LawTalkers
Page 91 of 125 « First 41818990 91 9293101 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)
-   Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   My God, you are an idiot. (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=861)

sebastian_dangerfield 09-21-2011 01:40 PM
Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder (Post 459468)
Trying to get reelected by giving away free shit is not the same as favoring big government for its own sake. Most obviously, the latter might help get the other guy elected.
Again, an immaterial distinction. Club's point, which you recognize, is that the sort of HCR favored by the Dems gives the govt more control. It does. You can't argue around that.

You're both right on your finite points. You on the issue of the Dems' motives not being a mere takeover, Club on the effect of the implementation of Dem favored HCR.

Leave it.

Tyrone Slothrop 09-21-2011 01:44 PM
Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 459469)
It necessarily is exactly that. You're talking motive, Club's talking result. You're right, the Dems' motive is not a mere power grab by the govt. Club's right, however, in noting motive is immaterial - that even if done for the most altruistic intentions, the Dems' HCR vision cannot be effected without conceding more control to the govt.
All true, but that doesn't mean that Dems will support any policy which has the effect of increasing government power, which is what club was saying. Just because something tends to increase the government's role is not a reason to think that Dems were for it.

More fundamentally, the notion that Dems are for government power and the GOP against it is silly -- the question is, whose ox is gored? A lot of lefties are agitated right now because the state of Georgia is about to execute Troy Davis, whom a lot of reasonable people seem to think is innocent (I have no idea). Most conservatives don't have a problem with or suspicion of this sort of exercise of government power. That is but one example of many.

Tyrone Slothrop 09-21-2011 01:48 PM
Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder (Post 459450)
There is an organization less rotatable than McKinsey? Really? I take it you've never worked with them? Or is there some reason to think this isn't their usual short-sighted, back of the envelope, musings by a group of 23 year olds?
"Rotatable"? Spell check done you wrong?

But it sounds like this work was worse than their usual:

Quote:
[M]ultiple sources both within and outside the firm tell TPM the survey was not conducted using McKinsey's typical, meticulous methodology. Indeed, the article the firm published was not intended to give the subject matter the same authoritative treatment as more thorough studies on the same topic -- particularly those conducted by numerous think tanks, and the Congressional Budget Office, which came to the opposite conclusion. And that's created a clamor within the firm at high levels to set the record straight.

"This particular survey wasn't designed in away that would allow it to be peer review published or cited academically," said one source familiar with the controversy.

All sources were granted anonymity, in order to be able to speak candidly about the controversy.

Reached for comment today, a McKinsey spokesperson once again declined to release the survey materials, or to comment beyond saying that, for the moment, McKinsey will let the study speak for itself. However, McKinsey notes that the survey is only one indicator of employers' potential future actions -- that the conclusions remain uncertain and employers' future decisions will ultimately depend on numerous variables. The three authors of the report were not immediately available for comment.

Another keyed-in source says McKinsey is unlikely to release the survey materials because "it would be damaging to them."
TPM

Adder 09-21-2011 01:50 PM
Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 459467)
These are not mutually exclusive.
True.

Quote:
Yes. [Banking and retail have high barriers to entry]
That's absurd.

And as to retail, Wal Mart itself is pretty strong evidence otherwise (see also Trader Joe's, Aldi, Whole Foods, etc.). There is a reason that retail is no longer dominated by Sears, Montgomery Wards, and J.C. Penny.

As for retail banking, the 10,000 or so banks we have, and all the mortgage originating shops the sprung up during the CDO bubble also suggest otherwise.

Quote:
It's only profitable to do so when you have Wal Mart's buying power in the wholesale market.
How do you think Wal Mart got so big? By charging high prices until it reached a critical size and then slashing them?

Quote:
10X the sales of your few and far in between competitors = You can live make up on volume what you lose in unit sale profit.
But if you face limited competition, why would you do that? Why wouldn't you squeeze your suppliers and charge higher prices for your products? You seem to be simultaneously arguing that Wal Mart is a monopoly but that it doesn't act like one.

Which tends to be what makes me skeptical about criticism of Wal Mart from the left, where the complaints tend to be grounded in social value placed on small retailers (i.e., harm to competitors) rather than on harms to consumers.

