same thing as "academia's" role in creating left-bent theories to influence social policy, or continuing to ask questions once the answer is already in the rear view mirror, just because they happen to dislike that answer.

There are plenty of studies that cast doubt on a race difference in IQ hypothesis. All these are numerical studies and have nothing to do with the "apologetics" that you are so opposed to. Although I guess you might claim that all research is faked as part of the grand conspiracy. -That blacks in other cultures have much smaller IQ gaps than in the US. -That there doesn't seem to be an IQ gradient in mixed "race" people.-That it is difficult to come up with any sort of clear race divisions based on skin color. -That current blacks have the same IQ as white southerners in the 1940s.-That IQ seems to be increasing generally(Flynn effect). This shouldn't be possible if IQ is as fixed as you act like.-That education seems to influence IQ scores in various ways. -That the IQ gap gets larger from early childhood to adulthood- exactly what you would expect if the gap were caused by environmental factors. But even if you could miraculously prove that there was definitely a real racial gap, then we would have to proceed to the next question-How would society be any different? What policy implications should there be if we knew there was a definable group that was likely to achieve less? We already do not even remotely believe in equality of outcome so there would clearly be no difference there. Race based quotas would be out, but I don't believe in these and most people don't either. Would the small group difference be enough to stop treating each person as an individual? Obviously not. Should we stop trying to help someone because they were somewhat less likely to be able to take advantage of it? I think the differences between our current society and this one would be very small.

[mtdesmoines]

speedz99, on Sunday, June 12th, 2011, 7:16 PM, said:

It depends, really. For this to be a legitimate question, the professor would obviously have to be in a field closely tied to raising cattle. You have to assume the professor has at least a bit of hands-on knowledge, and the rancher has done some aggie schooling and/or read a thing or two about his chosen profession. Putting each of them in an equally strange situation, the 200 acres being on neutral ground and the 200 head being a from a line neither has worked with, and it'd be closer than you think. The rancher could obviously do better in a vacuum, being able to do almost everything on his own, but the professor would be able to hold his own and in plenty of situations do better after a short adjustment period and with the appropriate help. I'll put it this way...after taking a two credit class on "feeds and feeding", which was heavy on raising cattle, I could walk onto many, if not most farms and very quickly lower their costs and improve output based just on the proper feed ratios proven in academic settings. That's just one of many examples, and from a second year vet student, not a professor who has dedicated a lifetime to the academic study of cattle raising. He couldn't do everything on a farm like a rancher could, but he could learn the basics, and his studies would be incredibly helpful in terms of improving the efficiency of a standard farm.

I didn't realize a two-credit class was so comprehensive. Do cattle feeders know there is such a thing as two-credit classes?

[brvheart]

mtdesmoines, on Monday, June 13th, 2011, 1:31 AM, said:

I didn't realize a two-credit class was so comprehensive. Do cattle feeders know there is such a thing as two-credit classes?

I'm confused. Are you claiming that he's lying about what he learned or that he's lying about how many credits the class was?

[speedz99]

Balloon guy, on Sunday, June 12th, 2011, 6:42 PM, said:

Just like a liberal to tear up the constitution if it means making a black man suffer.

What? We LOVE black men!

Balloon guy, on Sunday, June 12th, 2011, 6:42 PM, said:

We can move into your responsibility to God anytime you want.

My only responsibility is to...well, nobody. I'm irresponsible.So a person like say...Hitler, deserves the right to tie up our court system for the sake of disrupting things even though his guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt?

Balloon guy, on Sunday, June 12th, 2011, 6:42 PM, said:

Also, please provide some remote proof that 'probably thousands of times' a person was sent to death row only to be found innocent. Cause we aren't talking about any other criminals.

You weren't reading very well by this point. My "probably thousands" was from people sentenced to life in prison, which was the whole point of that argument of death vs life in prison. There probably aren't thousand from people sent to death row, partially because that's less common, and partially because some of them were killed before they could be proven innocent.

mtdesmoines, on Sunday, June 12th, 2011, 10:31 PM, said:

I didn't realize a two-credit class was so comprehensive. Do cattle feeders know there is such a thing as two-credit classes?

Most farmers have neither the time nor the inclination to either get themselves to a university in order to take such a class. And I'm guessing many would scoff at the idea that someone other than them might know what's best to feed their cattle. But remember I'm saying "many" and "most"...some farmers I'm sure do their research quite well and have maximized their feed efficiency.

[Balloon guy]

speedz99, on Monday, June 13th, 2011, 6:05 AM, said:

What? We LOVE black men!

Poor and playing basketball at midnight.

Quote

My only responsibility is to...well, nobody. I'm irresponsible.

You are responsible for this.

Quote

So a person like say...Hitler, deserves the right to tie up our court system for the sake of disrupting things even though his guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt?

That's what I said.

