tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2699987188234610612.post8046163761392566193..comments2010-02-11T02:10:55.953-06:00Comments on Another Goddamned Podcast: Another Goddamned Podcast #21: July 3, 2008Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09429263099197981481noreply@blogger.comBlogger54125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2699987188234610612.post-79494198122455522552008-07-24T21:27:00.000-05:002008-07-24T21:27:00.000-05:00Red brought up cost, not me.Red brought up cost, not me.PhillyChiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03355892225956705948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2699987188234610612.post-55130465955125875462008-07-24T21:25:00.000-05:002008-07-24T21:25:00.000-05:00So you're agreeing that if a convicted felon could...<I>So you're agreeing that if a convicted felon could threaten society through others on the outside, then they would be suitable candidates for the death penalty?</I><BR/><BR/>If a convicted felon did threaten society, as in cause more harm, then that felon needs to be removed from society. I think there are other ways to remove them other than death.<BR/><BR/>And I'm not the one who brought up cost as an argument for the death penalty. You did. I just pointed out that it wasn't a valid argument.<BR/><BR/>I know you don't think this is so, but I bet you that most people would choose life imprisonment rather than death. I don't think everyone would, and I know you wouldn't, I probably wouldn't either, but I bet you most people would choose to live in prison for life. <-- That's not a valid argument for or against, nor do I have anything to back that. It's just a personal observation. So, I'll give you a refute on that, if you don't accept it.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09429263099197981481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2699987188234610612.post-67401074899225783072008-07-24T17:36:00.000-05:002008-07-24T17:36:00.000-05:00" The State usually picks up the tab, because by t...<I>" The State usually picks up the tab, because by that time the defendant is probably out of funds. Also, most of the time he/she is indigent in the first place."</I><BR/><BR/>Surely this would be true of both convicted criminals, not just one, right?<BR/><BR/>So an inequity in the system which can make death sentence appeals more costly than life sentence appeals is the justification for having life sentences instead of death sentences because they're less costly? That's some darn good logic there.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the legal clarification, SIPhillyChiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03355892225956705948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2699987188234610612.post-90815433404040514132008-07-24T17:21:00.000-05:002008-07-24T17:21:00.000-05:00I don't understand your first point. Are you sayin...<I>I don't understand your first point. Are you saying those sentenced to the death penalty have more rights to appeal their sentence than those sentenced to life? Where's the AGP official legal analyst SI? Can we get some insight on this?</I><BR/><BR/>I have not been following this too closely, but I think what you are asking is why death penalty cases are so costly. I'm not sure about other states, but in PA I believe that if a defendant is sentenced to death, an automatic review is filed before the Appellate Courts. This is required by law, and I think many, most or all or the other states do the same thing, because of Supreme Court rulings on the death penalty. The State usually picks up the tab, because by that time the defendant is probably out of funds. Also, most of the time he/she is indigent in the first place. The appeal process can take years. Like 10 years.<BR/><BR/>With a life sentence, it's up the the defendant whether he appeals. There is no automatic appeal, and the state is less involved.He may still be eligible for a free public defender, but since the stakes are not as high, there are fewer organizations that get involved, and less money expended on the process. <BR/><BR/>Or something like that. I'm not a criminal attorney.Spanish Inquisitorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05261181794832002207noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2699987188234610612.post-79422147225184197112008-07-24T16:37:00.000-05:002008-07-24T16:37:00.000-05:00So you're agreeing that if a convicted felon could...So you're agreeing that if a convicted felon could threaten society through others on the outside, then they would be suitable candidates for the death penalty?PhillyChiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03355892225956705948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2699987188234610612.post-85660806378887978572008-07-24T16:31:00.000-05:002008-07-24T16:31:00.000-05:00I would consider any of their facts and figures du...<I>I would consider any of their facts and figures dubious and contrived. I'm sure their arguments are well written of course, just as I'm sure they all dress well, smell nice and love their mothers/ None of that has any bearing on the truth, which can be quite ugly but we still have to accept, warts and all.