Quote:

---

Poid said:

Quote:

---

meatcakeman l said:
Firstly, our government has killed thousands. Within 3 days, the U.S. government somehow accomplished the feat of killing roughly 230,000 Japanese civilians; either within that span of 3 days or by radiation in the long run.

---

Well duh, that was during wartime!

You re making it seem like the government is some sort of irresponsible blood-thirsty killing machine.

Quote:

---

meatcakeman l said:
Secondly, stockpiling WMD's isn't necessarily a bad thing. But the message behind it and ethics behind it are somewhat questionable. It's like this. "Hey, I see you as a threat, so I'm prepared to kill you and all of your family. So, don't fuck with me!" It's as if we are constantly on the lookout for trouble. It's as if we are beckoning for nations to even try and fuck with us, even though we know they probably won't. This sends a bad message out to the world.

---

Most of the world that gets this "bad message" has stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction of their own.

Seriously, you think that having a 'Plan B' sends a bad message to the world?

Quote:

---

meatcakeman l said:
It doesn't send the message that most Americans think. It's not "Hey, Earth. Let's lend a helping hand! We are America!" Rather, it's: "You fuckers listen to me asshole. Fuck with me? You die. So you listen good."

---

We help out the world plenty, and it's not like the only reason we have weapons of mass destruction is so we can taunt the rest of the world, that's just fucking silly!

Quote:

---

meatcakeman l said:
Thirdly, the best, most effective way to do things are not always practiced in America. You are extremely ignorant for believing so.

---

Well, then I guess that I am not extremely ignorant, because I don't believe that at all.

Quote:

---

meatcakeman l said:
America likes to do things the most profitable way, not the best way. Think of vertical integration and Carnegie. He shaped the steel industry! He was a economical genius! But were his methods ergonomically sound? No. He bought out his opponents because of greed, not for the common good of his fellow man.

---

Is Carnegie America?

Can you provide more examples to support your claim that "America likes to do things the most profitable way, not the best way."?

Quote:

---

meatcakeman l said:
And as for your police statement, you and I are very aware of police brutality. Need I say more? When do you read about heroic police? Instead of asking others to provide proof, why don't you do some digging yourself?

---

Since when is the media inclined to broadcast good news?

Obviously, you need to provide sources for your claims; ' nuff said.

Quote:

---

meatcakeman l said:
Preparing for what? You are a walking paradox. Your views often find themselves in conflict.

Poid: "Can you prove such a statement?"

Oh, why of course!

---

WTF?

Quote:

---

meatcakeman l said:
You advocate for the government when they prepare themselves even though you have no idea what they are preparing for.

---

What I have no idea is about what you mean by "being prepared"; you just mentioned those words, yet you were extremely vague about what the fuck you were even talking about.

Quote:

---

meatcakeman l said:
Yet, you'd rather question your fellow man? You, my friend, are an official bigot.

---

I'll question anybody, it's not like I'm extremely biased or anything!

---

Quote:

---

pothead_bob said:

Quote:

---

I don't fucking know,

---

I figured you didn't know... and yet... you still asked, 'based on whose testimony?' as if for some reason it mattered.  Now, why would you ask this if you don't 'fucking' know why it would matter?  Do you care about the debate at all?  If yes, then why are you asking pointless questions?  If no, why are you wasting all of our time?  Why would you rather ask meaningless questions instead of addressing the point that is at hand?

---

Wow, you completely missed the sarcasm in my post.

Quote:

---

pothead_bob said:

Quote:

---

You are making the case that the death penalty system is prone to errors...

---

I mentioned that 131 people were exonerated.  Do you want me to list every case or what?  The system is prone to errors.  A person can be sentenced to death based on testimony of so-called 'professionals'.  Ever hear of human error?  What if they're wrong?

---

Quote:

---

pothead_bob said:

Quote:

---

it would help your case here more if you could prove that most or even many cases are prone to errors like the ones shown in this case.

---

And you asked for any examples at all.

---

This sentence doesn't make any fucking sense.

Quote:

---

pothead_bob said:
Now you got, not one, but two.  Still not satisfied?  Then why weren't you clear from the beginning about what you wanted?

---

---

I have been extremely clear.

Quote:

---

pothead_bob said:

Quote:

---

And whose fault was it that this apparently innocent man was executed? Was it the system's fault, or was it the fault of the particular individuals involved?

---

More meaningless bullshit questions that you likely have no point in asking and no basis behind.  Please get back to me and let me know what difference there is.  In case you didn't know, the system was designed to be run by individuals.  And the system allows for testimony of individuals to be used against a defendent who is then judged by other individuals.

---

Those aren't "meaningless bullshit questions", I asked them for a reason.

You are saying that people "should" not trust their government, and instead "should" trust their fellow man, and I am telling you that there's not much difference.

Quote:

---

pothead_bob said:
A similar mistake could happen to you one day.  You're in the wrong place at the wrong time, some asshole thinks he saw something, or some douchebag who squeeked by in med school is brought in to testify against you who, in actuality, doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground, and the gullible jurors suck it all up and then get thirsty for blood.  The system would allow for this to happen.

