Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

User information for Arthur Dent

Real Name Arthur Dent   
Search for:
 
Sort results:   Ascending Descending
Limit results:
 
 
 
Nickname Wowbagger_TIP
Email Concealed by request - Send Mail
ICQ None given.
Description
Homepage http://
Signed On Apr 3, 2001, 22:20
Total Comments 3779 (Veteran)
User ID 9540
 
User comment history
< Newer [ 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 ] Older >


News Comments > Out of the Blue
230. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 9, 2012, 21:49 Wowbagger_TIP
 
Prez wrote on Nov 9, 2012, 21:37:
Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Nov 9, 2012, 20:43:
Prez wrote on Nov 9, 2012, 19:04:
Well, what I am seeing two parties dropping anchor and refusing to budge from their positions, which belies the overwhelming judgment of those here who emphatically insist that it's only the GOP that won't compromise. Neither party is blameless in the stalemate by my estimation. When is the last time Harry Reid talked about compromise?

It's the problem with politics today - the constituency elects hard-nosed idealists and looks at candidates willing to compromise as weak.

Umm... what exactly do you want the Democrats to offer? They've already offered like 3 or 4 to one cuts to revenues. Republicans said no, they'd only accept 0 revenues. That was a long while back. Now they've tightened up again and are talking 2-3 to 1 cuts to revenues. Republicans still say they won't accept revenue increases. So we can't even begin to negotiate what or how much to cut when the Republicans won't budge at all on revenues. They've already pledged to do what Norquist wants, not what's best for the country. They've painted themselves into a corner.

That's what the public - you and me - hear. Through the sensationalist media. I would expect that instead of trading public jabs to score political points on the nightly news these clowns would get behind closed doors and actually do some negotiating. And another thing; cuts are not concessions; in the mess we are in they are an absolute necessity and a foregone conclusion. The Democrats are not yielding anything. The two parties need to sit down and work out what exactly will be cut instead of whoring themselves to the media. In union negotiations at work the two parties will present an unyielding stance upfront but with ardent negotiation sooner or later compromises are always reached. That's what negotiating is, and the Democrats are no more willing to do it than the Republicans are. Obama needs to force these guys to the table and fight it out. Enough of the media showboating.
Like I said, when the Republicans are saying that revenues are off the table, that's obstructing. Democrats haven't put anything off the table. That's not obstructing. There's room to negotiate there. Republicans need to stop saying that anything is completely off the table before any real negotiations can begin. It's just a ridiculous stance, even if it is just for public consumption. None of us knows what's going on behind closed doors, but we can all see that the Republicans are publicly being obstructionist, as they've been all along on a whole variety of issues.

At this point I'm starting to lean towards letting the sequestration happen. I know it's risky, but I'm sick of the bullshit that Boehner's group is pulling. I'm sick of filibuster threats and black and white views of everything, and I'm sick of their delusional view of things. I'm starting to be willing to see the deep cuts happen, just so the Republicans will lose all the Bush tax cuts, and then we can start fresh. Then we can cut taxes for the middle class. Then we can strategically restore funding where it's needed.

Of course I can easily see them refusing even tax cuts for the middle class if they can't get them for the very wealthy too. Just going by their current refusal to give even the slightest bit on taxes.
 
Avatar 9540
 
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell (I think...)
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Out of the Blue
228. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 9, 2012, 20:43 Wowbagger_TIP
 
Prez wrote on Nov 9, 2012, 19:04:
Well, what I am seeing two parties dropping anchor and refusing to budge from their positions, which belies the overwhelming judgment of those here who emphatically insist that it's only the GOP that won't compromise. Neither party is blameless in the stalemate by my estimation. When is the last time Harry Reid talked about compromise?

It's the problem with politics today - the constituency elects hard-nosed idealists and looks at candidates willing to compromise as weak.

Umm... what exactly do you want the Democrats to offer? They've already offered like 3 or 4 to one cuts to revenues. Republicans said no, they'd only accept 0 revenues. That was a long while back. Now they've tightened up again and are talking 2-3 to 1 cuts to revenues. Republicans still say they won't accept revenue increases. So we can't even begin to negotiate what or how much to cut when the Republicans won't budge at all on revenues. They've already pledged to do what Norquist wants, not what's best for the country. They've painted themselves into a corner.
 