</I><BR/><BR/>And you haven't even tried to offer any sources to the contrary, so as I said, I don't think you can claim to say that it costs less to incarcerate someone for life. It's fine if you don't want to accept my research, but you have to offer some of your own to get make your argument valid. It's not so because you say it is so.<BR/><BR/><I>No, you're not staying on point, or you're failing to say what you mean. I'm not psychic, so I can't know which is happening. For SOME reason known only to you, you chose to dispute the possibility of an imprisoned felon being able to continue to threaten society...</I><BR/><BR/>No, I'm saying to assume that every criminal is a member of an organized crime group is wrong. I'm saying this is a rare occurrence and has no bearing on whether the death penalty is a good thing or not. I'm saying in a different situation you wouldn't make the same bland generalization about other people, so why would you make it here? It's not a valid argument to say that some criminals server life sentences might or might not participate in organized crime that might or might not harm someone so they all deserve the death penalty. That's prosecuting everyone, without evidence that each individual is guilty. I find that a flawed argument.<BR/><BR/><I>Any imprisoned man can give orders, ask favors, or somehow work deals with others on the outside now or who will eventually be on the outside to cause some sort of harm to society.</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, he *could*, but I didn't think we put people to death in this country based on something they *could* do. I thought you had to actually prove guilt. You seem to think that it's OK to assume that all criminals *could* do this thing so they all deserve the same punishment.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09429263099197981481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2699987188234610612.post-18020097306839267242008-07-24T15:11:00.000-05:002008-07-24T15:11:00.000-05:00The DPIC is an organization that cloaks its anti-d...The DPIC is an organization that cloaks its anti-death penalty position under a claim of being “a non-profit organization serving the media and the public with analysis and information on issues concerning capital punishment.” I would consider any of their facts and figures dubious and contrived. I'm sure their arguments are well written of course, just as I'm sure they all dress well, smell nice and love their mothers/ None of that has any bearing on the truth, which can be quite ugly but we still have to accept, warts and all.<BR/><BR/><I>"You are twisting my words."</I><BR/><BR/>No, you're not staying on point, or you're failing to say what you mean. I'm not psychic, so I can't know which is happening. For SOME reason known only to you, you chose to dispute the possibility of an imprisoned felon being able to continue to threaten society through others on the outside by asking "Do you have any examples of crime organizations that have been eradicated because someone was executed versus someone who has been incarcerated?" Huh? <BR/><BR/>Any imprisoned man can give orders, ask favors, or somehow work deals with others on the outside now or who will eventually be on the outside to cause some sort of harm to society. That's the point. I gave gang and mob leaders as an example of how this could happen, but that's just one possibility.PhillyChiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03355892225956705948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2699987188234610612.post-28635116467986064792008-07-24T14:39:00.000-05:002008-07-24T14:39:00.000-05:00So what, if you can prove you have no mob or gang ...<I>So what, if you can prove you have no mob or gang ties, or any friends or family, then it would be safe to give you a life sentence but if you can't, death for you?</I><BR/><BR/>You are twisting my words. I'm saying it's not fair to make a generalization about a group of people and base policy on it.<BR/><BR/><I>and what do muslims have to do with this?</I><BR/><BR/>That was an example (you know what those are right?) of a policy decision based on generalizations that would be bad.<BR/><BR/><I>Are you saying those sentenced to the death penalty have more rights to appeal their sentence than those sentenced to life?</I><BR/><BR/>I'm saying it's more expensive because the burden of proof that the prosecutors must present is larger in capital cases. You can research this on the web. Cornell used to have a great website on it, but most of the links are down. I did find <A HREF="http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/COcosttestimony.pdf" REL="nofollow">this article</A>, which I thought was well-written, but you may disagree with the contents.