Hurricane aftermath

[dsanthony]

As most reasonable people warned over a year ago, Houston is now experiencing a massive increase in crime.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14349322/

The mainly black urban community of New Orleans had a staggering homocide and crime rate. It was naive and foolish of Houston and other cities to open their arms to the "evacuees", ignoring the fact that they were dysfunctional and violent people. In Houston, the murder rate has risen 17.5% since the refugees arrived. Katrina refugees were involved in at least 21% of all the homocides in Houston since the hurricane.

“New Orleans allowed a lot of these guys to stay on the street for whatever reason or be picked up and released after 60 days,� said Capt. Dale Brown, who oversees Houston’s homicide division. “Texas law, I don’t want to say it’s tougher, but we take these offenses very seriously.�

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Stop posting facts, they're racist.

[sbannon]

The mainly black urban community of New Orleans had a staggering homocide and crime rate.
Hey, leave the gays out of this, it's a story about murders.

The title caption of the story reads "Police in Texas city blame Katrina evacuees for rising homicide toll".

Gee, Texans in authority blaming someone else for all the 'bad stuff' that happens. Well, it's not like there's a trend in that behavior huh?

In Houston, the murder rate has risen 17.5% since the refugees arrived. Katrina refugees were involved in at least 21% of all the homocides in Houston since the hurricane.
Less Texans. I'm not sure I'm opposed... those anti-America Texans wanted to be their own nation and maybe we should have left them have it. Not that I'm advocating murder at all, but really, it could be that the only reason they're complaining is it's not the state pulling the switch in these killings.

Seriously, complaints of rising murder rates from a state that believes executing the mentally challenged or child offenders is perfectly fine sound pretty hollow to me.

[Mayberry]

Less Texans. I'm not sure I'm opposed... those anti-America Texans wanted to be their own nation and maybe we should have left them have it. We'd be better off. And you don't have to let us, Texas is the only state in the union that has the right to be independent, since we were a republic before. That's why we can fly our flag at the same height as the stars and stripes. Seriously, complaints of rising murder rates from a state that believes executing the mentally challenged or child offenders is perfectly fine sound pretty hollow to me. A "mentally challenged" or child murderer is still a murderer. Hang 'em high.

[BoogyMan]

Gee, Texans in authority blaming someone else for all the 'bad stuff' that happens. Well, it's not like there's a trend in that behavior huh?

Seriously, complaints of rising murder rates from a state that believes executing the mentally challenged or child offenders is perfectly fine sound pretty hollow to me.

If I thought you were not serious this would be comical, alas the sickening fact is that you ARE serious.

[sbannon]

BM, Mayberry posts this:
A "mentally challenged" or child murderer is still a murderer. Hang 'em high.
And mine is the sickening perspective?

[Mayberry]

What is sickening about justice being served? An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life.

[sbannon]

The whole notion behind a death penalty is to be a deterrence, not retribution. When applied to those who can't fully grasp the actual nature of their crimes or the severity of the punishment it's reduced to senseless killing for the sake of killing. That's what's sickening about it, Mayberry.

[BoogyMan]

The whole notion behind a death penalty is to be a deterrence, not retribution. When applied to those who can't fully grasp the actual nature of their crimes or the severity of the punishment it's reduced to senseless killing for the sake of killing. That's what's sickening about it, Mayberry.


No Sbannon you are completely wrong. The whole notion behind the death penalty is not just deterrence it DOES include justice being done. What we have here is the proverbial dog that just won't hunt. Lets see, you tried to redefine the purpose for the death penalty and then on the hopes that your false definition would be accepted you then try to shoot holes in that new definition in hopes of discrediting and tarring the whole topic. Logical fallacy once again? Yeah, it sure is.

[dsanthony]

I'm sorry the lib has managed to change the subject (as usual) from looking honestly at the black community to a lame death penalty argument. His post (which I wasn't going to bother responding to) threw out literally dozens of liberal slogans, hoping one of them would serve to divert attention from the topic at hand.

[sbannon]

Gee BM, can you offer any quotes from elected American politicians in the past 20 years that support the death penalty for revenge? I've been closely following politics for 20 years now and every pro-death penalty politician I've heard frames it as "for deterrence, not revenge".

What's in your mind doesn't define it, what most Americans view it as--by proxy of the representatives they elect--does.

dsanthony, you have yet to repond to a challenge made to any of your comments and fantastic claims on this forum. We all get that you either pull your evidence from thin air or lack the capacity to back your statements up.

Care to refute that? How about starting with a single one of the "liberal slogans" you claim my post held?

[BoogyMan]

Gee BM, can you offer any quotes from elected American politicians in the past 20 years that support the death penalty for revenge? I've been closely following politics for 20 years now and every pro-death penalty politician I've heard frames it as "for deterrence, not revenge".

What's in your mind doesn't define it, what most Americans view it as--by proxy of the representatives they elect--does.

dsanthony, you have yet to repond to a challenge made to any of your comments and fantastic claims on this forum. We all get that you either pull your evidence from thin air or lack the capacity to back your statements up.

Care to refute that? How about starting with a single one of the "liberal slogans" you claim my post held?


Do you live in logical fallacy land Sbannon? You are extremely good at it. YOU choose to call justice (the idea of consequences to your actions based on law) revenge. To define the argument in such a way truly is nothing more than an appeal to emotion. Your argument in this vein should embarrass you.

Let me make this very clear: law defines how our society works, some laws have very serious consequences, you obviously don't like our law based system of societal governance. I will stash that away with all the other stuff about this country that you and your ilk cannot seem to stand.

Now that you have re-directed the topic of this thread for a while and have had the walls wiped with your diminutive effort at debate, try to stay on topic.

