The haters are REALLY torqued tonite as their efforts to intimidate and threaten the signers of the R-71 petitions have been dealt a severe blow by virtue of an 8-1 decision by the United States Supreme Court.
Since a "yes" vote would institutionalize age discrimination in this state by virtue of assigning special rights to individuals 62 and over, chances are that part of this will be ruled unconstitutional even if this did pass.
But the Court's overwhelming decision to keep the signatures sealed for at least a year is a horrific blow to all the fringe left nutters around here who indicated that it would never happen.
Well, it's happened. Read it and weep.
U.S. Supreme Court: Ref. 71 names to remain sealed for now
The U.S. Supreme Court today ordered that signatures collected to get Referendum 71 on Washington's ballot are to remain sealed until it decides whether to hear an appeal in the case.
By Lornet Turnbull
Seattle Times staff reporter
In a rare move, the U.S. Supreme Court has ordered that signatures collected to get Referendum 71 on the November ballot should continue to be sealed until the court decides whether it will hear an appeal in the case -- a process that could take up to a year.
The 8-to-1 decision by the high court continues an order issued Monday by Justice Anthony Kennedy, who had temporarily blocked a ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ordering release of the names. Justice John Paul Stevens voted to uphold the appeals court ruling, releasing the names.
Protect Marriage Washington had sued the state of Washington to block release of Ref. 71 petition signers' names, saying to make the names public would chill signers' First Amendment free-speech rights.
The Supreme Court said its order will remain in effect while the court considers filings from both sides to reach a decision about whether to take up Protect Marriage's request to reverse the appeals court ruling.
Constitutional law experts say the court's action does not signal how it might come down on this free-speech issue should it decide to hear the case, but is simply an effort to maintain the status quo, established this summer when U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle of Tacoma issued a restraining order blocking release of the names.
They point out that the names, once released, couldn't be recalled -- something akin to the un-ringing of a bell.
Ref. 71 asks voters to approve or reject the most recent expansion of the state's domestic-partnership law, granting marriage-like state benefits to registered gay and senior couples.
Protect Marriage, which opposes the state's domestic partnership law, had collected signatures to get it on the ballot in hopes of having it recalled.
It has maintained that releasing the names is a violation of signers' First Amendment free-speech rights, while the state argued that the petition signature process is public and that signers give up any rights to privacy when they sign them.
James Bopp, attorney for Protect Marriage, said while he plans to make prompt filings, he doesn't expect the court to decide whether to accept the case until at least next June.
"It's extremely rare to get an order like this," Bopp said. "The court apparently recognizes the important issues involved and the potentially devastating consequences of disclosure....
"It protects the names until the court has an opportunity to review the case on appeal," he said.
In a statement, Secretary of State Sam Reed said: "The Supreme Court is simply preserving the status quo while opponents of disclosure get their full day in court, and we respect that, " Reed said.
"We continue to support the view of the Ninth Circuit and will do our very best to uphold the voters' desire for transparent and accountable government."
Lornet Turnbull: 206-464-2420 or lturnbull@seattletimes.com
signatures for refs. aren't 'private voting'
and it's terribly ironic for people looking to destroy the rights granted to fellow americans based on their views of hatred and intolerance, as 'haters'
Posted by: mike on October 20, 2009 11:24 PMCitizens must be free to support political action without intimidation. It is essential to allowing and encouraging the largest number of citizens to participate in the democratic process.
mike, can you honestly say that the people seeking the names of the petition signers aren't trying to harass and intimidate them directly or indirectly? I think in the light of what happened in California over prop 8, it is obvious what their aims are.
It doesn't matter what your position on this specific initiative is, you should support the privacy of citizen's political actions because the consequences of not supporting it are a double edged sword.
Image some future initiative where the political tables are turned, say, to establish a maximum wage or some other piece of socialist legislation. The rabid, fringe of the right would be looking to intimidate and threaten the lefties who signed the petition. At that point you'll wish you had supported voter privacy, even at the petition signing level.
Liberty isn't something we should game for political advantage because once it is gone, it hurts everybody, regardless of your political beliefs.
Posted by: blindman on October 21, 2009 05:38 AMjust as political donations are secretive, petition signers must be public.
transparency in govermental process is a good thing. if it's used for bad, that is brought to light.
and no, i wouldn't wish for petition signer privacy for several reasons, mostly as harassment is illegal andusing the information would result in a net reduction in support for your cause.
You wouldn't want petition signer privacy because, harassment is illegal? Then, you wouldn't want to right to lock your door because, home invasion is illegal. What a drugged-up, brain dead Liberal you are.
you're an idiot.
political contributions aren't private - it's public information. petition signatures fall under the same category.
also, you didn't infer anything, you said that 'having the same protection [for petition signers] is paramount' to protecting liberty - and it's not. your premise is that it SHOULD be paramount.