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09429263099197981481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2699987188234610612.post-46733612991071359342008-07-24T11:44:00.000-05:002008-07-24T11:44:00.000-05:00So what, if you can prove you have no mob or gang ...So what, if you can prove you have no mob or gang ties, or any friends or family, then it would be safe to give you a life sentence but if you can't, death for you? Now THAT is silly, and what do muslims have to do with this?<BR/><BR/><BR/>I don't understand your first point. Are you saying those sentenced to the death penalty have more rights to appeal their sentence than those sentenced to life? Where's the AGP official legal analyst SI? Can we get some insight on this?PhillyChiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03355892225956705948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2699987188234610612.post-89735715710606499462008-07-24T11:18:00.000-05:002008-07-24T11:18:00.000-05:00Are you saying those with a death sentence have a ...<I>Are you saying those with a death sentence have a greater legal recourse than those with a life sentence? Since both can appeal equally, legal expense should be equal.</I><BR/><BR/>It's not a matter of whether it should be, but whether it is. If you're going to say, "Well, let's change this and this and make this perfect," then you're only arguing a suppose, not a reality. I don't see the courts changing just because you think they should.<BR/><BR/><I>Non sequitur. The issue was the threat of the convicted killer to society if kept alive, not the effectiveness to eradicate criminal organizations. If he is kept alive, then he can still pose a threat by using the criminal organization to carry out his plans.</I><BR/><BR/>Now that's just silly. You're throwing all criminals in the same bucket now and stereotyping them just because 1%? 5%? of death row prisoners are part of a criminal organization. Should we also ban Muslims from air travel because one of them might try to hijack it? It's happened in the past and it's a threat to our security.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09429263099197981481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2699987188234610612.post-52940203355255736202008-07-24T10:02:00.000-05:002008-07-24T10:02:00.000-05:00Are you saying those with a death sentence have a ...Are you saying those with a death sentence have a greater legal recourse than those with a life sentence? Since both can appeal equally, legal expense should be equal. <BR/><BR/><I>"Do you have any examples of crime organizations that have been eradicated because someone was executed versus someone who has been incarcerated?"</I><BR/><BR/>Non sequitur. The issue was the threat of the convicted killer to society if kept alive, not the effectiveness to eradicate criminal organizations. If he is kept alive, then he can still pose a threat by using the criminal organization to carry out his plans.<BR/><BR/><BR/>The safety issue is either a wash or a score for death penalty depending on whether we include probability, but if we do, then Error becomes a wash as well, which is why I said the score was either 3-1 or 2-0, which it still seems to be.PhillyChiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03355892225956705948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2699987188234610612.post-71668415623932981022008-07-24T09:47:00.000-05:002008-07-24T09:47:00.000-05:00So that's either 3-1 or 2-0 for death penalty, dep...<I>So that's either 3-1 or 2-0 for death penalty, depending on whether you want to use probability or not.</I><BR/><BR/>OK, I'll bite on this.<BR/><BR/>Your first point that the death penalty is cheaper is debatable. There are many arguments and studies that the death penalty costs more due to the legal recourse given to someone who is sentenced to death. I don't think you can claim this point.<BR/><BR/>As far as safety to the public, you could also argue that innocent people being put to death isn't safe for the public either. If you think about the numbers - how many people escape and commit crimes that harm other people versus how many people are put to death when they are innocent - it's probably low in both cases. You gave this category a wash (1-1) and so it's basically irrelevant to the point counting except to inflate both numbers.<BR/><BR/>Criminal organizations exist inside and outside of prison. You don't stop a criminal organization by executing someone, just as you don't stop it by imprisoning someone. Do you have any examples of crime organizations that have been eradicated because someone was executed versus someone who has been incarcerated? No one stepped in to take the over when the person was jailed or executed? Maybe criminal organizations have declined due to better police work or other factors. I don't think you have more than an emotional argument here.<BR/><BR/>So let's just reset the points to 0-0, shall we?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09429263099197981481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2699987188234610612.post-59639468781278914872008-07-24T09:11:00.000-05:002008-07-24T09:11:00.000-05:00"I'm not saying escape is impossible, but how comm...