Avatar 9540
 
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell (I think...)
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Out of the Blue
226. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 9, 2012, 18:51 Wowbagger_TIP
 
Prez wrote on Nov 9, 2012, 18:35:
Mr. Tact wrote on Nov 9, 2012, 11:19:
Prez wrote on Nov 9, 2012, 10:35:
I'm not aware of who Grover Norquist is, which is odd since I pay attention to the goings-on in the legislature, but I am going to go out on a limb and say I highly doubt they "swore fealty" to him. I have never heard John Boehner explicitly state that he equates closing loopholes with a tax hike. If he does then he is flat incorrect because it isn't.
Not heard of Grover Norquist? Either you are being sarcastic or you haven't been paying attention to the discussion around raising taxes in the US. I barely pay attention and I know of him and why despite not being a member of government why he is part of the discussion around revenue increases.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover_Norquist


Why would I suddenly start being sarcastic after discussing this seriously all this time? I honestly didn't know of the guy. I pay less attention to the tax discussion simply because I believe that ethically and morally speaking, before we start taking more of other peoples' money I think we have an obligation of reigning in spending and eliminating the disgusting amount of waste in government. In my opinion that needs toncome first, and the Democrats just won't get on board.

Democrats are on board with cuts, but they want revenue increases as well. We need both to get things going the right direction without screwing over the middle class and plunging the economy back into recession. The Republicans refuse, and have been obstructing any attempt at a deal. Hopefully you at least see that much now, and see why most of them are doing it.
 
Avatar 9540
 
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell (I think...)
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Morning Legal Briefs
13. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Nov 9, 2012, 13:19 Wowbagger_TIP
 
Prez wrote on Nov 9, 2012, 01:36:
Can anybody possibly be against the death penalty for Jared Loughner (Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords' attacker) who only got life imprisonment today? The guy committed a premeditated mass slaughter of innocents at a peaceful political rally, including a young child who was there learning about politics with her mom. There can be no doubt he is the one responsible. Strap this monster into a chair and fry him until his brain melts.

The problem with the death penalty is not that it exists, but that it is used completely ineffectually. I don't share Cutter's desire to 'break a few eggs to make an omelet' (especially if I'm one of the innocent eggs), but there are many MANY cases in which the guilt of the accused is without question where not utilizing the death penaly is a downright travesty.

If only all death penalty cases were so open and shut, where the guy commits the crime in front of a hundred people and gets himself on camera, and then freely admits that he did it. Sadly, that isn't the way things generally work. The system is full of flaws, and even when we follow due process exactly, things still get screwed up, because people are flawed. They lie, they cheat, they cover their asses, they get lazy, they get complacent, in short they act like humans. I don't like the idea of putting someones life in the hands of a system like that. If that means that a guy like Loughner sits in a cell until he dies, then that's the price for making sure that more innocents don't die.
 
Avatar 9540
 
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell (I think...)
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Out of the Blue
222. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 9, 2012, 12:19 Wowbagger_TIP
 
RollinThundr wrote on Nov 9, 2012, 12:14:
Beamer wrote on Nov 9, 2012, 11:47:
RollinThundr wrote on Nov 9, 2012, 11:27:
Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Nov 8, 2012, 23:15:
Beamer wrote on Nov 8, 2012, 22:20:
I don't get this social utopia garbage. Obama is less social than Joe McCarthy tax-wise, and has a lot in common with Eisenhower in nearly all areas of policy. Those guys would have punched you in the face for calling them socialists, yet Obama is very, very similar and gets knocked around.

Also, what's more important to protect - the rights of a large organization or the rights of the individual? I'm going individual. Regardless, RollingThunder only cares about HIS religion. Christianity? Protect at all costs! Again, if it was the Jehovah's Witnesses refusing to pay for health care for ANY of their employees, as they do not believe in modern science, he'd probably be against it. But he's one of those people that feels a need to be a victim, and there's a war on Christianity in his eyes.

Just watch Fox for a few hours and you can see that if there's any group in this country that feels they are victims, it's Republicans/Tea Partiers. They see themselves beset on all sides by liberals who are alternately lazy, incompetent boobs or evil masterminds who have fooled everyone, whichever fits their narrative at the time.