---

There are many potential errors in the system, you are correct, but can you provide any evidence that shows that these type of errors are at least somewhat common?

Quote:

---

pothead_bob said:
So, got any more nonsensical questions for me?  Or do you want to have a grown-up conversation about this?

---

I don't know what the fuck you are talking about, but calling my questions nonsensical is pretty childish, IMO.

Quote:

---

You are saying that people "should" not trust their government, and instead "should" trust their fellow man, and I am telling you that there's not much difference.

---

Quote:

---

Mr.Al said:
Big Brother government is not your friend.

---

Anyone who supplies me with free Xanax is a friend of mine!


But seriously, in what way is "Big Brother" not my friend? How would you even know if he is if you are not here living my life?

Quote:

---

meatcakeman said:
Mathematically and per capita, it actually does.

---

Quote:

---

Poid said:
No Poid, I disagree with you, and I'll tell you why

---

Quote:

---

Mr.Al said:
A friend can help you out without having ulterior motives.

---

Key word "can".

Quote:

---

Mr.Al said:
When government gives you something, there are always strings attached.

---

This is complete utter bullshit; the government gives me free health care, and there isn't shit for a string attached.

Quote:

---

Mr.Al said:
Consider that when government gives welfare to individuals or corporations it does so by taking from the entire nation.

---

Quote:

---

Mr.Al said:
A friend gives you something it only came from you friend.

---

Why did you say this?

Quote:

---

MoeRon said:

Quote:

---

Poid said:
No Poid, I disagree with you, and I'll tell you why

---

Which government?

---

If there is even to be any government at all, I believe that it's fundamental role "should" be to ensure that its citizens are safe.

So to answer your question: Any government.

Quote:

---

MoeRon said:
If you're speaking generally then I dont think it  really has a defined purpose outside of what people give to it - or ask of it.

---

That's true.

Quote:

---

MoeRon said:
Government adapts out of necessity and that is not always in the best interest of the people and their interpersonal feelings for one another.

---

Yeah, not always.

Quote:

---

How do you know Willingham didn't do it?

---

Quote:

---

Look, I'm not trying to be a dick.  I am making a serious inquiry.  Prosecutorial misconduct or any kind of technical legal insufficiency is NOT exoneration.  You said the system was "prone" to errors.  I said they were rare.  Exceedingly rare.  The system grants almost endless appeals and scrutiny.  It is most definitely not "prone" to errors.

---

Quote:

---

if you make the argument that it is intrinsically wrong I will argue with you

---

Quote:

---

Mr.Al said:
Government Healthcare is not "free".

---

I never said it was, I said it is free for me!

Quote:

---

Mr.Al said:
Who gets to decide how much to spend on your doctor bills and what kind of treatment you can have?

---

Quote:

---

Mr.Al said:
Who would end up knowing everything about your personal health history?  When would the invasion of privacy stop?

---

Quote:

---

pothead_bob said:

Quote:

---

How do you know Willingham didn't do it?

---

I don't, but apparently, the prosecution didn't either.  At least not based on sound reasoning.  Like I said, there's reason for serious doubt about his guilt.  With such doubts existing, should he have been put to death?

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Look, I'm not trying to be a dick.  I am making a serious inquiry.  Prosecutorial misconduct or any kind of technical legal insufficiency is NOT exoneration.  You said the system was "prone" to errors.  I said they were rare.  Exceedingly rare.  The system grants almost endless appeals and scrutiny.  It is most definitely not "prone" to errors.

---

But I wasn't talking about technical legal insufficiency here.  I gave an example of completely false testimony in the case of the Griffin brothers.  The evidence put up against Willingham was improperly grounded.  And these are not the only cases where doubts existed.  However, I will retract my comment that the system is 'prone' to errors and replace it with, 'errors can happen too easily'.  I won't argue how prone it is to errors because, when it really comes down to it, it can't be proven.  Neither of us know, truly, how many innocent people are killed by the system.  We can really only have doubts.  However, I must admit that I'm wondering why you asked me for one case of an innocent person being put to death.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

if you make the argument that it is intrinsically wrong I will argue with you

---

If what is intrinsically wrong?  The death penalty, in general, or the accidental murdering of innocent individuals?

---

Quote:

---

That was not the question I put to you, is it?  You said the system was prone to mistakes and I asked for a mistake not based on legal technicalities.  I'm still waiting.

---

Quote:

---

The Griffin brothers were executed in 1915.  You had to go back almost a hundred years to prove your point that the system is prone to errors?  I think it proves exactly the opposite.

---

Quote:

---

The death penalty in general.  I didn't think I could be any clearer.

---

Quote:

---

    Quote:


    From your posts I gather that you are in support of the death penalty.  Would you be opposed with, instead of a person being administered the death penalty, a guilty person being given a life sentence without parole?



If you actually read my posts you will find this, which you partially quoted but still seemingly could not understand:

---