<I>"I'm not saying escape is impossible, but how common is it? The possibility of escape is not a good argument in my opinion."</I><BR/><BR/>Oh, so now you're using probability. I see. Then how probable would it be now with advanced forensics evidence like dna to convict the wrong person for a crime? If we're going to use probability, I could say your raising of the issue that if a mistake is made and the wrong person is executed, that we can't bring him back is not a good argument then because how common would that be? If you counter that even the possibility that one person could be wrongly executed, thus making execution wrong, then I'd say even the possibility that one person could escape and threaten society would make keeping a deadly killer alive wrong.<BR/><BR/>Your exuberance to rush into the fray continues to leave you exposed. You're quick to attack yet give little or no thought to defense, making you easy to outflank and even turn your own attack back on you. Settle down, grasshopper. <BR/><BR/><BR/>Now I'll give you another problem with life sentence over death sentence - criminal organizations. A criminal, especially one who leads other criminals like say in gangs or the mob, can still be a threat to society by orchestrating criminal activity from behind bars. That wouldn't be possible if he were dead. Score - death penalty.<BR/><BR/>So that's either 3-1 or 2-0 for death penalty, depending on whether you want to use probability or not.PhillyChiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03355892225956705948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2699987188234610612.post-9743368892706146992008-07-24T08:23:00.000-05:002008-07-24T08:23:00.000-05:00Revenge - You could argue a death sentence or a li...Revenge - You could argue a death sentence or a life sentence is revenge, since clearly there's no point to rehabilitation, which is what we all pretend prison is supposed to be for.<BR/><BR/>** Imprisonment as a revenge? Sure you could argue that, but who would. I think that it's alway put forward as a deterrence and for public safety. Which leads to...**<BR/><BR/>Deterrence - I'd say neither sufficiently deter<BR/><BR/>** We don't actually know who is deterred by the possibility of lifetime imprisonment or death sentence. How can we know this? Since we can't know if any one particular person would have been deterred from committing murder or not - I don't think a poll would help much, but maybe we should do one here. :) If either one is even a little bit of a deterrence, then we should try to determine by comparing different states, or maybe other countries to see if murder rates are lower or higher; comparing states and countries with and without the death penalty. If both are deterrents, we should try to figure out if the murder rates dramatically differ, if there isn't a big difference, I would say to error on the side of caution and go with lifetime imprisonment. **<BR/><BR/>Cost - Score one for death penalty<BR/><BR/>** OK fine. **<BR/><BR/>Safety of the public - Well there's no possibility that a dead guy could escape and threaten society. Score for death penalty.<BR/><BR/>** I'm not saying escape is impossible, but how common is it? The possibility of escape is not a good argument in my opinion. I could just as easily say that a person could get lifetime imprisonment and never escape. **<BR/><BR/>Error - Well you can't release a dead guy if he's later proven innocent. Score one for life imprisonment.<BR/><BR/>** Yay, we agree here. :) **<BR/><BR/>That's death sentence leading life sentence 2-1. <BR/><BR/>** Where is the referee? **Red Expendablehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17121892990737841778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2699987188234610612.post-22013426175977686302008-07-23T21:28:00.000-05:002008-07-23T21:28:00.000-05:00I hear humans taste like porkFor some reason, I fi...<I>I hear humans taste like pork</I><BR/><BR/>For some reason, I find that incredibly intuitive.John Evohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10868904051881865159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2699987188234610612.post-31011922701379941622008-07-23T17:00:00.000-05:002008-07-23T17:00:00.000-05:00Revenge - You could argue a death sentence or a li...Revenge - You could argue a death sentence or a life sentence is revenge, since clearly there's no point to rehabilitation, which is what we all pretend prison is supposed to be for.<BR/><BR/>Deterrence - I'd say neither sufficiently deter<BR/><BR/>Cost - Score one for death penalty<BR/><BR/>Safety of the public - Well there's no possibility that a dead guy could escape and threaten society. Score for death penalty.<BR/><BR/>Error - Well you can't release a dead guy if he's later proven innocent. Score one for life imprisonment.