Actually I don't care about any religion, I said already I'm not religious, I was merely pointing out the status quo of hypocrisy liberals display on a regular basis. Where its politically correct to jump all over Christianity.

Comparing a Jehovah Witness owning a private company to a religious run university are not one in the same. Nice deflect there Beamer.

Still waiting to hear what you would cut btw. You libs seem to be scarce in that area, except when talking about the military.

At stake was hospitals, not just universities. But I don't really see a distinction - you're looking at the beliefs of the owner, are you not?

I've already said repeatedly that I'm not really a lib, and that I agreed with you on many of your cuts. I've also said that we should care less about cutting and more about spurring the economy, and raising taxes to 1960s levels is the best way to do that.

For the record, and I'm not sure if I mentioned this already, I'm not for the Bush tax cuts, I wasn't then either. Obviously taxes need to go up along with cuts. I just don't think it's fair to expect a very small portion of the population to cover the whole bill.
There's only a very small portion of the population who have seen their incomes rise in the past 15 years, and taxing them will not hurt the economy nearly as much as taxing the middle class. The middle class buying stuff is what drives the economy. Those at the very top will be just fine, as will the rest of us, because all that trickle-down stuff is complete garbage. You tax where the money is, and more and more, it's become highly concentrated in the hands of a very tiny minority of the population. Coincidentally enough, they are taxed at nowhere near the rate that the rest of us are. Depending on where they draw the line, I may see my taxes go up too. Sucks, especially since I don't agree with how that debt was racked up to begin with, but its gotta be paid for.
 
Avatar 9540
 
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell (I think...)
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Out of the Blue
219. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 9, 2012, 11:44 Wowbagger_TIP
 
RollinThundr wrote on Nov 9, 2012, 11:27:
Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Nov 8, 2012, 23:15:
Beamer wrote on Nov 8, 2012, 22:20:
I don't get this social utopia garbage. Obama is less social than Joe McCarthy tax-wise, and has a lot in common with Eisenhower in nearly all areas of policy. Those guys would have punched you in the face for calling them socialists, yet Obama is very, very similar and gets knocked around.

Also, what's more important to protect - the rights of a large organization or the rights of the individual? I'm going individual. Regardless, RollingThunder only cares about HIS religion. Christianity? Protect at all costs! Again, if it was the Jehovah's Witnesses refusing to pay for health care for ANY of their employees, as they do not believe in modern science, he'd probably be against it. But he's one of those people that feels a need to be a victim, and there's a war on Christianity in his eyes.

Just watch Fox for a few hours and you can see that if there's any group in this country that feels they are victims, it's Republicans/Tea Partiers. They see themselves beset on all sides by liberals who are alternately lazy, incompetent boobs or evil masterminds who have fooled everyone, whichever fits their narrative at the time.

Actually I don't care about any religion, I said already I'm not religious, I was merely pointing out the status quo of hypocrisy liberals display on a regular basis. Where its politically correct to jump all over Christianity.
There's no hypocrisy there. I'd jump all over any religion that tries to force the rest of us to live by their personal religious views.

RollinThundr wrote on Nov 9, 2012, 11:27:
Still waiting to hear what you would cut btw. You libs seem to be scarce in that area, except when talking about the military.

Still waiting to hear what your issue is with health care law providing for birth control since we're providing for non-essential stuff like Viagra for guys. Why the hypocrisy?

As for cuts, there's no point in discussing it until Republicans accept that they actually have to pay for stuff that they didn't pay for before, like the wars, tax cuts and drug bill. The current offer from Dems is something like 2 or 3 to one cuts to revenues, and the specifics won't matter until Republicans agree to budge on revenues.
 
Avatar 9540
 
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell (I think...)
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Out of the Blue
214. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 9, 2012, 11:18 Wowbagger_TIP
 
Prez wrote on Nov 9, 2012, 10:35:
Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Nov 9, 2012, 10:19:
Prez wrote on Nov 9, 2012, 09:52:
What's missing from that Boehner quote is any mention of accepting some revenue increases along with all the cuts, which has been their entire reason for obstructing all along. They want 0 revenue increase and all cuts. Haven't seen that change yet.

I actually agree that revenue boost is needed but that's easily done with closing loopholes - no tax increase needed. Just because Republicans staunchly oppose tax hikes doesn't necessarily mean they wouldn't get on board with that, which as Reagan proved increases revenue from the wealthiest taxpayers since they make the most use of loopholes by a fair margin.

