patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,362,575 comments by 15,735 users - Ceffer, HANrongli, stereotomy online now
Comments 1 - 40 of 100 Next » Last » Search these comments
Strategist
2015 Apr 14, 10:08am
If the asshole is given the death penalty, he becomes a martyr. If he's sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, he'll be a reminder that law triumphs over terrorism for the next 60 years. The later is worth far more than satisfying a bloodlust.
There was a reason why we killed Osama Bin Laden. Keeping him alive would have been an inspiration to wanna be terrorists. When you slaughter terrorists, you slaughter the hero image. That is how you stop future terrorists from being bred, and save innocent lives.
Strategist
2015 Apr 14, 10:10am
Hell Yeah, let's have the taxpayers cover all his costs of living for the next 60+ years.... That makes a ton of sense....
That should send a strong message to future bombers!
*
Hey Call Crazy, hold Dan while I...
Dan8267
2015 Apr 14, 10:15am
Hell Yeah, let's have the taxpayers cover all his costs of living for the next 60+ years.... That makes a ton of sense....
Free one pot smoker. That makes the net cost $0.
In contrast, the Iraq War will have cost us over $6 trillion when all the costs are totaled, including the vast majority yet to come as Iraq War Veterans age.
Like all Republicans, you are lousy at finances.
Dan8267
2015 Apr 14, 10:16am
Hey Call Crazy, hold Dan while I...
So, you'd rather have more terrorist acts in order to get your bloodlust fulfilled?
Strategist
2015 Apr 14, 11:01am
Hey Call Crazy, hold Dan while I...
So, you'd rather have more terrorist acts in order to get your bloodlust fulfilled?
No. I'trying to knock some sense into you.
Your way creates more terrorists. My way eliminates them.
finehoe
2015 Apr 14, 11:05am
he'll be a reminder that law triumphs over terrorism for the next 60 years.
Sixty years of anal raping by his fellow prisoners is a fair punishment.
Dan8267
2015 Apr 14, 11:28am
Pot smokers go away for 60+ years? Really??
Facts are a bitch, aren't they?
Even if that weren't the case, free one pot user every 12 years, or better yet all the pot users. We'll save far more than imprisoning the Boston Bomber. So your objection to life imprisonment for him based on cost is utterly ridiculous.
Liberal Playbook: When getting your ass kicked in an argument, immediately jump to the costs of war in Iraq.... Yep, that's the Liberal Logic jump!!
Actually, it's a play from the Rationalist Playbook: When you opponent makes a disingenuous and stupid argument that X costs a $N when something he supported costs 1,000,000 * $N, point out his lack of financial sense.
Hey Dan, you forgot to post that Bush lied about WMD. You're slipping!!
Not relevant to the discussion, but yes, it's true Bush lied about Iraq having WMDs. If you say otherwise, you are a scumbag liar, which we already know you are.
Dan8267
2015 Apr 14, 11:29am
Sixty years of anal raping by his fellow prisoners is a fair punishment.
Well hell, if we want to torture him, let's make him read six years of CIC's posts.
HydroCabron
2015 Apr 14, 11:35am
Well hell, if we want to torture him, let's make him read six years of CIC's posts.
Have some compassion!
Tsarnaev is still a human being.
We need to keep him alive so Obama (or Hillary?) can release him with more GITMO terrorists for US deserters!
A good reason to execute these animals is that Jihadis do want them back alive and threaten us with more terrorist attacks if we don't release them. Remember the "Blind Sheik"? He is the guy that was behind the terrorist cell that bombed the WTC in 1993. Well here is Zawahiri the head of Al Qaeda telling Jihadis to kidnap Americans to get the Blind Sheik released.
So, you'd rather have more terrorist acts in order to get your bloodlust fulfilled?
As I pointed out above, keeping some of these guys alive will generate more terrorist attacks as they try to get them released.
Do you want to see more Americans killed in order to get your liberal sanctimony fulfilled?
komputodo
2015 Apr 14, 11:45am
If he's sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, he'll be a reminder that law triumphs over terrorism for the next 60 years. The later is worth far more than satisfying a bloodlust.