Posted by: mike on October 21, 2009 05:42 PMi can't imply intent from your bad semantics. i'm not in an 'indefensible' position, and it's not 'wrongful'
you should get a dictionary.
liberal is such a baaaad name. ooh. better to be a liberal and care about people/the earth/etc than a conservative and only care about myself.
Posted by: mike on October 21, 2009 07:26 PM1. denying rights granted to gays and lesbians because of a biased, backwards, pigheaded, distorted and unamerican world view is indefensible.
2. liberals aren't for infanticide. a fetus is not a baby, nor an infant. i can see why you have difficulty with this, linguistics is hard enough, teh sciences must be even harder.
3. not all liberals are pro-abortion, but a good majority are pro choice. and for a very good reason, even when abortion is illegal - the rate of abortion does not go down. the safety of the mother does.
4. if conservatives were actually pro-life, they would be against the death penalty, for health are for all and against asinine and unnecessary wars.
Posted by: mike on October 21, 2009 08:29 PM2. Liberals are for infanticide. You have heard of late term and partial birth abortion, haven't you? You heard about babies being removed and are matured enough to live outside the womb and yet, laid aside to die, haven't you. Well, how are those not a babies? Also, once conception has occurred, you have a growing human being. It is a growing human being that will continue to grow up into adulthood. No matter what age, abortion is killing human beings.
3. A good majority of Liberals, as you have admitted are pro-choice. Pro-choice is akin to pro-abortion. When abortion is illegal, the rate of abortion goes down just, like anything that is illegal, that activity will be less. If prostitution is made legal, prostitution would go up. Common sense and logic would conclude that, that would be the case. If you don't believe that prostitution would not go up, go visit Denmark. For you to state that abortion would be the same numbers whether, legal or illegal is a Lie only a Liberal would believe. But then, Liberals have long proved that they are the Easy Believing Fools of the World.
4. Conservatives are pro-life. Yes, they are for the death penalty. To remove a killer from Society helps preserve and protect innocent life. It stands as a strong warning, that if you wantonly kill, you will forfeit your life. This warning may not dissuade all killings but, if it dissuade even some, it is worth it. Plus, what is the benefit to Society to keep a craven Killer alive at $60,000 a year at taxpayer expense?
The World is a dangerous place. There are always those who will try and conquer another. You, at least, remember 911, don't you. We were ATTACKED! We were attacked numerous times before that but, did nothing about it. By doing nothing about it, the attacks escalated to 911. At a certain point, you must go to War or be destroyed. Is this too much for a Liberal to grasp?
voting no on ref. 71 would repeal rights already granted to gays and lesbians and hetero couples over 62.
danny, have you heard of science?
yes some babies can be removed from the womb early and survive thanks to a quality NICU.
late term abortions are exceedingly rare, comprising less than 1/10 of 1% of abortions. almost 90% of abortions occur in the first trimester (12 weeks) when a fetus (not a baby, not an infant) is NOT viable. there were less than 1500 late term abortions in 2004.
furthermore, abortion is not killing 'human beings'.
pro-choice isn't akin to pro-abortion. for some, yes - but not all. anti-abortion (it's a misnomer to call the movement pro-life) isn't akin to rationality or logic.
when abortion is illegal, the rates do not go down. logic fail - the rate of abortions before and after roe v. wade is rather static. i doubt you have much common sense, you definitely seem to be lacking any logical sense.
killing a killer doesn't protect society any more than incarcerating a killer for life. and it's costlier. and it obviously doesn't send a strong enough message because tens of thousands of murders occur in this country every year. numerous studies show that the cost of enforcing the death penalty is more than life imprisonment - but i know facts don't matter to conservatives.
the world is NOT a dangerous place. yeah, i remember 9/11. we were attacked. we went to war, and then our leaders manufactured lies to start another war, drawing resources away from the people that attacked us. but we were never going to 'be destroyed'
i know that's not too difficult to grasp, even for a dimwitted conservative for yourself.
Posted by: mike on October 21, 2009 11:25 PMBtw, it's interesting to note that mike above just said "abortion is not killing 'human beings'."
Why mike, how anti-science of you! If the child is not torn to pieces through abortion, what comes out at birth---a giraffe?
abortion is not killing human beings. i know science is hard for you.
an abortion kills an embryo or a fetus. an embryo or fetus is a potentiality - otherwise miscarriage could be murder.
until the 11th week (when the majority of abortions happen) it's an embryo. it feels no pain.
a 'child' is not 'torn to pieces' through abortion. seriously, michele - science fail.