Quote:
See my previous reply asking where stagflation or deflation has ever brought an economy out of a tailspin. We need broader inflation that creeps into housing and wages.
I agree, but your's is a recipe for reallocating the winnings, not a recipe for modestly more inflation. The way to get modestly more inflation is monetary policy, not industrial policy.

Quote:
Transfer payment from current consumers to new workers, who become new consumers.
Without great demand, I still don't see where your new workers come from.

futbol fan 09-21-2011 01:51 PM
Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 459449)
Have you noticed how we never hear about some terrorist leader being caught since Obama took over? They always seem to get killed. Curious, isn't it?
Translation: "I totally love The Terrorists and want to give them like a thousand of your Constitutional rights."

smh

Adder 09-21-2011 01:52 PM
Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 459469)
It necessarily is exactly that. You're talking motive, Club's talking result.
No, Club was talking motive too. He said, "I do think some Ds were in favor to give the government a bigger role/increase its power..."

Quote:
Club's right, however, in noting motive is immaterial - that even if done for the most altruistic intentions, the Dems' HCR vision cannot be effected without conceding more control to the govt.
Had he said that I would have had nothing to say in response. That isn't what he said.

Adder 09-21-2011 01:55 PM
Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 459472)
"Rotatable"? Spell check done you wrong?
Yup. Although I kind of like it, because they are highly rotatable, if that means it's easy to get them to spin their position around as needed.

sebastian_dangerfield 09-21-2011 01:58 PM
Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 459471)
All true, but that doesn't mean that Dems will support any policy which has the effect of increasing government power, which is what club was saying. Just because something tends to increase the government's role is not a reason to think that Dems were for it.

More fundamentally, the notion that Dems are for government power and the GOP against it is silly -- the question is, whose ox is gored? A lot of lefties are agitated right now because the state of Georgia is about to execute Troy Davis, whom a lot of reasonable people seem to think is innocent (I have no idea). Most conservatives don't have a problem with or suspicion of this sort of exercise of government power. That is but one example of many.
I didn't read Club to be going that far. If he is, I would agree he's wrong.

On the equivalence of the GOP and Dems in seeking radical expansion of govt powers on matters they wish to control, agreed. There is no sillier myth out there than the suggestion the GOP is the party of small government. True live and let live conservatives (all twelve of them) may be in favor of small government, but the GOP as a party is most certainly not.

And that's not an opinion. The record proves it. From the bedroom to pre-emptive war, to marriage, to whatever else some loumouth shithead part of its big tent wants banned, burned, or bombed, the GOP is every bit as Big Govt as the Dems. Anyone questioning that is free to read Medicare Part D, and visit Iraq. Hell, is there anyone who doubts these shmucks won't try to reinstate DADT, and get a Defense of Marriage amendment into the Constitution if they get all three houses someday?

sgtclub 09-21-2011 02:08 PM
Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 459478)
I didn't read Club to be going that far. If he is, I would agree he's wrong.

On the equivalence of the GOP and Dems in seeking radical expansion of govt powers on matters they wish to control, agreed. There is no sillier myth out there than the suggestion the GOP is the party of small government. True live and let live conservatives (all twelve of them) may be in favor of small government, but the GOP as a party is most certainly not.

And that's not an opinion. The record proves it. From the bedroom to pre-emptive war, to marriage, to whatever else some loumouth shithead part of its big tent wants banned, burned, or bombed, the GOP is every bit as Big Govt as the Dems. Anyone questioning that is free to read Medicare Part D, and visit Iraq. Hell, is there anyone who doubts these shmucks won't try to reinstate DADT, and get a Defense of Marriage amendment into the Constitution if they get all three houses someday?
I was focused on healthcare. I agree that neither party is in favor of smaller government, they just differ on the areas where government should be bigger or smaller.

Tyrone Slothrop 09-21-2011 02:14 PM
Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 459478)
I didn't read Club to be going that far. If he is, I would agree he's wrong.

On the equivalence of the GOP and Dems in seeking radical expansion of govt powers on matters they wish to control, agreed. There is no sillier myth out there than the suggestion the GOP is the party of small government. True live and let live conservatives (all twelve of them) may be in favor of small government, but the GOP as a party is most certainly not.