People will forget about his sentence in less than 72 hrs.
Well hell, if we want to torture him, let's make him read six years
We are a nation of laws, and that is by definition, cruel and unusual punishment
Dan8267
2015 Apr 14, 12:11pm
As I pointed out above, keeping some of these guys alive will generate more terrorist attacks as they try to get them released.
Yet you have no evidence that imprisoning the Boston Bomber will generate more terrorists rather than act as a deterrent. On the other hand, plenty of scientific studies have shown that the death penalty is no deterrent. And you haven't addressed making the bomber into a martyr for terrorists.
Do you want to see more Americans killed in order to get your liberal sanctimony fulfilled?
You're confusing the effects of liberal policy with the effects of conservative policy. Liberal policy has never killed anyone. In contrast conservative policy kill people all the time by
1. Starting unnecessary and counter-productive wars.
2. Allowing and encouraging pollution.
3. Allowing and encouraging uncontrolled climate change.
4. Enabling big business to make "cost-benefit decisions" where they decide it's cheaper to let people die than recall their vehicles, or fix their oil rigs, or stop making unsafe products.
5. Letting big business squeeze every penny out of patients while providing the least amount of health care they can get away with.
6. Increasing the rich-poor gap and the violent crime caused by it.
Conservative policies result in a lot of Americans getting killed. So why do conservatives hate America so much?
Dan8267
2015 Apr 14, 12:15pm
Do you actually ever read your source links? Of course you don't...
The majority of your references WEREN'T "smoking", they were growing, supplying and trafficking...
From the article,
A Montana medical marijuana provider is facing 82 to 85 years behind bars, due to mandatory minimum laws linked to some of his charges. Convicted of crimes like manufacturing marijuana, intent to distribute and possession of a firearm during a drug trafficking offense, Christopher Williams appeared to be in the for the worst. But in a rare move this September, U.S. Attorney Michael Cotter offered to drop four of Williams’ charges and bring his sentencing down to “as little as 10 years,†so long as Williams waived his right to appeal.
It is clear that anyone in possession of a firearm during a drug trafficking offense is given such mandatory minimum sentences. Furthermore, possessing a certain amount of pot results in the presumption that you intended to distribute the pot and it is literally impossible to prove that you did not intend to do so, which is exactly why this is a violation of the 5th Amendment. So, yes, pot smokers do face such ridiculous sentences under the draconian drug laws.
Idiots like you can never see the bigger context in which a story is told. It's one of the many reasons why you are stupid.
Yet you have no evidence that imprisoning the Boston Bomber will generate more terrorists rather than act as a deterrent.
I provided you a link showing Al Qaeda's leaders encouraging Jihadis to kidnap Americans to free the Blind Sheik.
Liberal policy has never killed anyone.
Just off the top of my head:
- 55 million abortions?
- 50 million Africans killed by malaria thanks to DDT ban?
- 3000 Americans on 9/11 thanks to Clinton and Jaime Gorelick putting a "wall" between the FBI and CIA not allowing them to share intelligence?
Dan8267
2015 Apr 14, 12:32pm
I provided you a link showing Al Qaeda's leaders encouraging Jihadis to kidnap Americans to free the Blind Sheik.
Tsarnaev isn't the Blind Sheik. You are jumping to a conclusion not supported by your evidence.
- 55 million abortions?
1. Pro-life isn't a liberal movement.
2. 55 million abortions does not necessarily constitute a single death of a person. If the abortions are done in the first trimester, the fetus is clearly not a person. Again, this was discussed in my abortion thread. Ignoring that thread does not refute it.
3. Far more abortions are forced onto women by Republicans who let companies pollute the Earth. Polluting the Earth causes miscarriages, which are effective abortions forced on the mother against her will. So if you gave a rat's ass about unborn babies dying, you would be fiercely anti-polluter.
50 million Africans killed by malaria thanks to DDT ban?
DDT is a poison that can easily get into the food supply. Not banning DDT would kill far more people.