Whether, late term abortions are rare or not, it is still the killing of babies. A developing, growing human being begins at conception, through birth, through childhood, etc. Yes, from whatever stage of the developing human being, abortion is still the Killing of a Human Being.
Your a Fool to believe that an activity where there is a choice to freely exercise or not, would not change in its frequency whether, it is illegal or not. Do you think the consumption of alcohol for the percentage of Society was the same during Prohibition as when Prohibition was rescinded? Have a CLUE! Try to be an independent thinker and not, a blind follower of a particular group. It is written: "You are to question, question everything for the World is full of Deceit".
Killing a Killer does increase protection for Society. Killing a Killer does send a message to those who would kill. There are those who will abide by the message and not kill and there are those who will not abide by the message, which equates to less killings than, if there was no message at all.
The World IS a dangerous place. To say that it is NOT, is to deny that there is no wrongful acts committed in the World. What a Total Fool you are to say that the World is NOT a dangerous place. Yes, anybody or any Society can be destroyed if no defense is brought forth either, by the one or ones effected or by others who come to the defense of the afflicted.
the repealling of rights granted to citizens isn't democracy - it's mob rule. i see you have absolutely zero knowledge of how our constitution actually works.
gays and lesbians are perverts? boy, you sure are a judgemental moron. that will surely get you through the pearly gates.
and thanks for bringing up the prohibition - consumption of alcohol DID NOT go down. christ, many families made a fortune off of bootlegging. if anything, it had the opposite effect - but i know, facts and reason are hard for you.
killing a murderer does not send any message to those that would kill, otherwise we wouldn't murder. the death penalty is not a deterrent, and it's not appropriate - especially if innocent people are killed.
the world is not dangerous - seriously. there are some places that are, but the world as a whole is not dangerous - come out of your shell. billions of people don't live in fear like you do - because they're rational people.
i didn't say that no society could be destroyed - but merely after the 9/11 attacks - at no time was america in danger of 'being destroyed'. except by those that would destroy our liberty (mainly, neocons)
holy cow.
Posted by: mike on October 22, 2009 07:56 AMThe repealing of the so-called rights to a particular group that the majority does not believe they deserve is within the rights of the majority to do so. Yes, it is called Democracy and it is within the Constitutional guarantees. This is America! You don't believe in the Constitution then, Leave.
The percentage of consumption for Society did go down during Prohibition. Yes, there developed the illicit brewing for consumption and the smuggling as well and the birth of the Speakeasys. So What? Only a total Fool would think that the consumption of alcohol would remain at the same level. Where one can purchase alcohol easily at many outlets of convenience at a reasonable rate of exchange and drink freely as apposed to seeking and covertly paying high prices and drinking secretly certainly means that with Prohibition, overall consumption would be down. Only, a Fool would think otherwise.
Killing a murderer DOES send a message. I did not say that it stops all killings. I said it reduces the killings. One thing is certain, putting to death the murderer means the murderer will never Kill again.
mike...Quit being such, a denier of Truth. Why do you think we have the "Rule of Law" if the World is not a dangerous place? Why do you think we have standing Armies if the World is not a dangerous place? If there is such a thing as Good and Evil in the World then, the World is a dangerous place. Get Real! Yes, if you allow attacks to go unanswered, you will eventually be destroyed. Not, only will the attacks continue to escalate but, others see it as a sign of weakness and will join in and in time, the forces against you will be great enough to destroy you. Should we have waited for Germany and Japan to invaded our shores before declaring War? Should we allow the situation to be where, in defending our Country is limited to only when it reaches our shores and therefore having our Cities be turned into a pile of rubble like occurred with Germany and Japan? I think NOT! It is far, far better to deal with our enemies on their shores rather than, on our shores.
This exchange is at an END! You're too Dumb, er, Liberal to waste any further TIME!
What are the signers so afraid of? They cite what happened in California... What happened in California? The names were put on a website. People looked up the local businesses and decided not to shop there. It wasn't as if prop 8 supporters were murdered en masse and dragged through the streets.
If someone signed the petition for 71, I support their right to do that. I just want to know so that I don't inadvertantly shop at one of their stores! They're free to hate me. I'm free not to buy their stuff.
See, freedom goes both ways.
