Cknolls

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Feb 21, 2006 -> 06:30 AM) And I love how this is somehow the state's choice to make. As a person who thinks the government is inefficient with poverty payments etc, Nuke...how can you give them the authority to take lives and believe that they will do it judiciously? I do believe a jury of peers convicted this guy. Hence, the state is carrying out the punishment.

QUOTE(SoxFan101 @ Feb 21, 2006 -> 03:02 AM) Doesnt it cost just as much money to put a guy to death as life in prison does? How much does a bullet cost?

QUOTE(CubsSuck1 @ Feb 20, 2006 -> 10:19 PM) What the die hard death penalty supporters fail to realize is that the American justice system is not intended to punish, but rather keep the threats to society away and in jail so that they cannot repeat their horrid acts. Capital punishment does a fine job of this, but is incredibly inhumane and assumes that himans are perfect in thought and are incapable of making any mistakes. We do not rape those that commit rape. We do not stab someone twenty some odd times if we believe that is the crime they inflicted on another. We should not kill someone that we believe has killed another. As mentioned, we cannot reestablish the lives of the innocent victims of capital punishment. The primitive justice system of 'an eye for an eye' makes the whole world blind, and I can rest easy that those such as nuke cleveland and minors, with their bloodthirsty, vengeful motives, are not in any position in this country to make decisions regarding how the lives of others should be handled. About as humane as sucking the brain out of a baby. No cruel and unusual punishment there right? An innocent child pays for his parents mistake.

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Feb 18, 2006 -> 12:03 PM) It also always made me wonder how people who thought that government led bureaucracies had too much authority with poverty payments, health care, etc. could be fine with the State having the authority to take a life. For people that believe the government is incompetent with money and the way it is spent, why allow it to have the authority to take lives then? And Minors -- between the lying in wait discussions in legal circles that can't pinpoint how it should be applied & the jailhouse snitch lie, there is pretty questionable evidence to kick it to a Murder 1 conviction. Your bloodlust is clouding your vision. I'm not saying let him out of jail. I'm just saying don't stick the needle in his arm because the evidence putting him over the top from life to death is pretty questionable. It was not the DNA evidence that kicked him up there from life to death penalty. It was the "lying in wait" premeditation statute. When judges can't figure out when and how it should be applied, then it is damn questionable to be using that as a justification to kill a person. The other thing was the jailhouse "confession" which the snitch lied about. So both aspects of what they wanted to use to get the needle in his arm fall under dubious distinction. Yeah, what the guy did was bad but what's gained out of executing him? Nothing. Don't you think people will learn that violence is bad by example much moreso than by strongarming them with threats? What is gained????? How about justice for the victims family. The f***ing scumbag sits in prison eating three squares a day. f*** him and everyone who supports him.-

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Feb 18, 2006 -> 09:25 AM) Yes because spending more money than it would take to house him with life without parole would be such a great idea. Killers must really get the right idea that killing is wrong -- because if you do it, the state gets to kill you back. And nice of you to leave out the fact that the "cornerstone" of the State's case came from a jailhouse snitch who lied. The use of jailhouse informants -- contemporaneous inmates who claim to have extracted the confessions of killers while awaiting their trials -- is a regular feature of death penalty trials. Samuelson told the jury that Morales had confessed to him in jail, and gave chilling details about how he planned the murder and how he boasted about it many months later. His testimony was particularly relevant in the jury's verdict for death because he provided the evidence of a "special circumstance" -- a requirement to elevate 1st-degree murder to capital murder. Calling it "the cornerstone" of the government's case, presiding judge McGrath stated: "Mr. Samuelson's testimony describing the confession was the only evidence to support the single special circumstance...that made Mr. Morales eligible for the death penalty." At the time of the Morales' trial, Bruce Samuelson was facing six felony charges, which led Parole Officer Vickie Wetherell to recommend "immediate commitment to state prison." Instead, after writing to Morales' prosecutor promising that he could provide the evidence that would guarantee a conviction with special circumstances (death penalty), the prosecutor dropped 4 of the 6 charges against him, and managed to get court approval of a very light county jail sentence for the remaining 2 charges in exchange for his damning testimony. "I had no doubt that without the plea bargain, such a repeated offender would have been sentenced to prison," Wetherell has declared. "The fact that Samuelson escaped full adjudication and punishment was disconcerting." But how do we know that what Samuelson told the jury was a lie? Because when asked years later by the attorney general how he managed to elicit so much damning information from the accused in a crowded jail cell without any other inmate hearing their alleged conversations, Samuelson boasted of his Spanish language skills ("I was very fluent in it, reading, writing and speaking, both formal and informal, or 'Spang/lish,' 'ghetto Spanish' and in educated Spanish") and asserted that he and Morales had conducted their confessional sessions in Spanish. There is only one problem with this explanation: Michael Morales, a 4th-generation American, does not speak Spanish! This raises the question: How did Samuelson get the specific details about those involved in this crime if not from the defendant himself? Good jailhouse informants have become quite adept at gleaning details from the public record by passing themselves off as parties to the legal process or as law enforcement officials entitled to confidential information. Unfortunately, this is all too common. When 13 of those condemned to death in Illinois were later exonerated, the Illinois Commission on Capital Punishment found that nearly half were convicted as the result of false testimony of jailhouse informants. In California, more than 200 inmates have been released from prison since 1989 because of unreliable trials, and, according to a recent report conducted by San Francisco Magazine, 1 in 5 was convicted on the basis of false testimony of such informants. -- Now the bastard may very well be guilty and deserves to be in prison for the rest of his life -- but the use of the jailhouse testimony lie to up it to a capital case is total and complete BS. I'm not saying let the guy out -- but commute the sentence to life without parole, especially in light of the evidence about this "cornerstone" of the State's capital case. But who needs logic and reason when there's an execution afoot cuz killing is wrong! (that is unless the state is doing the killing) Save the sob story please.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 17, 2006 -> 12:39 PM) Harry has his in Texas, minutes later Dick starts in Wyoming, then Bush is in Tampa. coincidence? Both parties do it, I'm getting whiplash trying to catch them all. Now Rummy is getting going. Is anyone working at the White House? They are starting the Holiday weekend early.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 17, 2006 -> 12:15 PM) Very true. I was debating whether or not to point that out. Because nobody ever corrects anyone on this site for misspelled words right? My point was the guy woould be dead. Not a trivial fact?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 17, 2006 -> 12:02 PM) Actually, I'm not sure it's your fault, the Washington Post reported 30 yards and the NY Times reported 30 feet when this first started last weekend. See what happens when you rush a story?

