Really? I mean, just looking at GWB’s tenure as POTUS calls this question into assertion. Obama has been attacked nowhere near as much as GWB has.
…Of course, you’ll say he deserved it and yada yada, but that’s besides the point.
They aren’t applauding execution, per se; they’re applauding the idea of justice being served despite liberal attempts to thwart it.
Maybe they’re just cheering to demonstrate their conviction that Perry is a step up from W.'s mocking of the soon-to-be-executed.
I didn’t regard that so much as a mocking as an amusedly wry commentary on the irony of a woman who had shown so little mercy to her victims pleading for mercy herself.
When Bush said Texas had never executed an innocent man, I was offended. He was Gov. of a state that lined them up and killed them. He was responding to the Gov. of Illinois,Ryan, who actually was able to think and understand evidence. Perry is just as wrong. He is Bush II.
http://truthinjustice.org/haltdp.htm
There have been hundreds of people saved off death row with new evidence. Yet Texas has never had one?
Is there any evidence that support for the death penalty, or overseeing its implementation, has ever hurt a US candidate at the polls?
Pfft. Don’t be silly.
I was deeply ashamed at that display. Even if you support the death penalty, and for certain things it can be justified, everyone knows Texas’s system is not exactly rigorous on the question of being certain you’ve got the person who did the crime. Normal human fallibility isn’t even the question here. Mix a well-publicized awful crime + an ambitious or lazy or unscrupulous prosecutor + an indigent arrestee and you have a formula for killing someone who didn’t do the crime, which of course also means the person who did just might have gotten away with murder, making living in Texas doubly unsafe if you’re a law-abiding poor person in that sorry excuse for a republic.
Great reason to applaud. Is there any reason to give the Republicans any sort of respect anymore?
If there’s any surer path for Rick Perry to become president, it’s for Democratic supporters to sulk: “if that’s what America is really like, then I want no part of it.”
Not for Republicans. It got a huge cheer when Perry mentioned Texas had led the country in executions again. I think everybody must understand the system is flawed and innocent people get executed. But they did not care. I shuddered when I heard that cheer.
A Dem would have trouble getting the nomination if he was a big fan of executions.
Right wing talk radio, Rush and Beck, and Fox news are in the business of attacking Obama. They do it 24 hours a day ,7 days a week, every week. Bush had nothing like that.
I just want this to be as crystal clear as possible: is this your reaction to the behavior of that lynch mob that was attending the Republican debate?
Don’t lynch mobs normally want to hang people before they’re convicted?
And aren’t lynchings illegal?
I would submit that if you can’t argue your case without making ridiculous exaggerations you don’t have much of a case.
It’s not an exaggeration: you and those people know, to a dead certainty, that innocent people have been executed in Texas.
They clapped anyway, and you’re coming in, unbidden, to defend them.
Obama is attacked 24 hours a day, 7 days a week by one network outlet and a couple of radio shows. Bush’s intelligence and integrity and motivations were attacked relentlessly through both his terms by virtually all mainstream news and entertainment media and Hollywood. There really is no comparison as to which is the most influential. The fact that Barack Obama is sitting in the White House is testament enough to this, as without the media endlessly portraying McCain as “another Bush” and its ceaseless slavering desire to see a black man elected president whether he had the requisite experience or not, he never would have beaten Hillary for the Democratic nomination let alone been elected to office.
Many of us here who at the time questioned Obama’s experience and ability to govern effectively were derided by the very same people who are today expressing their disappointment in Obama’s lack of ability to govern. Had they not been suckered by the mainstream media and Hollywood into regarding him as the second coming, they likely would have recognized these shortcomings as well and Hillary Clinton would have been the nominee and most likely president.
I know no such thing, and I doubt that you know what they know either. But I do know that the executions were carried out legally and after appeal after appeal. Thus they are not “lynchings”, no matter how hysterically you care to characterize them that way.
It’s been my experience that most people who object to capital punishment on grounds that innocent people are being executed are simply against the death penalty period, and they are not only quick to proclaim innocence when innocence has not necessarily been established - such as in the case where some specific piece of evidence has proven to be in error yet overwhelming evidence of guilt remains - and they would still object to capital punishment even in cases where there is no question of guilt.
So with that in mind, let me ask you: would you support a system whereby execution took place only in the event of unquestioned guilt, or would you continue to oppose it even in cases where guilt is undeniable?
Obama ran a better campaign, and was a better candidate overall. This probably owes to the fact that Hilary had never been in a seriously contested election. She was the one lacking experience, and it showed.
- Undeniable guilt: Ain’t no such thing where human beings are concerned. However, if you go back to my first post on this subject, there are circumstances where I would not be averse to seeing someone swing. But that ain’t what we were talking about.
- What we WERE talking about, and what you are evidently trying to distract from, is that there is no possible way to execute 234 people over the course of about a decade without getting someone innocent caught up, that’s just probability. That’s BEFORE we even consider stuff like ambitious, unscrupulous, or just plain lazy prosecutors, human fallibility, and all the rest. You can’t execute at a clip of two a month and expect to get them all right, not unless you devote an extraordinary level of resources to making absolutely certain everything is exactly perfect. This simply cannot be done. You know it, I know it, and all those people who clapped know it.
A lynch mob really doesn’t care whether or not the guy swingin’ from the tree is guilty or not.
Ergo, taking this to its inevitable logical conclusion: they are all for executing as many innocent people as it takes to get at the ones who are guilty. That may be one, twenty one, or two hundred twenty one. Neither you nor they really care, because neither you nor they really know how many innocents swung to get the ones who were in fact guilty. No one knows. But they’re willing to clap, apparently, just at the mere mention that 234 people were executed over the past decade. *The mere mention. *
So, if they don’t really care whether or not any particular one of them is innocent or guilty, but would just as soon see 'em swing anyway, that would make them…
You can continue to argue all you wish. Me, I’m done with this particular argument, anyway. I really don’t care. I’m not interested in being polite at all. I’ve spent four years or so, between occasional stabs at making a living and all that, browsing right-wing forums and listening to right-wing folks talk amongst themselves. I have not in the least been surprised that all of the Republican candidates would fire Bernanke, that Perry thinks his actions are treasonous, that none of them or you give Obama credit for being a flawless Commander-in-Chief, which is really the only job a President has, that the Republican Congress was set to allow the US to default unless they got everything they wanted, etc.
None of this surprised me, because I know from the inside how you folks think, and that the way you present yourselves here is a very very polite version of what really goes on. The rest of the country got to see the not-so-polite version at the debates, when that applause broke out. We’ll see how the rest of the country reacts to that vicious display of mob behavior. Yes, that’s what it was, regardless of what you think. I’m ready to be disappointed by the country’s reaction, but I don’t think I will be.
I guess I can not relate to those people. They applauded executions wildly. Now letting a sick person die was applauded. If those are your peeps SA ,you can have them. I find then disgusting.
Hey, be fair now. It wasn’t just a random sick person dying that got the applause. It was a dirty, stinking Uninsured sick person.
You know, someone with a pre-existing condition, who could not buy health insurance. Or someone laid off from a company who lost his insurance. Or his child. You know, those leeches on society who suck at the government teat. They’re the ones who should die. Huzzah!
There are three news networks, of which only two ever ran any criticism at all of Bush. Two out of three is “virtually all”?