No, he's pissed because he's not the one executing someone who appears pretty f***ing innocent...this time

It also touches on the decision today to deny Troy Davis any further legal action, meaning that Georgia is going to go ahead with executing an apparently innocent man.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/15/t...s_n_963366.html

Oh come on now. I've been reading on this one, and there is still a lot of evidence on the guy. To say "apparently innocent" is a gigantic stretch.

 

There are doubts, and witness recantations, to be sure. I personally think he should commuted to a life sentence as a result. So don't think I'm being sadistic here. But your characterization is ridiculous.

 

As I understand it, the evidence is pretty much entirely witness testimony, which has been almost completely recanted with accusations of police coercion. There's zero physical evidence linking him to the crime.

As I understand it, the evidence is pretty much entirely witness testimony, which has been almost completely recanted with accusations of police coercion. There's zero physical evidence linking him to the crime.

There actually was physical evidence, but it was thrown out at trial due to bad police procedure related to the search of a home. And there are multiple witnesses who still insist he was the gunman.

 

If you want to say, there are reasons for doubt... clearly they are. And if I was on the clemency board, based on what I have seen, I would elect to revert to life in prison, based on those doubts (but then, my personal opinion is that death penalties should be reserved for, at most, cases where they are truly air tight). What I take issue with is your blanket and absurd statement that the man is "apparently innocent". I see nothing apparent about that, though I do see significant doubt.

 

Perhaps "innocent" is the wrong way to frame it: not proven to be guilty would be more accurate. He may have committed this crime, but the case against him was weak 20 years ago and non-existent today without the witness testimony. Yet we're still going to execute him.

There's two witnesses who haven't recanted and claimed police coercion, and one of them would be the alternate suspect in the shooting. That's not exactly a slam-dunk death penalty case right there.

Perhaps "innocent" is the wrong way to frame it: not proven to be guilty would be more accurate. He may have committed this crime, but the case against him was weak 20 years ago and non-existent today without the witness testimony. Yet we're still going to execute him.

Again, exaggerating to make your point. It is not non-existent, and there is still witness testimony.

 

I disagree with him being executed as well, based on what I have read. I think there are most certainly some reasonable doubts.

 

Again, exaggerating to make your point. It is not non-existent, and there is still witness testimony.

 

I disagree with him being executed as well, based on what I have read. I think there are most certainly some reasonable doubts.

 

Witness testimony from the alternate suspect contradicted 7-2 with accusations of police coercion to lie at trial to convict someone. And zero physical evidence and no murder weapon.

 

That's a pretty good example of a non-existent case to me. Without that coerced testimony, he doesn't get convicted in the first place.

And there's been other witnesses to come forward since saying that Coles, one of the two who haven't recanted, later confessed the murder to them.

What you should realize is that the problem here is the existence of the hyper-rich.

 

When you have the hyper-rich class, the people taking $400k a year home are going to feel poor. That's just how the psychology would work. These people don't feel rich and telling them that they are won't make them feel rich.

 

Its all relative. A person earning median wage in the US is in the top 3% of wage earners in the world.

hence the #firstworldproblems tag

hence the #firstworldproblems tag

 

Yeah, and a household earning a poverty level income is at the 90th percentile for income in the world.

yeah, it's nice that poverty in this country isn't quite as crushing as in many other places. its still pretty awful, though.

I really had no idea where to put this, so I'm throwing it here. Mods, please move/create its own thread/whatever if can think of a more suitable place.

 

This is a somewhat interesting take on a situation I hadn't heard about. Interesting, of course, because it's a linguistics blog, not some partisan (left OR right) news site.

 

From the facts presented, it seems the girl was being ridiculous. What say you?

read about that on another blog, the girl is rightfully being ridiculed. And, ironically, commits the same 'offense' she accuses him of.

Small yay.

President Barack Obama on Monday proposed to end a "direct payment" subsidy that gives $5 billion a year to farmers regardless of need, as part of his larger effort to reduce the federal budget deficit.

 

Direct payments, created in 1996 as a temporary measure, will be the largest farm subsidy this year and terminating them would be a dramatic re-shaping of the U.S. farm program.

 

Traditional price support programs, which are triggered by low grain prices, are idle this year because of record high crop prices.

 

Opponents of the direct payments say they help bankroll large operators who out-bid small and medium-size growers for land and equipment. Defenders say the payments are one leg of a federal tripod that stabilizes the farm sector

 

The White House said the subsidy is "unnecessary" as more than half of recipients have incomes above $100,000 a year. In a blog, White House rural advisor Doug McKalip said elimination of the subsidy was common-sense reform.

 

Elimination of direct payments would save $30 billion over a decade and crop insurance reforms would save $8.3 billion, said the White House. It also suggested cuts of $2 billion in stewardship programs and renewal of a disaster program that expires on Oct 1 for net savings of $33 billion.

 

Republican farm-state lawmakers said Obama should have looked at land stewardship and public nutrition programs rather than proposing hefty cuts to farm and crop insurance subsidies.

 

"For example, cutting $8 billion from crop insurance puts the entire program at risk," said House Agriculture Committee chairman Frank Lucas of Oklahoma and Kansas Sen Pat Roberts, Republican leader on the Senate Agriculture Committee.

via

 

This is why good professors make good candidates.

she's going to get pummeled for that quote that "nobody got rich on their own"

she's going to get pummeled for that quote that "nobody got rich on their own"

I don't buy that. Too complex to frame an ad around, and if you try to bring that up to her in a debate, she does that.

she's going to get pummeled for that quote that "nobody got rich on their own"

Yeah, I get her point, but that was a poor choice of words. Probably should have said "no one got rich without some help along the way", or something along those lines.

 

I don't buy that. Too complex to frame an ad around, and if you try to bring that up to her in a debate, she does that.

 

Eh it'll play easily into the conservative individualist, self-made man boot-straps rhetoric. "Warren doesn't believe the money you make is really yours, but the government's!"

she's going to get pummeled for that quote that "nobody got rich on their own"

 

And the fact that government doesn't exist if the rich didn't get there. Her chicken and her egg are backwards. Government exists off of taxes, and not vice versa.

Eh it'll play easily into the conservative individualist, self-made man boot-straps rhetoric. "Warren doesn't believe the money you make is really yours, but the government's!"

Too complicated to frame an ad around. Really, that's not a slogan, and if you try to run that ad, well then you're also feeding into yourself as being the candidate of only the rich, which is a bad thing for Scott Brown to be doing considering his Wall Street ties and fundraising.

And the fact that government doesn't exist if the rich didn't get there. Her chicken and her egg are backwards. Government exists off of taxes, and not vice versa.

I think governments or some version thereof probably existed before currency and taxation, simply as a means of organizing security and armies. Would you disagree?