<BR/><BR/>That's death sentence leading life sentence 2-1. <BR/><BR/>Today's match is brought to you by Another Goddamned Beer, because if you had to drink anything else for the rest of your life, you'd wish you were dead. Now back to the action...PhillyChiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03355892225956705948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2699987188234610612.post-41964837964635573032008-07-23T16:26:00.000-05:002008-07-23T16:26:00.000-05:00The purpose is to keep society safe from the murde...The purpose is to keep society safe from the murderer. Problem is, if the murderer really isn't the murderer, but we are 99% sure :) he/she is, and he/she is put to death. There is no turning back. <BR/><BR/>I would argue that once a life is taken - there is no coming back from that. Therefore it's an important consideration. Not only can you not bring the victim back, you can bring the person who was executed back from the dead either.<BR/><BR/>So there is yet ANOTHER reason why to not use the death penalty as a penalty. <BR/><BR/>It comes right back to revenge. That's all a death sentence is. Revenge. <BR/><BR/>So let's just admit that and we can move on, shall we? :)<BR/><BR/>Look, there has to be a reason for the state to take someone's life, right? Whether or not the reasons given are honest is a different story.<BR/><BR/>Let's take a look at them:<BR/><BR/>Revenge<BR/>Deterrence<BR/>Cost<BR/>Safety of the public<BR/><BR/><BR/>Any other's you guys can think of? <BR/><BR/>Imprisonment is a deterrence, it's also makes the public safer by removing the murderer from the streets. And, I would even go so far as to say that it's also a method of revenge. Maybe not extreme enough for some people though.<BR/><BR/>Cost - well, without doing the research - imprisonment would probably cost more than taking someone's life. I see more pros than cons when it comes to the above given goals.Red Expendablehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17121892990737841778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2699987188234610612.post-79472320075437787512008-07-23T16:07:00.000-05:002008-07-23T16:07:00.000-05:00Oops, I missed your last comment. Sorry.The argume...Oops, I missed your last comment. Sorry.<BR/><BR/>The argument for whether you can bring the victim back from the dead is a non sequitur. The issue is over what to do with the convicted killer. I could just as easily say locking him up for the rest of his life wouldn't bring back the victim either, so what purpose would locking him up serve?<BR/><BR/>Try again.PhillyChiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03355892225956705948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2699987188234610612.post-65249981690597165062008-07-23T16:02:00.000-05:002008-07-23T16:02:00.000-05:00Well as long as we're giving prisoner's choices, w...Well as long as we're giving prisoner's choices, why not ask them if they'd want to be free or not, or if they have to be executed, whether they can choose how, like maybe by lethal ingestion of <A HREF="http://chef2chef.net/internship/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/beer-bottle-outline.jpg" REL="nofollow">another goddamned beer</A>.<BR/><BR/> 100% proof is a red herring. Life and death decisions are made daily without 100% certainty. <BR/><BR/>Anyway, if morality is subjective, you can't simply invoke morality, you have to argue for your morals over another's. Exchanges like this are helpful for even so-called rationalists take some beliefs for granted, so it's good to be pressed and have to answer for them from time to time.PhillyChiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03355892225956705948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2699987188234610612.post-49341920159391688892008-07-23T16:00:00.000-05:002008-07-23T16:00:00.000-05:00A great example of real life events - regarding mu...A great example of real life events - regarding murder. <BR/><BR/>You guys know about the infamous "yogurt shop murders"?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yogurt_Shop_Murders<BR/><BR/>Now read the latest...<BR/>http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/071608dntexyogurtmurders.3ab7ac7.html<BR/><BR/>A great example. Now, what if they were executed? Will new evidence bring back the dead? Nope.<BR/><BR/>Will killing someone you "know" is a "100%" guilty, and "confesses" to the murder bring back those who were murdered? Nope.<BR/><BR/>It's a lose-lose situation when the state takes a life.Red Expendablehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17121892990737841778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2699987188234610612.post-67177475268661601672008-07-23T15:46:00.000-05:002008-07-23T15:46:00.000-05:00PhillyChief said... You speak of dogmatic adher...PhillyChief said...<BR/><BR/> You speak of dogmatic adherence yet you're doing it yourself. Despite being faced with a situation where there is no doubt the criminal is guilty, you continue to argue imperfections of the system, coercion, and of course the miracle of innocence proving evidence. Now who's the "fucking robot"? ;)<BR/><BR/> You haven't given any support for how if the act of authorizing the death penalty is merely a self satisfying act, that the self satisfaction of denying the death penalty is either morally superior or in any way different. In fact, since you claim "morals are a subjective thing", good luck trying.