And that's not an opinion. The record proves it. From the bedroom to pre-emptive war, to marriage, to whatever else some loumouth shithead part of its big tent wants banned, burned, or bombed, the GOP is every bit as Big Govt as the Dems. Anyone questioning that is free to read Medicare Part D, and visit Iraq. Hell, is there anyone who doubts these shmucks won't try to reinstate DADT, and get a Defense of Marriage amendment into the Constitution if they get all three houses someday?
You've got a number of culture-war examples there, but it's also true of government intervention in the economy:

Quote:
Political debates in the United States are routinely framed as a battle
between conservatives who favor market outcomes, whatever they may be,
against liberals who prefer government intervention to ensure that families have
decent standards-of-living. This description of the two poles is inaccurate; both
conservatives and liberals want government intervention. The difference
between them is the goal of government intervention, and the fact that
conservatives are smart enough to conceal their dependence on the
government.
Conservatives want to use the government to distribute income upward to
higher paid workers, business owners, and investors. They support the
establishment of rules and structures that have this effect. First and foremost,
conservatives support nanny state policies that have the effect of increasing the
supply of less-skilled workers (thereby lowering their wages), while at the same
time restricting the supply of more highly educated professional employees
(thereby raising their wages).
This issue is very much at the center of determining who wins and who
loses in the modern economy. If government policies ensure that specific types
of workers (e.g. doctors, lawyers, economists) are in relatively short supply, then
they ensure that these workers will do better than the types of workers who are
plentiful. It is also essential to understand that there is direct redistribution
involved in this story. If restricting the supply of doctors raises the wages of
doctors, then all the non-doctors in the country are worse off, just as if the
government taxed all non-doctors in order to pay a tax credit to doctors. Higher
wages for doctors mean that everyone in the country will be forced to pay more
for health care. As conservatives fully understand when they promote policies
that push down wages for large segments of the country’s work force, lower
wages for others means higher living standards for those who have their wages
or other income protected.
Conservatives don’t only rely on the nanny state to keep the wages of
professionals high, they want the nanny state to intervene through many
different channels to make sure that income is distributed upward. For example,
conservatives want the government to outlaw some types of contracts, such as
restricting the sort of contingency-fee arrangements that lawyers make with
clients when suing major corporations (conservatives call this “tort reform”).
This nanny state restriction would make it more difficult for people to get legal
compensation from corporations that have damaged their health or property.
Conservatives also think that a wide variety of businesses, from makers of
vaccines to operators of nuclear power plants, can’t afford the insurance they
would have to buy in the private market to cover the damage they may cause to
life and property. Instead, they want the nanny state to protect them from
lawsuits resulting from this damage. Conservatives even think that the
government should work as a bill collector for creditors who lack good
judgment and make loans to people who are bad credit risks (conservatives call
this “bankruptcy reform”).
In these areas of public policy, and other areas discussed in this book,
conservatives are enthusiastic promoters of big government. They are happy to
have the government intervene into the inner workings of the economy to make
sure that money flows in the direction they like – upward. It is accurate to say
that conservatives don’t like big government social programs, but not because
they don’t like big government. The problem with big government social
programs is that they tend to distribute money downward, or provide benefits
to large numbers of people. That is not the conservative agenda - the agenda is
getting the money flowing upward, and for this, big government is just fine.
Of course, conservatives don’t own up to the fact that the policies they
favor are forms of government intervention. Conservatives do their best to
portray the forms of government intervention that they favor, for example,
patent and copyright protection, as simply part of the natural order of things.1
This makes these policies much harder to challenge politically. The public
rightfully fears replacing the natural workings of the market with the
intervention of government bureaucrats. This stems in part from a
predisposition not to have the government meddle in their lives. In addition, the
public recognizes that in many cases the market will be more efficient than the
government in providing goods and services.
Dean Baker

Adder 09-21-2011 02:18 PM
Re: You decide
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sgtclub (Post 459459)
No, but I don't agree with it.
Here's the whole letter. I agree, not treason, in particular because they go out of their way to say that they don't think the Fed doing stuff will help, and they think it might hurt.

That means they get to claim they are mistaken rather than just cynical.

Sidd Finch 09-21-2011 02:27 PM
Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sgtclub (Post 459465)
Of course it is.

Hank, troll ruling please.
So when conservatives press for federal spending in their states, that shows that they are big-government types?

sgtclub 09-21-2011 02:52 PM
Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 459482)
So when conservatives press for federal spending in their states, that shows that they are big-government types?
Depends on the type spending.