Furthermore, if you gave a damn about preventing Africans from being killed by malaria, you'd be fiercely anti-polluter and advocating strong climate change control policy. Malaria is transmitted first and foremost by mosquitoes. There are tens of thousands of villages that have been built just above the mosquito line. As global temperatures rise, the mosquito line moves up to where the villages are built and risks hundreds of millions of deaths due to Malaria.
Thus, once again, you demonstrate both your ignorance and your hypocrisy.
3000 Americans on 9/11 thanks to Clinton and Jaime Gorelick putting a "wall" between the FBI and CIA not allowing them to share intelligence?
Clinton did not cause 9/11. Bush did. Bush had the report entitled Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US. He chose to ignore it. 9/11 was 100% the fault of conservatives. Had Al Gore been president, which he should have been since he won the election, 9/11 would never have happened.
Conservatives are also 100% responsible for the creation and rise of ISIS.
Yes, facts are a bitch, aren't they?
Tsarnaev isn't the Blind Sheik. You are jumping to a conclusion not supported by your evidence.
Both are Muslim fanatic terrorists that attacked America. My conclusion is sound.
DDT is a poison that can easily get into the food supply. Not banning DDT would kill far more people.
The threat of DDT is so small that the World Health Organization reversed their disastrous total ban since it lead to so many needless deaths to people in the 3rd world.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2006/pr50/en/
Want to talk about Liberal's anti-GMO, anti-Vaccination and Global Warming positions that would kill even more 3rd World People if ever enacted?
How about Eugenics?
Liberals have absolutely no leg to stand on with their deplorable history.
Clinton did not cause 9/11. Bush did.
Again, Bush couldn't do in 7 months what Clinton failed to do in 8 years despite numerous Al Qaeda attacks on American interests around the world. Talk about hypocrisy, you blame Bush for ISIS even though Obama was warned by everyone not to leave the Region to chaos by pulling every last troop out of Iraq!
Dan8267
2015 Apr 14, 2:31pm
The threat of DDT is so small that the World Health Organization reversed their disastrous total ban since it lead to so many needless deaths to people in the 3rd world.
Still irrelevant as
1. Banning DDT was never a liberal cause. It was an environmentalist cause. If you cannot tell the difference, then you are an idiot.
2. The ban of DDT in the U.S. does not prevent its use in Africa.
3. Since the removal of the ban in Africa, which was not implemented by America nonetheless liberals in America, the use of DDT is practice a lot more cautiously than before the ban.
4. Lifting the ban does not in any way support conservative policies or detract from the massive number of deaths resulting from conservative policies. Neither does lifting the ban condemn liberal policies as the ban never had anything to do with liberalism.
Want to talk about Liberal's anti-GMO, anti-Vaccination and Global Warming positions that would kill even more 3rd World People if ever enacted?
1. GMOs is not a liberal issue. You're confusing hippies with liberals, dumb ass.
2. The anti-vaccination movement is not a liberal movement. I'm a liberal and I'm for requiring vaccinations by law. As most liberals are intelligent, they support vaccination.
3. Man-made climate change is real and the third world is suffering the brunt of the consequences. Once again, you are demonstrating ignorance and hypocrisy.
Bush couldn't do in 7 months
He could have taken the report Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US seriously and prepared for an attempted attack instead of reading The Pet Goat. Even alerting the American public and issuing an executive order stating that passengers would not be held criminally responsible for taking on hijackers would have been enough. Hell, even changing policy to not kowtow to hijackers based on the assumption they want to live would have been enough to prevent 9/11.
So yes, it does all come down to the fact that the Bush administration and dumb ass Republicans are responsible for letting 9/11 happen due to their utter incompetence in foreign policy.
Banning DDT was never a liberal cause. It was an environmentalist cause. If you cannot tell the difference, then you are an idiot.
Hmmm......you just vomited out several comments on this thread saying how Conservatives want people to die from pollution and hence are not environmentalists.
The anti-vaccination movement is not a liberal movement. I'm a liberal and I'm for requiring vaccinations by law. As most liberals are intelligent, they support vaccination.