[sbannon]

No, actually I placed it in quotations because it is a direct quote from President Bush. He framed it as "deterrence, not revenge"; much like many other politicians who support the death penalty have. I didn't just make it up or frame it that way to appeal to emotions, I quoted our President's position.

Question: Do both of you believe that the death penalty actually deters crime?

Bush: I do, that’s the only reason to be for it. I don’t think you should support the death penalty to seek revenge. I don’t think that’s right. I think the reason to support the death penalty is because it saves other people’s lives.
source: St. Louis debate Oct 17, 2000

As for law defining how society works, in American society (here's civics 101 for you) the people define the law, therfore the people define how the law and in this case, the punishment works and is viewed.

[BoogyMan]

No, actually I placed it in quotations because it is a direct quote from President Bush. He framed it as "deterrence, not revenge"; much like many other politicians who support the death penalty have. I didn't just make it up or frame it that way to appeal to emotions, I quoted our President's position.

A position which you are obviously not properly equipped to determine the intent of. Our entire JUSTICE system is about punishment AND detterence, not revenge.

As for law defining how society works, in American society (here's civics 101 for you) the people define the law, therfore the people define how the law and in this case, the punishment works and is viewed.

Ummm, sbannon, the people of Texas have done just that. They stand on JUSTICE, that little concept that you don't seem to believe in.

Do you HAVE something to add to this argument to bolster your case or is this the best you have in your bag of tricks?

[sbannon]

BM, you've twisted yourself into a pretzel, get over it. You're running in circles to debate me yet offer nothing of substance or value in your argument. You just keep saying I'm wrong because you say so. Well, I'm sorry but again, just because it's so in your mind doesn't actually make it so in the real world.

There may be one or two--and I've given you opportunity to present them--elected politicians in America who'd support your idea of the death penalty being a tool for society's revenge against those who break the law, but the vast majority (and by proxy the vast majority of America as represented by them) absolutely do not. It's pretty simple.

Where do you get the idea that I'm anti-justice? Stop making claims of people unless you can support them. Justice, is the upholding of what is just. It has nothing to do with the death penalty nor this minor death penalty as deterrence vs. revenge discussion you latched onto. Talk about trying to redefine for personal cause.

If you have anything of substance to offer I'm happy to continue discussing this with you, but if all you can add is continued patronizing ("Do you live in logical fallacy land Sbannon?", "had the walls wiped with your diminutive effort at debate" or "is this the best you have in your bag of tricks?") dribble which highlights your (add your own adjective here) character further then lets stop now.

[BoogyMan]

I love it, you try to toss out the purpose of our system of justice and have the gall to tell me that I must prove to you why YOUR delusion is wrong.Â*Â*Did you pay attention in whatever schooling you completed?Â*Â*Do some reading about the US justice system and then come back here and tell me that justice=revenge.Â*Â*


jus·tice n.
The quality of being just; fairness.

The principle of moral rightness; equity.
Conformity to moral rightness in action or attitude; righteousness.

The upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law.
Law. The administration and procedure of law.
Conformity to truth, fact, or sound reason: The overcharged customer was angry, and with justice.
Abbr. J. Law.
A judge.
A justice of the peace.


pun·ish·ment n.

The act or an instance of punishing.
The condition of being punished.
A penalty imposed for wrongdoing: “The severity of the punishment must... be in keeping with the kind of obligation which has been violated� (Simone Weil).
Rough handling; mistreatment: These old skis have taken a lot of punishment over the years.

So you say justice=revenge, not so! Based on the idiotic premise that punishment is equal to revenge, are you against all punishment or just certain types? Should ANYTHING be illegal?

Read, learn, rethink!Â*Â*

[sbannon]

You're really missing (or adding?) something in my posts. Seriously, when did I say "justice=revenge"? Please, point that out, because the only definition of justice I gave (and the only time I referred to the term justice at all) was with: "Justice, is the upholding of what is just."

Which of-course was in reply to your not-so-witty quip of "JUSTICE, that little concept that you don't seem to believe in.", that you threw out of me without anything to support it--as usual.

Care to try again?

[BoogyMan]

You're really missing (or adding?) something in my posts. Seriously, when did I say "justice=revenge"? Please, point that out, because the only definition of justice I gave (and the only time I referred to the term justice at all) was with: "Justice, is the upholding of what is just."

Which of-course was in reply to your not-so-witty quip of "JUSTICE, that little concept that you don't seem to believe in.", that you threw out of me without anything to support it--as usual.

Care to try again?

Sbannon, what you seem to continue to overlook is that words mean things and that you, and that superiority complex you keep nurturing, don't get to change them. You equated punishment to revenge which in turn is equating justice to revenge. Punishment in our legal system is the end product of justice being done.

Egads.

[sbannon]

BM, I'm not joking, you need to stop with the patronizing and condescending comments ("that superiority complex you keep nurturing") if you want others to take you seriously. I've tried to politely suggest this numerous times already but you're not getting it or don't care. Either way, every post of yours in this thread gives the impression of a child stomping your feet because I won't buy your twisted line of thinking or overlook it when you make up positions that I never stated to argue with.

The death penalty is a punishment to the criminal it's applied to, but the support for it's [the death penalty] existence is as a deterrence to other criminals, not society's revenge against the executed.

That's a very simple concept. It's not me equating punishment or justice to revenge, you've made that deduction all by yourself, in your own mind, and then want to argue that I'm wrong for seeing it that way?

You're absolutely right that words have meaning, and my words are very clear, properly spelled and intended to mean what they say.

[BoogyMan]

Sbannon, you truly have no room to speak when it comes to condescension so drop it.

Once again you equated punishment/justice to revenge, it just isnt so and no amount of imagineering on your part will change that.

Have a good day.