LessinSF 09-21-2011 02:52 PM
Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 459449)
Have you noticed how we never hear about some terrorist leader being caught since Obama took over? They always seem to get killed. Curious, isn't it?
Dude, the first ten hits on Google get you:

Six in London this week - http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...tiK_story.html

Three in Norway in 2010 - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/09/wo.../09norway.html

Two in Kentucky in June - http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/kentu...ry?id=13907086

One in Virginia three weeks ago - http://news.yahoo.com/pakistani-man-...193855674.html

Seven in North Carolina in 2009 - http://www.investigativeproject.org/...ts-on-the-rise

Give yourself 19 losses.

Adder 09-21-2011 02:58 PM
Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 459467)
These are not mutually exclusive.
Btw, here' Scott Sumner on the notion that productivity gains are the source of current unemployment:
Quote:
So for 200 year rapid productivity growth didn’t cause any serious unemployment problems in America, but now, right after NGDP collapses, we are to believe it is producing mass unemployment, even though recent productivity gains have been rather low. I’m at a loss for words. We elected a Luddite as President of the United States.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 09-21-2011 03:01 PM
Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by LessinSF (Post 459487)
Dude, the first ten hits on Google get you:

Six in London this week - http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...tiK_story.html

Three in Norway in 2010 - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/09/wo.../09norway.html

Two in Kentucky in June - http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/kentu...ry?id=13907086

One in Virginia three weeks ago - http://news.yahoo.com/pakistani-man-...193855674.html

Seven in North Carolina in 2009 - http://www.investigativeproject.org/...ts-on-the-rise

Give yourself 19 losses.

Get a grip. As Hank's always says, don't let the evidence get in the way of a good hypothesis.

Adder 09-21-2011 03:01 PM
Enough reading for a week
 
Mike Konczal with a round up of recession-theory reading.

Here are the Venn Diagrams:
http://rortybomb.files.wordpress.com...ng?w=640&h=474

http://rortybomb.files.wordpress.com...ng?w=640&h=341

Perhaps some day I will get around to reading all of the links.

Adder 09-21-2011 03:02 PM
Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 459490)
Get a grip. As Hank's always says, don't let the evidence get in the way of a good hypothesis.
I thought Hank always said a hypothesis is the same as a religion?

I guess that's not inconsistent.

Hank Chinaski 09-21-2011 03:17 PM
Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by LessinSF (Post 459487)
Dude, the first ten hits on Google get you:


Three in Norway in 2010 - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/09/wo.../09norway.html


Seven in North Carolina in 2009 - http://www.investigativeproject.org/...ts-on-the-rise

Give yourself 19 losses.
I've looked at these two then stopped. The N C story is about us citizens arrested in the us. There was a time dems would kill dozens of us citizens on us soil but they stopped that once Janet Reno went back on the job market. The norway story was about Norway and Germany arresting people (and us arresting 1 us citizen on us soil). I haven't checked to see if the norway prisoners are still locked up, but if not that actually proves my point.

But, bigger picture, I gave you the benefit of the doubt and you posted something of the quality ggg or adder might post. I know you don't like looking stupid so I'm trying to give you constructive criticism.

Hank Chinaski 09-21-2011 03:26 PM
Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 459496)
I've looked at these two then stopped. The N C story is about us citizens arrested in the us. There was a time dems would kill dozens of us citizens on us soil but they stopped that once Janet Reno went back on the job market. The norway story was about Norway and Germany arresting people (and us arresting 1 us citizen on us soil). I haven't checked to see if the norway prisoners are still locked up, but if not that actually proves my point.

But, bigger picture, I gave you the benefit of the doubt and you posted something of the quality ggg or adder might post. I know you don't like looking stupid so I'm trying to give you constructive criticism.
Clearly I was talking about where they have the choice to execute or capture, say like Osama. Go find 1 high level capture for me. But first I need you to start my car, and bring your shine box too.

Adder 09-21-2011 03:36 PM
Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 459498)
Clearly I was talking about where they have the choice to execute or capture, say like Osama. Go find 1 high level capture for me. But first I need you to start my car, and bring your shine box too.
Maybe AQ ran out of #2s??

Hank Chinaski 09-21-2011 04:23 PM
Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder (Post 459500)
Maybe AQ ran out of #2s??
we seem to find someone to blow up every week or so, so it's not a shortage of bad guys. None of them seem to get caught anymore.