Actually they've explicitly said that they consider closing loopholes to be a tax hike. The command came down from God himself, Grover Norquist, to whom they've all sworn fealty. Grover says, "No net revenue increase, period." So if closing a loophole would result in more revenue for the government, it's out.

I'm not aware of who Grover Norquist is, which is odd since I pay attention to the goings-on in the legislature, but I am going to go out on a limb and say I highly doubt they "swore fealty" to him. I have never heard John Boehner explicitly state that he equates closing loopholes with a tax hike. If he does then he is flat incorrect because it isn't.

Seriously man, you need to look it up. All but 13 sitting Republicans in Congress actually signed a pledge, written and presented to them by Grover Norquist, pledging to never raise taxes, and he considers any net revenue increase to be a tax increase.

Americans for Tax Reform

The Pledge (CBS News)


 
Avatar 9540
 
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell (I think...)
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Out of the Blue
212. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 9, 2012, 10:19 Wowbagger_TIP
 
Prez wrote on Nov 9, 2012, 09:52:
What's missing from that Boehner quote is any mention of accepting some revenue increases along with all the cuts, which has been their entire reason for obstructing all along. They want 0 revenue increase and all cuts. Haven't seen that change yet.

I actually agree that revenue boost is needed but that's easily done with closing loopholes - no tax increase needed. Just because Republicans staunchly oppose tax hikes doesn't necessarily mean they wouldn't get on board with that, which as Reagan proved increases revenue from the wealthiest taxpayers since they make the most use of loopholes by a fair margin.

Actually they've explicitly said that they consider closing loopholes to be a tax hike. The command came down from God himself, Grover Norquist, to whom they've all sworn fealty. Grover says, "No net revenue increase, period." So if closing a loophole would result in more revenue for the government, it's out.
 
Avatar 9540
 
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell (I think...)
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Out of the Blue
209. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 9, 2012, 09:02 Wowbagger_TIP
 
Prez wrote on Nov 9, 2012, 00:43:
John Boehner: "There's a lot of ways you could do this that would allow the Congress to fix our tax code next year, look at real spending cuts and entitlement reforms that would produce what the president's called for a balanced approach," he said.

No deal, Senate Democrats say. Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., outlined an opposing view: Democrats want an agreement to extend the Bush-era cuts on everyone except the top earners, and they want it done in the next 53 days. "Waiting for a month, six weeks, six months, that's not gonna solve the problem. We know what needs to be done," Reid said.

Boehner said his rank-and-file views heading over the cliff as "unacceptable," but he acknowledged there is no clear path forward for compromise. He was optimistic that a deal would be reached between himself, Reid and President Obama."


So I read the above excerpt from a USA Today article, and many others like it and I just don't see any GOP "obstructionism". From how it and other stories like it reads it's Boehner who is looking for compromise and Reid in his usual caustic manner flatly dismissing it.

Harry Reid has gone 4 years without calling for serious budget talks but all of a sudden this is a rush - in the next 53 days or GTFO! What am I missing? If closing loopholes and removing entitlements will get the rich to yield more tax revenue (which is exactly how Reagan handled it - lowering taxes overall while increasing tax revenue) why is it there is an all or nothing attitude on the part of Democrats for higher taxes on the rich? Who is stonewalling here?
What's missing from that Boehner quote is any mention of accepting some revenue increases along with all the cuts, which has been their entire reason for obstructing all along. They want 0 revenue increase and all cuts. Haven't seen that change yet.
 
Avatar 9540
 
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell (I think...)
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Out of the Blue
206. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 8, 2012, 23:15 Wowbagger_TIP
 
Beamer wrote on Nov 8, 2012, 22:20:
I don't get this social utopia garbage. Obama is less social than Joe McCarthy tax-wise, and has a lot in common with Eisenhower in nearly all areas of policy. Those guys would have punched you in the face for calling them socialists, yet Obama is very, very similar and gets knocked around.

Also, what's more important to protect - the rights of a large organization or the rights of the individual? I'm going individual. Regardless, RollingThunder only cares about HIS religion. Christianity? Protect at all costs! Again, if it was the Jehovah's Witnesses refusing to pay for health care for ANY of their employees, as they do not believe in modern science, he'd probably be against it. But he's one of those people that feels a need to be a victim, and there's a war on Christianity in his eyes.