Posted by: AD on October 22, 2009 10:13 AMthey aren't 'so-called rights' - just as your right to be a moron, believe in god, and marry a woman aren't 'so-called rights'.
just because the majority believes something, doesn't make it constitutional. you really have no idea what you are talking about or how this country works. maybe this is what's wrong w/ the conservative movement. if the country overwhelmingly believed that evangelicals weren't allowed to run for office because of their retarded world views and were stripped of the right to vote - would that be constitutional and acceptable? absolutely not.
we don't live in a democracy, we live in a republic.
i can tell you don't really believe in equality. i can also tell you are a bigot. does that make you un-american? no, but it does make you pathetic. and wrong.
the percentage of consumption during the prohibition did not go down - the revenue from taxes did. mexico, cuba and canada made a killing during the prohibition. the rate of drinking among children and deaths by alcohol went up after the prohibition. you have no command of the facts on anything. but again, i know facts don't really matter to you.
please tell me what message killing a murderer sends - it doesn't send the message to people who will be killing. death is certain - putting down an innocent man who never killed will make sure that innocent man never kills again (while the real murderer might)
i'm not a denier of truth. we do not have the rule of law because the world is dangerous.
your comparison to world war 2 is ridiculous and completely ignorant.
you might think i'm dumb because i'm a liberal - but the reality is your ignorance of facts and reason makes you infinitely more mentally deficient than the dumbest liberal.
In the first place, Conservatives are not as Dumb as Liberals and would never come out in favor of public disclosure. They know the importance to privacy when, placing your signature to a petition. It is the same need to privacy that protects those who vote, for in essence, it is doing the same thing. It protects people from intimidation at all levels from being called a name to having your house burned down with you in it. By having the protection of anonymity, it allows the signer/voter to exercise their Liberty Safely and Freely. For you to be so confused and have such, misplaced priorities as to think it is more important for you to know how someone signed/voted over the protection of anonymity when, it comes to exercising your Liberty of signing or voting, to know how a small Ma and Paw store signed or voted so, you can determined whether, you would shop there or not, is...RIDICULOUS!
For you to continue to be so blind DUMB as to still claim the Prohibition had no effect on consumption is beyond IDIOCY! Your statement that "The rate of drinking among children and deaths by alcohol went up after the prohibition" contradicts your position that Prohibition did nothing to reduce the consumption of alcohol among the populace. What a confused, lying IDIOT you are. But then...You're a Liberal!
I've already explained to you that having the Death Penalty will reduce the murder rate. Just, like other forms of punishment and the threat thereof reduces Crime. After all, murder is a Crime. If you removed a very large part of the risk of being caught and punished such as a collapse of the administrating of the Rule of Law then, you would have chaos. But, no matter how well and graphic something is explained to a Liberal, they simply can't get it. They simply can't connect the dots...PERIOD!
If you think the Liberal has depth in his Intelligence then, give me one name of a known Liberal known not for just his intelligence but, for his depth of intelligence. Tell me one known Liberal known for his WISDOM!
Yes, I think you're a DUMB Liberal. Your an Easy Believer of the Lies of your fellow Liberals. You go to their Lie Sites and believe everything that is written or said. Liberals are known to chose Lies over Truth all the time. You probably still believe in Man Made Global Warming. What a Sucker!
Posted by: Daniel on October 22, 2009 12:59 PMI've already explained to you that having the Death Penalty will reduce the murder rate. Just, like other forms of punishment and the threat thereof reduces Crime.
Prove it. And while you're at it, explain why the risk of killing an innocent person is outweighed by the killing of folks that would otherwise be confined to a prison for the rest of their lives.
Tell me one known Liberal known for his WISDOM!
Tell me one modern conservative known for his or her wisdom. I'm sure the list would be just as long.
Yes, I think you're a DUMB Liberal. Your an Easy Believer of the Lies of your fellow Liberals. You go to their Lie Sites and believe everything that is written or said. Liberals are known to chose Lies over Truth all the time.
I'm just amused that you say this over and over again like you believe that it's true. Sure... there are plenty of websites giving a liberal spin on things, and maybe even a few that stretch the truth. However, even you cannot deny that this is EXACTLY the same as with conservative websites. Taking issue with, say, DailyKos, but assuming that the WorldNutDaily is feeding you the truth is absolutely insane.
And to address the main point of the thread: petitions are NOT ballots and are NOT official documents in that same way, and should not be treated as such. If we do have a transparent government, how is it that the public cannot inspect petitions to ensure that the signatures are sound? Why is it that signature sheets can be mounted to stands and open for public view while signatures are being collected, but cannot be reviewed later for fraud?
Double standard indeed.