Quote

You weren't reading very well by this point. My "probably thousands" was from people sentenced to life in prison, which was the whole point of that argument of death vs life in prison. There probably aren't thousand from people sent to death row, partially because that's less common, and partially because some of them were killed before they could be proven innocent.

Nobody is arguing if people sentenced to life in prison are innocent or not, because there is no argument to change that. For you to bring it up while discussing the death penalty proves one of two points, one that you have to muddy the waters because you have nothing, or two you are a liberal who thinks that catch phrases give you credibility irregardless of their irrelevance.I'm going to go with C, a hybrid of A and B.But since you are under some delusion that you have made some point, please supply proof that thousands of people are serving time for life that are innocent.

Quote

Most farmers have neither the time nor the inclination to either get themselves to a university in order to take such a class. And I'm guessing many would scoff at the idea that someone other than them might know what's best to feed their cattle. But remember I'm saying "many" and "most"...some farmers I'm sure do their research quite well and have maximized their feed efficiency.

I know farmers, most of them do almost no research, but the salesmen who sell feeding systems do lots of research and show them what works best to save them money. Farmers are good at farming, not research.

[Balloon guy]

SilentSnow, on Sunday, June 12th, 2011, 9:35 PM, said:

1.You are looking at it wrong. The comparison is innocent people executed by the state vs escaped death row inmates who have murdered someone. It has probably happened, but I can't remember anyone ever escaping from death row and then killing someone.

Now you are creating another straw man, there is no burden on the punishment of death to prove that our prison system is or isn't capable of holding a person securely. I freely grant you that our prisons are secure ( even though there have been escapes from death row where the escapee wanted to kill the guards but was prevented by other inmates )The punishment is a response to the crime, not to the ancillary results.I'll type slow: We don't kill people to save money, stop future crimes, make more dramatic endings for movies or to feed a blood lust of conservatives who obviously hate minorities and want them to die. We kill people to punish them for their most heinous crimes.

Quote

2.This section is nonsensical.

To you it would be, because you are basing your argument on a straw man and I destroyed your straw man here.

Quote

3.We are trying to ask the question of what is better for society- life in prison without parole or the death penalty. That the victims were innocent is absolutely irrelevant. We are trying to prevent future victims. Nothing we do will bring back the dead.

You have presented no proof that society benefits by keeping murders alive. I'm sure you will quote Ben Franklin with a cute catch phrase soon, but just know that I will mock that technique as another unprovable point that is based on feelings, not reality.And since we have shown that death row inmates have escaped in the past from death row, then the only way to perfectly prevent future victims is to kill those who have been shown to be willing to commit murders with special circumstances.

Quote

4.No, our argument is that since the legal system is flawed and the death penalty does no apparent good then we should abolish it in order to prevent some innocent people from being executed(along with possibly other less tangible benefits).

"Of the roughly 52,000 state prison inmates serving time for murder in 1984, an estimated 810 had previously been convicted of murder and had killed 821 persons following their previous murder convictions. Executing each of these inmates would have saved 821 lives." (41, 1 Stanford Law Review, 11/88, pg. 153)

Quote

The logical conclusion is that cases should be reviewed for accuracy since mistakes are routinely made in trials.

False, mistakes are not routinely made in trials. This is another liberal BS catch phrase based on nothing but a desire to be caring and compassionate. Mistakes are not routinely made in capital punishment trials. In fact mistakes are almost never made in capital cases. ( This statement is based on the identical data that yours was in making your statement )

[JubilantLankyLad]

Balloon guy, on Monday, June 13th, 2011, 8:26 AM, said:

I know farmers, most of them do almost no research, but the salesmen who sell feeding systems do lots of research and show them what works best to save them money. Farmers are good at farming, not research.

This is funny. Salesmen are good at taking farmers' money, not saving them money. And that what their research is based on.

[mtdesmoines]

brvheart, on Monday, June 13th, 2011, 1:37 AM, said:

I'm confused. Are you claiming that he's lying about what he learned or that he's lying about how many credits the class was?

I'm just saying it's an arrogant and naive thing to say.

[mtdesmoines]

speedz99, on Monday, June 13th, 2011, 8:05 AM, said:

Most farmers have neither the time nor the inclination to either get themselves to a university in order to take such a class. And I'm guessing many would scoff at the idea that someone other than them might know what's best to feed their cattle. But remember I'm saying "many" and "most"...some farmers I'm sure do their research quite well and have maximized their feed efficiency.

You have to be kidding.EDIT: I've worked with farmers all my life aside from actively farming for a decent portion of it. I've also worked for a large commodity association. The great majority of farmers who are farming full time are not only well-educated, but hold degrees in crop sciences and related areas of study. They operate multi-million dollar businesses with razor-thin margins. The days of Ma and Pa Kettle or Green Acres or whatever you're thinking of ... long gone my friend.