Just watch Fox for a few hours and you can see that if there's any group in this country that feels they are victims, it's Republicans/Tea Partiers. They see themselves beset on all sides by liberals who are alternately lazy, incompetent boobs or evil masterminds who have fooled everyone, whichever fits their narrative at the time.
 
Avatar 9540
 
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell (I think...)
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Morning Legal Briefs
11. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Nov 8, 2012, 22:06 Wowbagger_TIP
 
Cutter wrote on Nov 8, 2012, 19:38:
You're wrong of course. And no, this isn't a matter of opinion. Just keeping people sitting around for 20+ years is insane by any definition. Make use of them or put them down. That's simply how nature works for everything else and it should be the same with this. If prisons actually rehabilitated people and weren't just crime schools and rape academies I'd be all for them. As it stands they're a waste of precious resources and a lot of them in them are too.

I can see this is pointless. Just glad that most others don't think this way.
 
Avatar 9540
 
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell (I think...)
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Out of the Blue
204. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 8, 2012, 20:26 Wowbagger_TIP
 
RollinThundr wrote on Nov 8, 2012, 19:45:
Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Nov 8, 2012, 19:38:
RollinThundr wrote on Nov 8, 2012, 18:13:
Wbich double standard are you talking about? Is it the usual liberal one where Christianity is bad, but being gay, Islamic, or racist against white people/playing the race card when confronted with a position they have a hard time debating is awesome?
No, I meant exactly the one I said. The one where it's bad for gays to "throw their life choice in your face", but not bad for religious folks to do the same. Why the double standard?

RollinThundr wrote on Nov 8, 2012, 18:13:
3. No shit sparky, fix the tax code sure, but enough with spending on things we don't need. What we're doing now isn't sustainable.

And it would get fixed if Republicans would get the hell out of the way. Bush put 2 wars, a huge tax cut and a prescription drug plan on the national credit card. Time has come to pay up. We need both cuts and tax increases, which is exactly what the Dems are proposing.

RollinThundr wrote on Nov 8, 2012, 18:13:
4. This ties into the first response really, where it's ok to attack Christianity as this big evil thing that's so pushed onto you poor liberals supposedly. Hell I'm not religious at all and it's not hard to see the shit you people whine about. I'm sure you're prolly one of those that hates the Pledge of Allegiance for having the words One nation under God in it too. Oh no so it's offensive! Freak
Why don't you address what I actually said rather than making up some other argument that has nothing to do with what I said? I said they should cut the Viagra and other "lifestyle" stuff for guys too. How the hell does that relate at all to what you said?

Address what you said? You brought up religion in the first place. I never said one word about saying it was ok for religious types to throw anything in anyone's faces and really that doesn't happen much these days anyway. It's almost politically incorrect at this point to believe in God in the US to begin with.

Yep Repubs should just get the hell out of the way of the social utopia. Granted I'm sure when it bankrupts us you'll think differently.

Umm... religion is everywhere, all the time. You apparently just don't notice it. Republicans bitched about the Democrats not having God in their platform. They have to talk about God every time they give a speech. Half their platform is based on religious beliefs, and they don't seem to care that not everyone in this country shares their religion. There's a school here in Texas where the cheerleaders are suing because they want to be able to put a bunch of bible quotes on their banners at football games. So seriously, don't tell me that religious folks don't throw it in our faces.

As for the "social utopia" thing, I said they should get out of the way of implementing cuts + tax increases. Not sure what your issue is with that.
 
Avatar 9540
 
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell (I think...)
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Out of the Blue
202. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 8, 2012, 19:38 Wowbagger_TIP
 
RollinThundr wrote on Nov 8, 2012, 18:13:
Wbich double standard are you talking about? Is it the usual liberal one where Christianity is bad, but being gay, Islamic, or racist against white people/playing the race card when confronted with a position they have a hard time debating is awesome?
No, I meant exactly the one I said. The one where it's bad for gays to "throw their life choice in your face", but not bad for religious folks to do the same. Why the double standard?

RollinThundr wrote on Nov 8, 2012, 18:13:
3. No shit sparky, fix the tax code sure, but enough with spending on things we don't need. What we're doing now isn't sustainable.