Posted by: demo kid on October 22, 2009 01:18 PMthe majority doesn't get to trample the constitutional rights of the minority, daniel. at least, it's not supposed to. i know you'd rather have it that way, but that doesn't make it constitutional.
the prohibition did have an affect on consumption - but it didn't reduce it. how am i contradicting myself - if the rate of deaths by alcohol goes up after prohibition, then the rate of heavy drinking has increased. that would correlate to an increase in consumption, along with the significant increases in alcohol production in neighboring countries.
so countries that don't have the death penalty have higher murder rates? like sweden? like germany? like italy? seriously, it's not a deterrent. oh, you mean how like we throw people in jail if they steal, and that deters the hundreds of thousands of thefts that occur annually in this country? really? and you're saying i'm the confused one... your neighbors must really be afraid to let you near their kids. christ.
seriously, daniel - your grasp on reality is weak at best. oh, i see. only moronic conservatives like yourself have a monopoly on truth. excuse me while the whole world laughs at you.
an intelligent and wise liberal? jesus.
at least come to the table with some understanding of the concept of rationalism, science, facts, logic.
truth is not whatever you think it is. i believe that we should take care of the earth - that we should cherish this place we live, and if that means reducing carbon emissions, then so be it.
what do you believe in, daniel? what hannity tells you to believe? that women don't have the right to vote, since they obviously can't be trusted to make decisions about their reproductive rights? that we should rape the land for it's precious resources? that sounds like a fantastic place in which to dwell.
In mid-term abortion, the abortionist actually goes in with mini-forceps and GRABS a limb and TWISTS until it tears off. Then they go in again and grab a different limb and TWIST until the limb TEARS off. And so on...
For more info, I strongly suggest you go to abort73.com, which does an excellent job of describing the procedures, and you will find that indeed the baby is torn to pieces. Don't just listen to the pro-death lobby, who have an interest in spreading the lie that this isn't the case, and that humans aren't humans. I ask again, if the baby isn't torn up before birth, is what is born something OTHER than a human? Or is it a giraffe?
Posted by: Michele on October 22, 2009 07:52 PMand i never said i agreed w/ late term abortion. the majority of abortions happen in the first trimester. fetuses that are normally aborted are less than 1.5" - there is nothing to 'reassemble'
would you allow abortion in instances of rape and incest? do you believe that contraception should be redily available? do you believe that parmacists should be able to deny women the morning after pill? do you believe that women should be able to make their own reproductive decisions?
you mean the pro-death lobby that pushes for war, the death penalty, eliminating health care for all? hilarious.
your last sentences makes as much sense as your bigoted and hateful beliefs.
Posted by: mike on October 22, 2009 08:42 PMBlah, blah, blah. First, I ask for proof that the death penalty reduces the crime rate, and what do you do? You blabber on. Show me the facts, and not your rank partisan opinion.
Next, I ask for conservative examples of "wisdom" and you give me... Michelle Malkin? Ann Coulter? What makes you think they would be considered "wise"? They're shrill hyperpartisans, who have said repeatedly that they condone killing and violating civil rights for their own causes. I don't find that to be "wise".
And if you bring up Reagan, I have no problem with bringing up Clinton... despite his disastrous personal life, his political wisdom is unparalleled.
Finally, your response to my question about the main topic of this post? "Petitions are "Akin" to ballots and deserve the same protections." Why? Because you say so? Because it's convenient for you and the position you have on this issue? Please. Protecting private information from misuse is fine... but reducing government transparency and oversight is NOT.
But hey... the more you post, the more you prove that you're the worst this country has to offer: narrow-minded, bigoted, amoral.
Hey... maybe you should start an American branch of the Taliban! I'm sure with your attitudes, they'd take you in a second! :) I hear they execute their criminals, have zero tolerance for other viewpoints, and just love to impose their own values on other people!
Posted by: demo kid on October 23, 2009 02:13 PMYou spit on the names of Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter who writings are welcome for their insight and Wisdom. You even try to say that Clinton is more Wise than Reagan. What a Joke! Liberals don't understand What Wisdom is all about. They think that Intelligence, cleverness and Wisdom is all the same. It is Not! You can be very Intelligent and still be an Idiot. You can be very clever and charismatic and still be a Fool. However, Wisdom is a separate ingredient and is shown in the understandings and decisions one makes. You don't discount the Wisdom of our Founding Fathers do you?
Petitions are the private actions/signing of the People. They are the People petitioning the Government. The People and the Government are separate entities. It is the Government that represents the People at the Peoples pleasure and therefore it is Government that is required to have transparency to the People NOT, the other way around. Get it? Naah...You're a Liberal!
Posted by: Daniel on October 23, 2009 03:53 PMYou guys are clever to try and turn the labels around -- calling supporters of R-71 and public disclosure "haters." That's smart. But then turning around and proving that YOU are, in fact, the one with all the hateful energy? That's not smart. You're acting just like the gays say you do...