Sidd Finch 09-21-2011 04:29 PM
Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 459503)
we seem to find someone to blow up every week or so, so it's not a shortage of bad guys. None of them seem to get caught anymore.
You are ridiculous. Less gives you a bunch of links, you say "obviously I was talking about high-level people." Adder points out that the number of high-level AQ people is pretty small, and you say "we blow up someone every week."

Are all those people getting blown up high-level terrorists? If so, they are worse than zombies. They're everywhere!!!!

Hank Chinaski 09-21-2011 04:34 PM
Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 459504)
You are ridiculous. Less gives you a bunch of links, you say "obviously I was talking about high-level people." Adder points out that the number of high-level AQ people is pretty small, and you say "we blow up someone every week."

Are all those people getting blown up high-level terrorists? If so, they are worse than zombies. They're everywhere!!!!
less posted us citizens on us soil or people caught by other countries, and I'm ridiculous?

define "high level" as "mentioned on the news." We blow up someone high enough to be mentioned most weeks. Why don't we ever capture someone high enough to be mentioned?

Tyrone Slothrop 09-21-2011 04:44 PM
Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 459506)
less posted us citizens on us soil or people caught by other countries, and I'm ridiculous?

define "high level" as "mentioned on the news." We blow up someone high enough to be mentioned most weeks. Why don't we ever capture someone high enough to be mentioned?
Setting aside Less's point about who you have in mind when you refer to "terrorists," maybe they don't want to be captured. Given a choice between the 88 virgins waiting in heaven (or is that keys on a piano) and going to a Gitmo which we now understand will never be closed, would you want to be taken alive?

Sidd Finch 09-21-2011 04:45 PM
Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 459506)
less posted us citizens on us soil or people caught by other countries, and I'm ridiculous?

define "high level" as "mentioned on the news." We blow up someone high enough to be mentioned most weeks. Why don't we ever capture someone high enough to be mentioned?
Less posted that in response to your post that did not say "(other than us citizens on us soil or people caught in other countries." So, yeah, you are ridiculous.

The fact that someone getting blown up is "mentioned" doesn't mean the person was important. It means that people getting blown up is considered news. So, yeah, still ridiculous.

Hank Chinaski 09-21-2011 04:54 PM
Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 459508)
Less posted that in response to your post that did not say "(other than us citizens on us soil or people caught in other countries." So, yeah, you are ridiculous.

The fact that someone getting blown up is "mentioned" doesn't mean the person was important. It means that people getting blown up is considered news. So, yeah, still ridiculous.
I think you're willfully blind but you don't hear me calling you ignorant.

Sidd Finch 09-21-2011 05:31 PM
Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 459509)
I think you're willfully blind but you don't hear me calling you ignorant.
I think you are tone-deaf but you don't see me name-calling.

Hank Chinaski 09-21-2011 09:05 PM
Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 459510)
I think you are tone-deaf but you don't see me name-calling.
I like how you did that. G.O.

Adder 09-22-2011 09:06 AM
Death Penalty
 
I haven't pad much attention to the Troy Davis case, and I don't really have an opinion about his guilt or innocence. It's too late now anyway.

But I always wonder how the majority of Americans who favor the death penalty deal with the fact that out justice system is not 100% accurate, which inevitably means that actually innocent people will be put to death. Do they just put that fact out of their mind and try to ignore it? Do they content themselves that our system is the best we can do and so be it? Do they view the death of a few innocents to be an acceptable price for the wonderful benefits of state-sanctioned retribution? If the latter, are we a nation of sociopaths?

I guess I assume they just delude themselves into ignoring reality and accept that a jury verdict defines reality so that the guilty person is by definition guilty. I understand how someone can accept that as a legal conclusion (hi, Atticus!), but not as a moral conclusion.

futbol fan 09-22-2011 09:27 AM
Re: Death Penalty
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder (Post 459530)
I haven't pad much attention to the Troy Davis case, and I don't really have an opinion about his guilt or innocence. It's too late now anyway.

But I always wonder how the majority of Americans who favor the death penalty deal with the fact that out justice system is not 100% accurate, which inevitably means that actually innocent people will be put to death. Do they just put that fact out of their mind and try to ignore it? Do they content themselves that our system is the best we can do and so be it? Do they view the death of a few innocents to be an acceptable price for the wonderful benefits of state-sanctioned retribution? If the latter, are we a nation of sociopaths?