And it would get fixed if Republicans would get the hell out of the way. Bush put 2 wars, a huge tax cut and a prescription drug plan on the national credit card. Time has come to pay up. We need both cuts and tax increases, which is exactly what the Dems are proposing.

RollinThundr wrote on Nov 8, 2012, 18:13:
4. This ties into the first response really, where it's ok to attack Christianity as this big evil thing that's so pushed onto you poor liberals supposedly. Hell I'm not religious at all and it's not hard to see the shit you people whine about. I'm sure you're prolly one of those that hates the Pledge of Allegiance for having the words One nation under God in it too. Oh no so it's offensive! Freak
Why don't you address what I actually said rather than making up some other argument that has nothing to do with what I said? I said they should cut the Viagra and other "lifestyle" stuff for guys too. How the hell does that relate at all to what you said?
 
Avatar 9540
 
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell (I think...)
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Morning Legal Briefs
9. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Nov 8, 2012, 19:32 Wowbagger_TIP
 
Cutter wrote on Nov 8, 2012, 18:21:
Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Nov 8, 2012, 18:08:
Cutter wrote on Nov 8, 2012, 17:12:
Common sense here folks. Not being drunk and running around naked or even statuatory rape as that's on a case by case basis but I mean molestation, rape, murder, stuff along those lines. IF you ever get out and I don't think you should - hell, as stated I don't believe in life sentences I believe in death penalties - then you're under constant scrutiny the rest of your days. Don't like it? Off yourself.
Don't see how I could support death penalty knowing that the system is so flawed when it comes to convicting the right person. Yes, what was done to the victim is a serious injustice, but sentencing an innocent person to die is much worse.

You want to make an omelet you have to break some eggs. Again common sense comes into play where if there is some doubt surrounding the conviction than no, if there's no doubt than yes. Take them out back of the court house and give them a firing squad right then and there. And the system isn't that flawed and only getting more accurate all the time. Better to let 100 rapists and murderers go free for one innocent man? Nope. The needs of the many outweigh those of the one or the few. Even the Vulcans are for the death penalty.

The needs of the many are served just fine by imprisoning them. The desire for vengeance is understandable, up until it's someone you know or care about that gets railroaded. It's not just about doubt. There's corruption and incompetence that can make someone look guilty even when they aren't. We've seen plenty of cases of incompetent defense lawyers, and plenty of cases of prosecutors or police burying exculpatory evidence, and a ton of other screwups. It's simply ridiculous to kill people with a system like that when locking them up protects the public just fine, and saves us money too.

 
Avatar 9540
 
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell (I think...)
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Diablo III Expansion Plans; StarCraft: Heart of the Swarm Early Next Year
46. Re: Diablo III Expansion Plans; StarCraft: Heart of the Swarm Early Next Year Nov 8, 2012, 19:27 Wowbagger_TIP
 
dj LiTh wrote on Nov 8, 2012, 19:12:
Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Nov 8, 2012, 12:30:
dj LiTh wrote on Nov 8, 2012, 11:52:
Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Nov 8, 2012, 02:13:
I enjoyed SC2 single-player. I'm really not into the multi on it though. I don't like the rushed style of play. I may pick up HotS if the reviews are good for the SP aspect.

Oh, btw, I have a couple of PoE beta keys if anyone wants one.

Wowbagger_TIP if you still have PoE key's i'd really really love one!
You don't seem to have anon email enabled here. Shoot me a message from whatever email and I'll send you a key.

Fixed, and sent my email thanks bigtime!

Just sent it.
 
Avatar 9540
 
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell (I think...)
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Morning Legal Briefs
7. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Nov 8, 2012, 18:08 Wowbagger_TIP
 
Cutter wrote on Nov 8, 2012, 17:12:
Common sense here folks. Not being drunk and running around naked or even statuatory rape as that's on a case by case basis but I mean molestation, rape, murder, stuff along those lines. IF you ever get out and I don't think you should - hell, as stated I don't believe in life sentences I believe in death penalties - then you're under constant scrutiny the rest of your days. Don't like it? Off yourself.
Don't see how I could support death penalty knowing that the system is so flawed when it comes to convicting the right person. Yes, what was done to the victim is a serious injustice, but sentencing an innocent person to die is much worse.
 