Go take a walk around green lake. Grab a cup of coffee. Catch a movie. Pop a xanax. Just try and find anything to distract you from this political stuff -- it is obviously very upsetting to you! There are people who care about you and want you to be happy and healthy!
Posted by: AD on October 24, 2009 09:09 AMIf you think that Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter are "wise", I can't do anything for you. What exactly is wise about them? Do you think that invading countries and converting people to Christianity is "wise"? Do you think stripping people of their civil rights and throwing them into concentration camps is "wise"?
And petitions are NOT VOTES. If they were, they wouldn't be hanging on boards in public places, waiting to be signed.
@30: Most of these folks are off their meds. No worries, though... they're rants are kinda amusing!
Posted by: demo kid on October 24, 2009 10:07 AMIn Truth, Conservatives are far less angry and more charitable than, Liberals. This is a well establish Fact that cannot be honestly denied. Liberals have on going history of representing the failures of Man. They are the Blind followers of Tyrants. They engage in the most despicable acts against their fellowman. Yet, they are proud to be a Liberal...Go Figure?
The problem is...Liberals don't have an understanding of what Wisdom is. Therefore, any comment on the merits of Wisdom and who has it or who has not is completely mute coming from a Liberal.
Your statement referring to invading Countries to simply convert them to Christianity would require for you to give an example of such invasion. Perhaps, you are confusing the religion of Islam which is guilty of invading other Countries and Forcing Islam upon the inhabitants by the Sword...Accept Islam or DIE!
Posted by: Daniel on October 24, 2009 10:54 AMAnd you too, apparently. Are you a liberal?
But, Liberals are not interested in the Truth as they are in Blindly holding on to their beliefs, True or Not.
Same is true of conservatives too.
In Truth, Conservatives are far less angry and more charitable than, Liberals.
Absolute crap. Folks that are religious are more charitable, but rich, non-religious conservatives are the least charitable.
Likewise, why don't you stop making generalizations? I've known charitable conservatives and stingy liberals, and vice versa. I've learned long ago that political labels are a poor predictor of a person's actual character... it's their actions that count.
@33: You want proof that killing a Murderer doesn't reduce killing...Well, I ask again, give me proof that killing a Murderer has no effect on the Murder rate.
Absolutely absurd. This doesn't work that way. If you are willing to hand out an irrevocable sentence, the ultimate violation of a human right, I'd hope that you could show WHY. Saying that a murderer "will never kill again" is garbage, as someone with a life sentence could just as easily be imprisoned for the rest of his or her natural life, and never be a menace to society.
In a case like that, why stop at murderers? If we kill litterers, I'm sure that they'll never litter again, inside or outside prison.
Your statement referring to invading Countries to simply convert them to Christianity would require for you to give an example of such invasion.
My statement about invading countries, killing their leaders, and converting them to Christianity is a well-known quote of Coulter's. For someone that you think is "wise", you certainly don't read much of her, do you?
Posted by: demo kid on October 24, 2009 01:51 PMYour statement that "rich, non-religious conservatives are the least charitable" is a LIE! You are simply running off at the mouth again. Conservatives are much more charitable than Liberals whether, religious or not.
Without the Death Penalty for Murderers, the is no guarantees that that Murderer will never be given parole nor commit Murder while in prison. Here's an interesting fact: In times of old, in England especially, they would take a Criminal and he wouldn't have to be a Murderer, and put him in a small cage/gibbet where he couldn't stand nor sit but, hunker. They would hang the cage from a yardarm at a convenient crossroad leading into the village with the penalty of anyone caught feeding or giving him drink would be put to death. The Criminal would be left to Die as a warning to one and all not to commit trespass within the boundaries of the village. Not only would the Criminal be left to Die, he would be left to rot to the bone as well and only would be removed when, another Criminal was available to replace him. This action did a great deal, in reducing Crime in the area before more efficient policing became available. Does this put any Light on the fact, that the threat of punishment reduces Crime? Probably not...You're a Liberal!
Give me the well known quote of Coulter. Strange...I suspect that you are once again...LYING!
But hey, if you want proof, I'll actually link to proof.
This research by Arthur Brooks is usually quoted with respect to differences in charitable giving. The results? In particular, this passage is interesting:
For example, religious liberals are 19 points more likely than secular liberals to give to charity, while religious conservatives are 28 points more likely than secular conservatives to do so.
and it is also mentioned that:
Some religious liberals — who currently give and volunteer at rates comparable to religious conservatives — may ultimately sense they face a choice between politics and charity, and many may choose the latter.
I've read the research in the past, and it does clearly point out that rich, secular conservatives do not give as much to charity. I'll scour what I can for more specific numbers, but the evidence is clear: religious persuasion is far better of a predictor than ideological bent.