I guess I assume they just delude themselves into ignoring reality and accept that a jury verdict defines reality so that the guilty person is by definition guilty. I understand how someone can accept that as a legal conclusion (hi, Atticus!), but not as a moral conclusion.
You are overthinking this. The majority of Americans who favor the death penalty engage in the following analysis when confronted with a jury verdict:

Juries that convict black people = invariably correct.

Juries that acquit black people = invariably incorrect.

See how easy?

Hank Chinaski 09-22-2011 10:15 AM
Re: Death Penalty
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder (Post 459530)
I haven't pad much attention to the Troy Davis case, and I don't really have an opinion about his guilt or innocence. It's too late now anyway.

But I always wonder how the majority of Americans who favor the death penalty deal with the fact that out justice system is not 100% accurate, which inevitably means that actually innocent people will be put to death. Do they just put that fact out of their mind and try to ignore it? Do they content themselves that our system is the best we can do and so be it? Do they view the death of a few innocents to be an acceptable price for the wonderful benefits of state-sanctioned retribution? If the latter, are we a nation of sociopaths?

I guess I assume they just delude themselves into ignoring reality and accept that a jury verdict defines reality so that the guilty person is by definition guilty. I understand how someone can accept that as a legal conclusion (hi, Atticus!), but not as a moral conclusion.
I'm against the death penalty because it's a little bit backwards, barbaric, for where we are, or should be. But as to the question of "killing a few innocents," I don't see how that is much different than, "putting a few innocents in jail for life until we find out they were innocent 40 years later."

I mean the imprisoned guy is almost as fucked as the dead guy. Some undeserved punishment seems inevitable as part of any penal system. Isn't it?

Tyrone Slothrop 09-22-2011 10:23 AM
Re: Death Penalty
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder (Post 459530)
I haven't pad much attention to the Troy Davis case, and I don't really have an opinion about his guilt or innocence. It's too late now anyway.

But I always wonder how the majority of Americans who favor the death penalty deal with the fact that out justice system is not 100% accurate, which inevitably means that actually innocent people will be put to death. Do they just put that fact out of their mind and try to ignore it? Do they content themselves that our system is the best we can do and so be it? Do they view the death of a few innocents to be an acceptable price for the wonderful benefits of state-sanctioned retribution? If the latter, are we a nation of sociopaths?

I guess I assume they just delude themselves into ignoring reality and accept that a jury verdict defines reality so that the guilty person is by definition guilty. I understand how someone can accept that as a legal conclusion (hi, Atticus!), but not as a moral conclusion.
Christopher Hitchens:

Quote:
I had been hammering on an open door. Nobody had been bothering to argue that the rope or the firing squad, or the gas chamber, or “Old Sparky” the bristle-making chair, or the deadly catheter were a deterrent. The point of the penalty was that it was death. It expressed righteous revulsion and symbolized rectitude and retribution. Voila tout! The reason why the United States is alone among comparable countries in its commitment to doing this is that it is the most religious of those countries. (Take away only China, which is run by a very nervous oligarchy, and the remaining death-penalty states in the world will generally be noticeable as theocratic ones.)

Once we clear away the brush, then, we can see the crystalline purity of the lex talionis and the principle of an eye for an eye. (You might wish to look up the chapter of Exodus in which that stipulation occurs: it is as close to sheer insane ranting and wicked babble as might well be wished, and features the famous ox-goring and witch-burning code on which, one sometimes fears, too much of humanity has been staked.) I used to debate these questions with the late Professor Ernest van den Haag, a legal scholar of the William Buckley National Review school. He was always admirably blunt and concise. In the case of an execution of an innocent person, he once said to me, the necessary point had nonetheless been made: the state and the community had shown that they were prepared to kill. It did not especially matter if they had or had not taken the “right” life: the demonstration had nonetheless been forcibly made.

link

sebastian_dangerfield 09-22-2011 10:34 AM
Re: Death Penalty
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 459535)
Christopher Hitchens:



link
Agreed, unsurprisingly (aside from his support for the Criminal War in Iraq, his bit on women not being funny, and his early Socialist rants, I pretty much "2" everything he writes). And yet I can't help struggling with the issue when considering the other execution that took place yesterday, of one of James Byrd's killers. If reading about that crime doesn't stir a bloodlust for its perpetrators, you aren't human.

sebastian_dangerfield 09-22-2011 10:36 AM
Re: Death Penalty
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ironweed (Post 459531)
You are overthinking this. The majority of Americans who favor the death penalty engage in the following analysis when confronted with a jury verdict:

Juries that convict black people = invariably correct.