Avatar 9540
 
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell (I think...)
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Out of the Blue
199. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 8, 2012, 17:02 Wowbagger_TIP
 
RollinThundr wrote on Nov 8, 2012, 15:03:
Beamer wrote on Nov 8, 2012, 13:07:
But I think the only places we likely very much disagree are in that:
1) Abortion is a choice we should not make for people
2) Gays are people, too, and deserve equal rights because why the hell not?
3) Our tax policy has destroyed the middle class and needs to be reversed
4) Women that enjoy sex are not sluts

1.agreed
2. agreed just don't throw your life choice in my face every 5 mins
Why not? Others feel free to throw their religion or other beliefs in our face constantly, everywhere. Why the double standard for gay folks?

RollinThundr wrote on Nov 8, 2012, 15:03:
3. along with excessive spending
If you're gonna spend, you gotta tax, but the middle has seen their incomes stagnant for so long you have to admit that that's the wrong place to further tax. The incomes at the top have skyrocketed, but for some reason we cap the amount we tax for them. Maybe they should face the same rate as the rest of us, and maybe we should have actually paid for those wars if we thought they were so damn important.

RollinThundr wrote on Nov 8, 2012, 15:03:
4. They can enjoy sex all they want, on their own dime, if they're being insured through a religious entity that doesn't condone paying for it, tough luck.
As long as they're going to keep subsidizing Viagra and other non-essential stuff for guys, then they sure as hell better do it for women too.

 
Avatar 9540
 
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell (I think...)
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Morning Legal Briefs
5. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Nov 8, 2012, 16:53 Wowbagger_TIP
 
Cutter wrote on Nov 8, 2012, 12:39:
When you surrender your rights by being a criminal you don't have anymore say. Particularly as it applies to violent crimes like rape, murder, etc. Honestly those guys should consider themselves lucky because if it were up to me they'd be looking at a death sentence.
I think once you serve your time, you should have your rights reinstated. If you commit a particularly egregious crime, you may be imprisoned for a very long time or even permanently. But if you do eventually get out, I think that you've had your punishment as the law deemed appropriate and you shouldn't be further punished.

Also, given how often the legal system and the people in it screw up and send the wrong person to prison or even death row, I just can't get behind the death penalty anymore. Life imprisonment is both cheaper and less likely to kill an innocent person.
 
Avatar 9540
 
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell (I think...)
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Morning Legal Briefs
2. Re: More Big Picture Details Nov 8, 2012, 12:37 Wowbagger_TIP
 
HorrorScope wrote on Nov 8, 2012, 11:48:
"The two plaintiffs argued that forcing them to expose their online identities would violate their First Amendment right to speak anonymously."

Honestly are forefathers were aliens, they were even smart enough to foresee anonymous speakers.

Nothing like putting yet another prop on a ballot, it wins and then it gets challenged. IMO that should have been sorted out prior to going to the voters. Then once voted, it's stone. Less perhaps the supreme court.

California needs to rein in its prop system. I'd start by requiring that all props include some mechanism to pay for themselves. Then that they pass at least some kind of Constitutional sniff test, whether that's a panel of Constitutional lawyers or whatever. They waste too much money on bullshit props that just get struck down later, and pass too many that they can't, or at least don't, pay for.
 
Avatar 9540
 
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell (I think...)
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Diablo III Expansion Plans; StarCraft: Heart of the Swarm Early Next Year
39. Re: Diablo III Expansion Plans; StarCraft: Heart of the Swarm Early Next Year Nov 8, 2012, 12:30 Wowbagger_TIP
 
dj LiTh wrote on Nov 8, 2012, 11:52:
Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Nov 8, 2012, 02:13:
I enjoyed SC2 single-player. I'm really not into the multi on it though. I don't like the rushed style of play. I may pick up HotS if the reviews are good for the SP aspect.

Oh, btw, I have a couple of PoE beta keys if anyone wants one.

Wowbagger_TIP if you still have PoE key's i'd really really love one!
You don't seem to have anon email enabled here. Shoot me a message from whatever email and I'll send you a key.
 
Avatar 9540
 
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell (I think...)
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
3779 Comments. 189 pages. Viewing page 19.
< Newer [ 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 ] Older >


footer

.. .. ..

Blue's News logo