Rather fascinating research by folks at NBER have suggested that many studies assessing the deterrence value of the death penalty are kinda full of crap. In particular:
The fundamental difficulty facing the econometrician is that the death penalty - at least as it has been implemented in the United States - is applied so rarely that the number of homicides that it can plausibly have caused or deterred cannot be reliably disentangled from the large year-to-year changes in the homicide rate caused by other factors. As such, short samples and particular specifications may yield large but spurious correlations. We conclude that existing estimates appear to reflect a small and unrepresentative sample of the estimates that arise from alternative approaches. Sampling from the broader universe of plausible approaches suggests not just reasonable doubt about whether there is any deterrent effect of the death penalty, but profound uncertainty - even about its sign.
So regardless of what you think, the death penalty is used so rarely, and the effects are so difficult to disentangle, that most of the arguments for the death penalty (or against) are based on ideology.
Now, your sick and twisted revenge fantasies aside, if the power of the state is going to be used to deprive someone of their own right to exist, it needs to be based on the greater good, and not on vengeance. In our modern society, the death penalty is NOT needed to get criminals out of society, and if the deterrence effect is not provable, the only thing left IS vengeance.
Of course, the fact that you cannot understand any of this is proof that you cling to far-right-wingnut ideals at the expense of common sense and actual evidence.
Posted by: demo kid on October 25, 2009 01:10 PMhttp://www.nationalreview.com/coulter/coulter.shtml
Posted by: demo kid on October 25, 2009 01:12 PMI call you confused because, you are confused. I call you a Liar because you are a Liar. Example: Your statement "Folks that are religious are more charitable, but rich, non-religious conservatives are the least charitable" is a statement to purposely imply that non-religious Conservatives are the least charitable...PERIOD! Meaning, that they are the least charitable compared to all including, non-religious Liberals which of course, is a LIE! Get it? Naah...You're a Liberal! However, I agree with you that those of religious persuasion give more to charity than, those who aren't of religious persuasion.
Research can be good, bad or inconclusive depending on the quality of the research and your ability to filter the good from the bad. The ability and knowledge of certain historical Truths bonded by Common Sense is extremely important when filtering the good from the bad. The World is full of untruths. Well and so-called authoritatively papers written by leading scholars in academia can be filled with untruths. Therefore, a Fool can research his whole life and still be an IDIOT! Bottom Line: You can have all kinds of studies for and against a particular position. Here's a Fact that you should ponder...Under a strong dictatorial Rule of Law where there isn't the safeguards to protect the innocent, you better Believe Crime goes Down. This is further proof along with the hanging cage/gibbet that I have given you that the strong threat of punishment DOES reduce Crime. If you don't get it Now, you probably never will. Also, your position that putting to Death a Murderer is Vengeance is...RIDICULOUS! The Courts are impartial when, sentencing the Murderer. It is not the Victim's Family that is doing the sentencing. Get REAL!
Yeah...Ann Coulters exact words: We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war.
This outburst was written after her friend Barbra who was killed in the plane that crashed in to Pentagon. However, the crashing of the planes into American structures with the intent of killing Americans is certainly an act of WAR. If you don't retaliate and defend yourself, the attacks will only increase. This is something that appears to be beyond the grasp of Liberals. We have every right to invade our attackers. Converting them to Christianity would be done through Choice and not by the sword as done by Islam. Get it? Naah...You're a Liberal!
Posted by: Daniel on October 25, 2009 02:53 PMFirst, the research SPECIFICALLY says that rich secular conservatives are the least charitable! Likewise, it also says that left-wing religious sorts are more charitable than their secular brethren. Read it for yourself. I didn't make it up.
Regarding the death penalty, you can babble and rant like a crazy person all you want, but you apparently didn't grasp onto the irony here! In this paper, Donohue and Wolfers state that you CANNOT make a causal link between the death penalty and reductions in crime. There are too many confounding variables, and not enough data. Therefore, without proof that it works, and without some other driving reason to support the death penalty, the only reason for it can be state-sponsored revenge. That is NOT the purpose of the law or society.
And your pathetic example of torturing criminals? It is against the Constitution, and it is more suited to the repressive regimes in the Middle East. Since you're in favor of cruel, harsh, and repressive "justice", I'm going to start calling you by a much more descriptive name: Taliban Dan.
Appropriate, no? :)
Oh, and I expect an apology from you for implying that I am a liar. Coulter, in all of her "wisdom" (insert all appropriate sarcasm and scorn here), did say that, right? Looks like you were wrong...
