« Blast from the past | Main | Is Sean Hannity a cowardly liar? »

January 29, 2005



Reversible my ass. He'll never get those 18 years back.


I agree. The government cannot be trusted to make this irreversable decision, any more than they can be trusted to hold our social security taxes in a "trust fund".

But, in America, the ultimate decision is made by the will of the people. Our form of government is far from perfect.


Actually, Buckshot, it's a rare situation where anything in the US us decided "by the will of the people." We're a representative democracy after all, not a direct one. And as far as I know, there aren't too many places where the death penalty has been enacted via the referendum process.



You'd better crack open a history book. We're a representative republic. We are most definitely NOT a democracy.

If the electoral college gets the axe, and the popular vote decides the presidency, THEN we will have a democracy.

The fact that Bush and others often refer to the US as a democracy does not change the fact that we are a representative republic.


Read my post again, realize the manner of idiot you are, and then tell me where I was wrong.


Actually can anyone tell me why wingnuts go on and on about the word "republic"? I mean all the word means is that the head of state is not a king, but is some other kind of person - general, dictator, president, high priest or what have you. The US appears to be both a republic and a democracy but using the word "republic" seems to say very little indeed about a country. Iraq under Saddam was a republic. Big deal.

Do wingnuts just not know what it means?



An idiot? Ouch. Oh well. Yes, you are correct in that we are a representative democracy.


A wing nut? Ouch. As much as the word is misused these days, I can see how you might have grown up not knowing the difference between the terms.

There are many who desire that we shed the electoral college and go to a pure democracy, where the popular vote elects the prez.

That would speed our demise into the abyss.

Tell us about that math again, David. (The one where the guy earns $20,000, but since he didn't earn $100,000, he is therefore owed $80,000)

!!!!!!!! by whom? The treasury? The taxpayers? (that would be people who pay them)

Imagine the additional cost to our treasury each year with this "logic".

Let's see, how many Americans earn $20,000 each year? 50 million? So $80,000 times 50 million = $4 trillion dollars per year out of our treasury!!!!

David wants our treasury to kick out $4 trillion dollars to the poor folks who only earn $20,000 each year.


Let's see, that's only about NINE times what our current deficit is (and it's a record deficit).

Gee, do any of the rest of you geniuses see any problem with David's "reasoning"???

Why not just increase the minimum wage to $25 per hour (and immediately throw tens of millions out of work)

Real THINKERS on this blog!!!! Michael, I think you should rename your blog to .....



I can't wait for the intelligent responses....

Buchshot you are an idiot.
Buckshot you are a wingnut.

Ouch. Such scathing rebuttal!!!!! Such rapier wit!!!!!

Oh, the left is really getting their ideas together!!! Please share some more wisdom with this old man. All I have is experience and knowledge to share, and none of you are interested in that. So regale me with your youthful idealism and irrepressible compassion!!!

Tell me how you'd love to change things. Don't worry about understanding how things are now. Just CHANGE EM'.

Oh are you kids gonna have a friggin financial hangover one of these days. Owwwwwww. It hurts to think about how much you are going to PAY, PAY, PAY, to finance your silly ideas.


Oh man, I really got to you. Good grief.
By the way it's


with a "BW" at the beginning. Any time you feel like taking up that old thread again -- it's just waiting there. I'm sorry I put the fear of god into you so badly (apparently!) because It was quite fun talking to you. Next time I'll tone it down for you maybe. Make you feel you have a chance. In case you change your mind, you ran away at the point where I asked you upon what basis would you judge what a fair wage was.

As I say any time you get the courage up to face me as it were, I'll be here. Until then I ask you to quit making these little snipey posts. It's pretty fucking juvenile don't you think, matey?

Ouch. Such scathing rebuttal!!!!! Such rapier wit!!!!!




No name calling? Man you must have really had to bite your tongue!

I'm impressed more by the fact that you managed to control your impulsive behavior than by anything else you have done or said.

May I guess you are a Dilbert fan? (bwahahahaaha)

On your question of what I consider a "fair wage", I must ask (again) you to qualify the question.

For what activity? In what location?

Regardless of the activity or the location, a "fair" wage is one agreed upon by the worker and the employer.

I have no more say in their agreement than you or anyone else. It's none of my (or your) business.


Call me when you get serious Buckshot.


OK, now that we have diverted into the twilight zone, back to the original topic - the DEATH PENALTY.

Does anyone besides me find it strange that there has never once been a posthumous exoneration of anyone who was executed in the entire history of our country? (At least I am not aware of any).

What does this say about our collective commitment to human rights?


Let me say again:

Does anyone besides me find it strange that there has never once been a posthumous exoneration of anyone who was executed in the entire history of our country? (At least I am not aware of any).

What does this say about our collective commitment to human rights?

The comments to this entry are closed.