<BR/><BR/> "Basically, when you kill someone for murdering someone, you are a hypocrite. What you are saying is it's bad to kill someone, and then turn around and kill someone."<BR/><BR/> So when we arrest and incarcerate a kidnapper, we're hypocrites?<BR/><BR/><BR/>----------------<BR/><BR/>Look -- despite being faced with the fact that there ARE imperfections in any system of justice - you can't argue that any person is guilty of the crime, in this case, I guess we're talking about murder.<BR/><BR/>There is no 100% - that's a hypothetical. We can talk hypothetical all we want, but it's a murky area that just doesn't exist. Let's move the philosophy of "what ifs", and look at reality.<BR/><BR/>It's not dogmatic adherence. You can think came to this conclusion because I was brainwashed or given a holy text to read? This is something that I actually have thought about. Freethinking is the process.<BR/><BR/>I do think that the prisoner, if found to be guilty, should be given a choice of death or imprisonment.<BR/><BR/>Regarding this quote here:<BR/><BR/>"You haven't given any support for how if the act of authorizing the death penalty is merely a self satisfying act, that the self satisfaction of denying the death penalty is either morally superior or in any way different. In fact, since you claim "morals are a subjective thing", good luck trying."<BR/><BR/>I agree in one respect, but in another I don't. I can't PROVE one position is morally superior than another, but I can claim it based on my own principles.<BR/><BR/>The only thing I could say is put yourself in the position of the person on death row, if it's at all possible. That whole empathy thing that we are also naturally inclined to be. <BR/><BR/>I know the revenge instinct is natural, but so is empathy - and from that flows things like mercy, forgiveness,etc. I know that sounds religious to some, but too bad. Faith-heads might think they have a monopoly on such words or own some words, but they can go screw themselves.<BR/><BR/>As for the hypocrite thing, let me clarify my position. It's a process of determining who is going to benefit or be harmed by a particular action. And ultimately, what is the goal??? And what else can be done to reach that same goal with minimum harm and maximum benefit.<BR/><BR/>I guess this whole conversation or topic should really be looked at in the light of actual events. That's the problem with shit when we start talking abstract - the hypothetical murder, or the hypothetical suitcase nuke, etc. You get these wishy-washy back and forth responses that are meaningless unless placed in everyday real life events. It's yet another distinction between freethinking and faith-heads adhering to and making their ancient creeds fit with real everyday experiences.Red Expendablehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17121892990737841778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2699987188234610612.post-12763822760044766962008-07-23T15:28:00.000-05:002008-07-23T15:28:00.000-05:00Goddamn that's good beer<A HREF="http://magicanimation.com/misc/blog/Beer.jpg" REL="nofollow">Goddamn that's good beer</A>PhillyChiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03355892225956705948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2699987188234610612.post-32051793810632889722008-07-23T14:58:00.000-05:002008-07-23T14:58:00.000-05:00Why do you have to go on and on about food so clos...Why do you have to go on and on about food so close to supper time? <BR/><BR/>Sadists.Spanish Inquisitorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05261181794832002207noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2699987188234610612.post-49335154250598525572008-07-23T14:51:00.000-05:002008-07-23T14:51:00.000-05:00Philly:And, of course, to help wash the meal down,...Philly:<BR/>And, of course, to help wash the meal down, the government would have to provide some goddamned good beer.The Exterminatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14452054124550486048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2699987188234610612.post-50089717927526969572008-07-23T14:18:00.000-05:002008-07-23T14:18:00.000-05:00"I would have thought that you'd be about the last...<I>"I would have thought that you'd be about the last person to argue in favor of long-standing tradition."</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, but then you went into that "default" and "natural" business.<BR/><BR/><I>"If you want to suggest serving up executed criminals as supper for the poor, maybe I'll reconsider."</I><BR/><BR/>So you're open to "a modest proposal" are you? I hear humans taste like pork, so you know what that means - BBQ. The killing can also be on PPV, and the proceeds can go to supplies for bbq sauce, as well as cornbread, collard greens, baked beans, or whatever else the poor may need, like maybe lots of napkins. Bbq is messy.PhillyChiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03355892225956705948noreply@blogger.com