Posted by: demo kid on October 25, 2009 03:19 PMYour position on the Death penalty is Bogus whether, it is supported by Donohue and Wolfers or not. I have given you historical proof that strong punishment dissuades Crime. Proof that cannot be honestly denied. Here's some more proof. Under Saddam Husein rule in Iraq, there was far less Crime, Murders and Suicide Bombings. That is because, there was a well established Strong punishment for Crime and no wiggle room. Get it? Naah...You're a Liberal.
I never stated that I was in favor of cruel harsh and repressive Justice. Once again, your LYING! I am in favor of Justice that fits the Crime. Those examples I gave you was proof that Strong punishment does undeniably work even, though it could be considered excessive. What do you think, in days of Old, that public executions were all about? It was to demonstrate the Reality of Strong punishment and Yes, it did have a positive effect for the benefit of Society, it reduced the frequency of Crime.
I was not wrong about Ann Coulter. You made it sound as though Ann Coulter wanted to invade without Cause. This is of course, a LIE. It is common for Liberals to pull things out of context, leaving out surrounding rhetoric to obfuscate and then, twist in order to make their disingenuous point. No...there is certainly no need to apologize to you for calling you a LIAR for you are a proved LIAR.
i guess your theory falls flat if you ignore the tens of billions that bill gates and warren buffet have laid out. and please define charitable - i know lots of liberals that have low paying jobs, but donate/volunteer lots of time.
you have given zero proof that the death penalty does anything but end the life os someone that may (or may not) be a murderer.
so the best way to keep crime rates down is to live in a dictatorship! well, daniel - that's not going to work here. and the murder of dissenters (by the goverment) under saddam was extremely high. that flies by you? wow. you really are an idiot.
in days of old, public executions were to mock and provide the poor with cheap theater and the veil of justice.
you're really not helping your cause. pick up a book or newspaper and stop believing everything rush/hannity/et al tell you.
So what you're saying (and correct me if I'm wrong):
* Scientific methods are untrustworthy, but religion is infallible;
* Cruel and unusual punishment, even for non-capital crimes, is acceptable and even beneficial to society;
* Invading and "persuading" individuals to convert to Christianity is acceptable;
* Killing civilians is morally acceptable; and
* You are the final arbiter of truth.
You ARE an American Taliban, Taliban Dan! What, pray tell, makes you any different, aside from your religion? Seems like you're cut from the same cloth!
Posted by: demo kid on October 26, 2009 01:34 PM@41 As you well know, the discussion was dealing with what group was the most charitable as a whole, Liberal and Conservatives. Again, you using a typical Liberal tactic in obfuscating the argument. What a Surprise!
I have given more than enough proof that strong punishment reduces Crime. If you think, in the old days, public execution was simply limited for theater and sport, go ahead, continue to be the Liberal IDIOT!
You forget, Conservatives are Individuals and not just, an ingredient of a mass like Liberals. Conservatives think for themselves and are not owned by the Collective. Rush and Hannity have value to offer, it's called Truth, something Liberals have difficulty in grasping. Liberals have proved time and time again that they love the Lie over the Truth. Such, a Deal! Frankly, I rarely listen to Rush and Hannity. Your problem is...That you DO Believe in everything you read or see in the MSM. What a Joke!
As for YOU @42...You're a Brain-dead Liberal who would be lost without someone to think for him.
1. Some, Scientific methods are fallible. Faith in the True Word of GOD is not!
2. Cruel and unusual punishment is not acceptable. Death for those who commit Murder is acceptable and does benefit Society.
3. Killing civilians is morally tragic in times of War.
4. No, I'm not the final arbiter of Truth...GOD is!
Posted by: Daniel on October 26, 2009 06:39 PMi don't care if anyone else as dumb as you bothers to 'exchange' with me.
i'm not obfuscating anything, i'm merely pointing out that until you define what you mean by charitable (e.g. money, time, blood, food, etc) then you can't say whether one is more charitable than the other.
yes, you are right. the 'individual thinkers' that merely spout whatever truthiness clowns like rush or hannity tell them. if that's not the very definition of collective...
1. there is no god. so there is no true word of god (and would that be thor? ra? krishna? yahweh - which god are you even referring to?)
2. the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment - and as it's highly imperfect, also not acceptable.
3. killing civilians is morally tragic. lying to the public to start a war and losing sight of those that actually attacked us on 9/11 is an god damned travesty.
4. you're obviously not any arbiter of truth, since you don't seem to have a grasp on it. and again, there is no god.
Posted by: mike on October 26, 2009 07:17 PMI may not be a believer in Christianity, but you're definitely not a Christian. You make a mockery of the faith, really.
Posted by: demo kid on October 26, 2009 10:29 PMYou need a lesson on proper capitalization.
Posted by: Grammar Cop on October 27, 2009 04:35 AM