Jump to content


Full Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

Community Reputation

778 Excellent

About hpslugga

  • Birthday 02/09/1984

Recent Profile Visitors

809 profile views
  1. Yeah the only way that could happen is if KC makes a shitload of turnovers
  2. 1). You're projecting. Everything that you have posted has been 100% rooted in emotion and emotionalism. If you took out the emotionalism of your posts, you'd wind up with a white screen. 2). What I've said about it hasn't a drop of influence over what TwiceHorn, hobbes, or anyone else has said to you about this feeble nonsense that you've spewed onto this discussion. They knew it was verbal effluvia before I had word one to say about it. 3). Yes, it absolutely is about bloodlust and I haven't given a single "emotional novel" on that topic. What I've given is reason and fact-based: you have not defended your claims a single iota about this not being based on a lust for blood. You have danced around this topic since you started, and all you've done in "defense" of your claim is simply to restate it without giving specifics as to how to overcome the very obvious problems of implementing such an abhorrent policy. You've literally been absolutely wrong about absolutely everything you've said regarding this topic, and my emotional temperature has had jack shit to do with it. You knew better than to puke out such garbled drivel. You aren't advancing a serious policy proposal, you aren't advocating a pathway of how to arrive at same, you aren't engaging in a serious dialogue, you are not defending what you say with research and analysis supported by peer review; you are just hooting. If you were as certain as you pretend to be that what you "propose" would pan out the way you say it will, and that it would serve as a societal good, you would illustrate the why's and how's, and you'd do so with evidence. You don't do any of that. And if you're going to come back at that comment with "I said it was a fantasy," then leave it there because such an admission is also a confession to its pointlessness and uselessness.
  3. The fact that you repeat this lie over and over does nothing to mitigate the claim. This is a label that a DP advocate will never be able to shake: their position is entirely predicated on a lust for blood. I've seen it done so many times by so many of them, and they have been absolutely wrong about absolutely everything they've said regarding the topic from start to finish. It's based entirely on emotion. Thus far, you've given no objectively verifiable criteria to serve as a guide to separate the "clear cut" cases from the not-so-obvious. All you've given are vague, empty platitudes. What you're proposing isn't a plan; it's a wish upon a star. And that's not just rhetoric, either. A plan involves an actual plan. A plan includes within it a tangible, feasible, and above all, realistic road map to start where we are end where you, in this case, want to be. You have not done so. Calling what you're talking about a "plan" is as responsible as calling "let's have peace, justice, and equality" a "plan."
  4. What does that even mean? Again, what does this even mean? This sounds grotesquely close to the insipid "we need to tackle the drug issue head on" rhetoric I've heard from so many pro-Drug War people. How much faster do you seriously think the process can go? Do you have any idea what all goes into it?
  5. If that were true, then you're admitting that it's an absolutely pointless discussion. As long as we're to entertain such inane and inarticulate hypotheticals, what's to stop a much more learned person outdoing you by going the very easy extra step of saying "if I were king, I'd direct every single scientist on Earth to come up with something with which to infuse our DNA to such an extent that committing crime in general would be both instinctively and reflectively viewed by the one contemplating such acts as repugnant, therefore there'd be no crime at all." What you're proposing is precisely as useless as that. And notice, I wouldn't oppose such a hypothetical (the DNA one, not your Game of Thrones nonsense). It's just that I'd waste not a microsecond of time contemplating it because it's so preposterous as to be comic. Parole is denied to those convicted of First Degree Murder in 20 of the 21 states with no death penalty (red Alaska is the only one that doesn't, for some reason). As to media attention, that matters not. If media attention is what drives you to support the death penalty, you're just digging around a metaphorical dumpster to support it, whether it be in a real world or a Make Believe and Pretend one. Media attention is a superficial consideration. That's just you.
  6. If anyone isn't reading what you post, it's you. You continue to insist on using arguments that not only are completely, indefensibly false, but you've been told that they're indefensibly false and you do absolutely nothing to defend yourself. You just keep repeating the same preposterous claims for which you've already been busted multiple times. Yes, and I'd be fucking Kate Upton on a bed of satin sheets near a fountain being tended to by a bunch of flying angels every time one of them was executed. It's easy to argue when you assert ridiculous absurdities as fact. Life in prison accomplishes that. Again, you won't even defend yourself on that reality. You just keep repeating these fraudulent claims. Right because Steve Avery and Rodney Reed are the reasons that the system is the way that it is, and the system clearly contemplated those two during their formation. Again, you're living in a world of Make Believe and asserting it as a reality.
  7. That and there's still an appeals process that's inevitable when it comes to life with no parole. It's not like murder cases in any of the 21 states without death as an option are quick, easy, and terminate after the initial verdict is announced. Appeals is part of the process and that should never be used as an excuse to justify the DP.
  8. Closure isn't. Labelling the 14 years between the initial crime to the execution as a "tormenting" for the victim's family is most certainly about blood lust. What do you think the murderer was doing all 14 of those years? Walking the streets as a free man until one day he got a call from the state that said "pardon me, good sir, but would you kindly please report to Huntsville by midnight tonight? I realize this probably didn't fit your schedule today, but we need to carry out a death sentence against you by 12:00 AM. Charge it please, and thank you very much" like Eloise? But that's not what you said before. You said that the family was being tormented while this guy was rotting in a cell.
  9. Again, you're appealing to a lust for blood. That's not good enough.
  10. And it's in this context that the DP will never be a deterrent, nor could it. Murder cases are a bitch to solve. That's not to say that it's easy to get away with murder, but it does suggest that a fair number of people can think that it is, and that's all that matters: if the perpetrator can convince himself/herself that they can get away with what they intend to do, they're going to do it. A death penalty cannot stop that.
  11. Yes, you are thumping your chest because you know full well that's not how the law works. More specifically, you know full well why that's not how the law works. This is all an exercise of Make Believe and Pretend.
  12. You don't even know what common sense is. You're thumping your chest, not proposing common sense. "Everyone knows he did it" How? And how often do you really think murder cases are that black-and-white, open-and-shut easy?
Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Recruiting ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Help ... For Sale ... Politics ... Board Discussion
  • Create New...