The hell they do.
Liberals like RFK are leading the anti-vaccination charge.
http://time.com/3012797/vaccine-rfk-jr-thimerosal/
The highest clusters of non-vaccinated children on in ultra-liberal communities in California like Marin and Santa Monica.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... al-mapped/Dan8267 says
Even alerting the American public and issuing an executive order stating that passengers would not be held criminally responsible for taking on hijackers would have been enough.
Love it! Bush should have told Americans to PROFILE and be on the lookout for suspicious Muslims on airplanes and beat the shit out of them if they stay in the toilet too long.
Stop being such a hack Dan.
Dan8267
2015 Apr 14, 3:05pm
Hmmm......you just vomited out several comments on this thread saying how Conservatives want people to die from pollution and hence are not environmentalists.
Yes, conservatives are pro-polluters because they are greedy fucks. However, environmentalism and liberalism aren't the same thing.
Liberals like RFK are leading the anti-vaccination charge.
You are confusing the left with liberals because, once again, you are a dumb ass. You are also mistaking one person on the left as representing the whole, again, because you are a dumb ass.
Here's the real evidence. From a Pew Research poll
According to a 2014 Pew Research Center survey, members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) hold overwhelmingly similar views on climate change, evolution, genetically modified foods and vaccines. They almost all believe that humans are causing climate change (87 percent), evolution is real (98 percent), genetically modified food is safe (88 percent) and vaccines should be mandatory (86 percent).
This poll clearly shows that Democrats support vaccinations more than Republicans. Now most Democrats aren't liberals, but all Republicans are batshit crazy conservatives. Democrats are basically everyone who's not batshit crazy enough to be in the Republican party and aren't independents.
Scientists tend to be
1. Either atheist or agnostic
2. Highly educated.
3. Very liberal
As such, you can see where liberals really fall on this scale. The one place were Democrats are worse than Republicans is on GMOs, but it's not the liberals that are against them, at least not for health reasons.
Once again, facts are a bitch. Aren't they?
Love it! Bush should have told Americans to PROFILE and be on the lookout for suspicious Muslims on airplanes and beat the shit out of them if they stay in the toilet too long.
A clear misrepresentation of what I said. Only people with weak positions resort to Straw Men.
I love how Dan thinks he can separate Leftist from Liberals from Progs from Democrats to deflect away criticism. But at the same time, ALL conservatives are Republican dirt-bags wanting to kill people with their greed.
Regardless of polling data. Anti-vaccination ACTIONS in terms of advocacy and the act of not vaccinating one's child can be found largely on the Left.
Boston did the right thing by bringing this scumbag into custody alive to stand trial before the city and the world
I agree with this.
But as for executing him versus not ? My vote would be for killing him. I don't see that being a martyr for the cause entices others to be terrorists. Actually, the mentality of Islamic terrorists is such that I don't think they are likely to respect us more for not executing him. Possibly they respect us less.
Implicit in their actions is that they think violence sends the strongest message of all. It is complicated, because I think we should be trying to set non violent examples in many ways, and we should do all we can to show them that we do not deserve terrorist acts. But when they do commit terrorism against us ? We have to respond in kind. That's where trying to lead by example ends.
That's my opinion anyway. But then I am also not generally opposed to the death penalty for heinous crimes, as long as there is 100% certainty behind the conviction.
There are people that have adjusted to prison life, and don't find it all that much worse than having to make it out in the world. Maybe in some cases, they even find it to be better. For such a person, say who has been in prison and is now out, life in prison is simply not a severe enough penalty for murder. Compassion is a good thing, but the logic here is undeniable. That is unless you want to argue that there is no such thing as a person who finds prison life not much worse than life out in the free world.
Strategist
2015 Apr 14, 4:06pm
Here's the real evidence. From a Pew Research poll
According to a 2014 Pew Research Center survey, members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) hold overwhelmingly similar views on climate change, evolution, genetically modified foods and vaccines. They almost all believe that humans are causing climate change (87 percent), evolution is real (98 percent), genetically modified food is safe (88 percent) and vaccines should be mandatory (86 percent).