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Feb 17, 2006 -> 11:57 AM) Ah-ha. I'm like NASA, I get English and metrics confused at inappropriate times. NICE!

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 17, 2006 -> 11:10 AM) I guess you don't have a problem with the President authorizing illegal activities that would violate US and International Law? SHHHHHHH. they may be listening to soxtalk.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 10:17 PM) .28 I read. Still, being blasted with a couple hundred BBs from 30 feet away doesn't sound like a whole lotta fun. [/Mr. Obvious] 30 feet and he would be dead. It was 30 yards.

QUOTE(smalls2598 @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 05:29 PM) Within the next few months, I'm looking to purchase a new 2006 Honda Civic EX Sedan. I'm looking to go more towards the economical road and trade in my gas-guzzling Monte Carlo. I've done a bit of research on the Civic, mainly from Edmunds.com, plus a buddy at work gave me one of those pamphlets he picked up at the dealership. It looks like the car that will best suite my needs, and i love the estimated 30 city/40 highway. anyways, for those of you who currently own a Civic: What kind of gas mileage are you getting (especially in the city)? what do you love about the car? any regrets on purchasing it? can you reccomend a good dealer in the Chicagoland area? when responding, please state the year and style of your car. thanks! (I don't know if Gene Honda Civic actually owns a Civic, or just uses a clever take off the announcer's name) Communit Honda in Orland Park was great. Bought my Accord from them over the internet. Get a price from Edmunds, TMV they call it, then E-mail the internet department at Community. They will e-mail you a price and you can print it out and bring it with you to the dealer. Easiest car I ever bought. Paid $195 over invoice.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 10:37 AM) Yeah, but if you really wanted to come clean you might try dialing up a reporter who is actually alive. Does Helen Thomas count?

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 08:38 AM) The government is under no obligation to report this. That is true. If that is how you believe the government should operate, in secrecy, that is certainly a valid method. In the US we have a long history of not allowing the government to hide stuff and operate in secrecy. I don't think it would be a step forward when the Veep can shoot someone and be able to hide that information. I also believe it would be state law to report a shooting, but I may be wrong. Maybe the victim has to report the shooting. Is a hunting accident less of a story than a blow job? Than a petty breaking and entering at an office (Watergate). An accident is not much of a story, a drunk VP shooting someone is a story. How will the American public know the difference? We could just accept the White House explaination, and for many that is reasonable. But of course that would be the GOP fans. Same as the Dem fans felt a blow job was a non story. But so far Clinton brought up? check Vince Foster? check Al Gore? check media blamed? check Sounds like a GOP victory. Who needs a free press when you have news releases from the government? You guys love Larry O'Donnell don't you?

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 08:23 AM) Well, unless you have evidence he was wasted or evidence he acted with malice you should give the man the benefit of the doubt. Then what would they talk about on the Huffington Post?

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 07:29 AM) Curious to see some people's reactions in here if it were the exact same circumstances but it happened to Al Gore while he was Veep. We might not see as many 'who gives a s***' responses from certain people. Is it legal to hunt camels in Saudi Arabia?

QUOTE(Felix @ Feb 15, 2006 -> 07:44 PM) Does that include not telling the press that you shot someone in the face until 18 hours after the event? And then not accepting blame for the event until today? Is there a lie in your post somewhere?

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Feb 15, 2006 -> 12:43 PM) Because there's a court battle to release those photos publicly. Because maybe there's a need for the public to see the worst as well as the best of what this battle we're fighting. Sunshine is the best disinfectant. I thought it was MR. Clean?

QUOTE(AbeFroman @ Feb 15, 2006 -> 11:19 AM) 1) I would hardly call an australian newspaper the Mainstream American Media. 2) The american mainstream media only showed the very tame Abu Ghraib photos (i.e. ones with no blood). Why????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=48827

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 15, 2006 -> 11:06 AM) I think the Danish cartoons have thus far gotten vastly more press than these photos have. Aside from on blogs I haven't seen them anywhere yet. Good Morning America this morning said the story was breaking news. How much more main stream do you need?

QUOTE(mreye @ Feb 15, 2006 -> 08:46 AM) What do you mean? It's ALL America's fault. No. Its all Bush's fault.

This story is so old. The media has no time to show pictures of the Danish cartoons, but they can show two year old photos of Abu Ghraib. Once again the hypocrisy of the MSM is apparent. They have no shame. I can't wait to hear their excuse about running these new photos as opposed to not running the cartoons. What Media Bias????????????????????????????????????????????

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 14, 2006 -> 02:42 PM) So Media Matters has an interesting and thorough report on the Strong Republican slant in Sunday Morning Talk shows running all the way back through the latter years of the Clinton Administration. Why didn't they compare the first terms under both Pres?

DeWine will be re-elected and so too will Schmidt.