Juries that acquit black people = invariably incorrect.

See how easy?
You are over playing your hand. The majority of Americans are not this dim. Only about a third.

sebastian_dangerfield 09-22-2011 10:47 AM
Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 459480)
You've got a number of culture-war examples there, but it's also true of government intervention in the economy:



Dean Baker
I think conservatives tend to want to preserve the status quo. Hence, their name. The status quo naturally has winners and losers. If you're a winner, you favor policies that keep you winning. If you're losing in the game, and don't think you can win, you might instead concede defeat and favor policies that would make your life better.*

Interesting bit on the "license-leveraging" schemes of lawyers, accountants, doctors, etc. Friedman argued for years that licensing was a sleazy way to create false barriers to entry to keep white collar professionals in pay they didn't deserve. In the case of medicine, or engineering, he's obviously wrong. In the case of lawyers and accountants, he's spot-on. Any ass could do either job after taking a six month to one year correspondence course.

*This is why liberalism doesn't sell well, particularly in an economy where the middle class is constantly exposed to media flaunting luxury items, and the glamorous lifestyles of those at the very top of the pyramid. Built into the urge to redistribute is a nasty recognition of one's hopelessness. People like us might understand the wise societal and economic arguments for more redistribution, but if you're part of the underclasses, all you're thinking is, "This is concession. I'm not a welfare mother. I still have dignity... I don't need a handout." See Frank's shrill but not without merit What's the Matter With Kansas? for the argument on how this keeps millions of Joe the Plumbers under the sway of the GOP.

sebastian_dangerfield 09-22-2011 10:53 AM
Re: Death Penalty
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder (Post 459530)
I haven't pad much attention to the Troy Davis case, and I don't really have an opinion about his guilt or innocence. It's too late now anyway.

But I always wonder how the majority of Americans who favor the death penalty deal with the fact that out justice system is not 100% accurate, which inevitably means that actually innocent people will be put to death. Do they just put that fact out of their mind and try to ignore it? Do they content themselves that our system is the best we can do and so be it? Do they view the death of a few innocents to be an acceptable price for the wonderful benefits of state-sanctioned retribution? If the latter, are we a nation of sociopaths?

I guess I assume they just delude themselves into ignoring reality and accept that a jury verdict defines reality so that the guilty person is by definition guilty. I understand how someone can accept that as a legal conclusion (hi, Atticus!), but not as a moral conclusion.
Narcissism is a hallmark of the sociopathic condition. Consider the insipid over-sharing on Facebook, and the popularity of shows glamorizing narcissists famous for being nothing more than well connected, plastic-surgery embroidered narcissists, and ask yourself: If only fifty percent of the narcissists in our culture are also sociopaths, how many American sociopaths would that be?

Adder 09-22-2011 11:02 AM
Re: Death Penalty
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 459534)
I'm against the death penalty because it's a little bit backwards, barbaric, for where we are, or should be. But as to the question of "killing a few innocents," I don't see how that is much different than, "putting a few innocents in jail for life until we find out they were innocent 40 years later."

I mean the imprisoned guy is almost as fucked as the dead guy. Some undeserved punishment seems inevitable as part of any penal system. Isn't it?
Sure, but the guy in jail for 40 years gets a chance to be free again. The punishment can't be undone, but it isn't permanent.

Adder 09-22-2011 11:06 AM
Re: Death Penalty
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 459536)
one of James Byrd's killers. If reading about that crime doesn't stir a bloodlust for its perpetrators, you aren't human.
Actually, I think what makes you human is feeling that blood lust and letting it go.

Adder 09-22-2011 11:08 AM
Re: Death Penalty
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 459535)
Christopher Hitchens:



link
That's interesting, and probably right. But its one of the inherent contradictions that confounds me that people who are religious and ostensibly Christian, rather than turning the other cheek, have no qualms about killing an innocent to send the right message.

It's a truly frightening aspect of the human condition.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:46 PM.
Page 91 of 125 « First 41818990 91 9293101 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Hosted By: URLJet.com