2% of scientists don't believe in evolution. What kind of scientists are they? Phony scientists.
But then I am also not generally opposed to the death penalty for heinous crimes, as long as there is 100% certainty behind the conviction
Do you have 100% certainty here?
And as they say, two out of three aint bad
R.I.P
Ibragim Todashev
Who was murdered in his apartment by an fbi agent who, surprise surprise, has a checkered past
And of course, tamerlan tsarnaev, killed before being taken into custody never got a chance at a fair trial.
Dan8267
2015 Apr 14, 4:42pm
Why is this guy still alive???
Damn libruls?
Actually, it's because sentencing hasn't happened yet, dummy. He can't be executed at least until he's sentenced. Do you really know so little of our judicial system or are you advocating it's demolishment?
He can't be executed at least until he's sentenced. Do you really know so little of our judicial system or are you advocating it's demolishment?
The former. Go read some of the gangs posts in the slager/scott thread
Dan8267
2015 Apr 14, 4:51pm
Compassion is a good thing, but the logic here is undeniable. That is unless you want to argue that there is no such thing as a person who finds prison life not much worse than life out in the free world.
I don't see the advantages of executing him. There is no possible harm he can do now, so what purpose does executing him serve? Also, is it ever morally right to kill a human being who posses no threat?
In contrast, I do believe that keeping him alive serving a life sentence does send a message that law and order will not be obstructed by terrorism. It shows that our society is capable of maintaining our values and legal system no matter what chaos is thrown at it.
As for compassion or punishment, the only purposes of sentencing this guy is to... One, make sure he can never harm anyone again, which is accomplished either with the death penalty or life imprisonment. And two, act as a deterrent to future terrorists. As the terrorists are more than willing to die for their cause and go to their imaginary heaven with 72 virgins, the death penalty isn't going to be a deterrent, but 60 years behind bars may be.
So it doesn't matter whether or not Tsarnaev suffers in prison or gets used to it. Either way the deterrent effect is the same, and the purpose of our legal system is not to inflict suffering to fulfill a desire for vengeance. Vengeance and justice are mutually exclusive goals. And the primary goal of our legal system should be to deter and prevent crimes.
I cannot think of a rational reason to base sentencing on the desire for revenge. Sentencing should be based on what is best for society.
The last thing we should do is allow Islamic terrorists to alter what is fundamental to our fairness
While i agree in theory, in practice, there's nothing much fair about our justice system. It's actually the finest stage for our monied inequity
The wealthy/politically privileged can literally buy their way out of anything. The poor get walked out the plank, to be skewered, with their public defender holding their hand
Rin
2015 Apr 14, 6:30pm
Boston did the right thing by bringing this scumbag into custody alive to stand trial before the city and the world.
Dan, it's obvious you don't know the Boston PD every well. If the Feds weren't actively involved in keeping a lease on the local PDs, both brothers would not have survived that day. Realize, they were dubbed 'cop killers', during the overnight chase between the municipalities of Cambridge and Watertown. Many police officers would have emptied every clip into the brothers.
The fact that the guy was taken alive, was what astonished me that day.
As for the death penalty, the problem with it, is that it has to apply equally to other first degree murder cases, where the evidence isn't so blatantly obvious, and sometimes even *planted* by the local PD, to assist with an easier DA's conviction. And thus, it's difficult to administer the death penalty, since it's the perfect punishment for an imperfect system.
Strategist
2015 Apr 14, 7:26pm
I don't think it will affect Islamic terrorists if we kill him or imprison him for life. They embrace an insanity only the religious can occupy in numbers as large as theirs. The Stalins and Pol Pots of history have nothing on the believers.
Good news: You are one step ahead of Dan.
Bad news: 9 steps to go.
Strategist
2015 Apr 14, 7:31pm
How 'bout we just let our jury system decide his fate and let that be our devotion to our laws and ethics? The last thing we should do is allow Islamic terrorists to alter what is fundamental to our fairness. Tactical response is what everyone talks about, but it's an incomplete intellectual reaction to what we find ourselves in. We're dealing with the religious insane, not soldiers.
Why should we be fair to people who want to kill us? Our justice system provides too many loopholes to the worst of the worst, thereby endangering all of us.
Strategist
2015 Apr 14, 7:37pm
The fact that the guy was taken alive, was what astonished me that day.
I'm glad he was taken alive. They probably questioned him for everything connected to terrorism, and the scumbags who helped him.
He should have been sent to Gitmo and waterboarded, so we know who his accomplices are.
Who cares if the rights of terrorists are violated. Our rights to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness take precedence.
Rin
2015 Apr 14, 7:51pm
The fact that the guy was taken alive, was what astonished me that day.
I'm glad he was taken alive. They probably questioned him for everything connected to terrorism, and the scumbags who helped him.
He should have been sent to Gitmo and waterboarded, so we know who his accomplices are.
Who cares if the rights of terrorists are violated. Our rights to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness take precedence.
I think the Feds realized that at some point in time, that he was just an idiot and thus, handed him over to Federal prosecutors.
And thus, this trial is a result of him, not having any meaningful connections to Chechen rebels a/o Al Qaeda operatives. Otherwise, he may have "disappeared" into Gitmo.
Strategist
2015 Apr 14, 7:53pm
I think the Feds realized that at some point, that he was just an idiot and thus, handed him over to Federal prosecutors.
And thus, this trial is a result of him, not having any meaningful connections to Chechen rebels or Al Qaeda operatives. Otherwise, he may have "disappeared" into Gitmo.
I would agree. But there were individuals and scumbags that helped them. Every one of them must be tracked down, and appropriately dealt with.
For all the conspiracy stuff surrounding this event, im surprised that our resident conspiracy guy, dropped the ball completely.
Its as if bgamall is a plant, who's supposed to make anyone asking questions about the "official " story, look like a nut job.
The murder of the friend of the suspects, on the other side of the country, sure smells fishy. The whole thing kinda stinks. Yet bgamall took the stance, that the bombing didn't even happen. The whole thing was faked, I don't know I have trouble reading all his posts.
marcus
2015 Apr 14, 9:25pm
As for the death penalty, the problem with it, is that it has to apply equally to other first degree murder cases, where the evidence isn't so blatantly obvious, and sometimes even *planted* by the local PD, to assist with an easier DA's conviction. And thus, it's difficult to administer the death penalty, since it's the perfect punishment for an imperfect system.
This is a good point. And as we know, there have been more than a few innocent people executed in this country, even in modern times.
But then I weigh that against the harm that can come to society due to:
There are people that have adjusted to prison life, and don't find it all that much worse than having to make it out in the world. Maybe in some cases, they even find it to be better. For such a person, say who has been in prison and is now out, life in prison is simply not a severe enough penalty for murder.
AS life becomes even more difficult for the poor, and the emotionally disabled, life in prison is going to seem not so bad. IT simply is not a severe enough consequence for murder. It's not about vengeance. It's about deterrence.
Dan8267
2015 Apr 14, 9:26pm
How 'bout we just let our jury system decide his fate and let that be our devotion to our laws and ethics?
The jury has made it's decision, he's guilty. But it's up to the judge to sentence.
I don't see
I cannot think
But you sure can spew some bullshit...
Is it psychologically impossible for a pathological liar like you to quote someone accurately? Is this the result of being dropped repeatedly as a baby?
Comments 1 - 40 of 100 Next » Last » Search these comments
Tsarnaev convicted in Boston bombing, may face death sentence
If the asshole is given the death penalty, he becomes a martyr. If he's sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, he'll be a reminder that law triumphs over terrorism for the next 60 years. The later is worth far more than satisfying a bloodlust.
Boston did the right thing by bringing this scumbag into custody alive to stand trial before the city and the world. The people of Boston are clearly much braver than those pussies in Texas who are afraid of trying terrorists in open courts. It would be a shame to lose that morally superior position and the demonstration of the strength of law and order now.