Bank Error In My Favor

[SBriand 4]

look at you using the census as some way to prove your point. Census is just a liberal head counting scam!

[Balloon guy 158]

None of this makes any sense. I'm talking about why life in prison makes more sense as a punishment than the death penalty. What about that don't you understand? And, once again, your dependence on ranting about "liberal catch phrases" just makes your arguments sound silly.

You have made no effort to prove that your 'sense' of life in prison is better than killing them for their heinous crimes.No effort at all.

You...you're really questioning whether, over the lifespan of our criminal justice system, there have been thousands of people wrongly convicted who are either in prison now or ended up dying there? Really? You need me to prove that to you?

Yes, should be easy because you once again are implying that its a known fact. Please use either graphs, or at least a nice pie chart with colors favoring reds. This should be a real softball for you, just an easy hit it out of the park with a snazzy report that proves that thousands of people are currently in prison unjustly. ( not for being wrongly tried, no 'they didn't follow procedure so they get a pass on the crime they committed, only actual innocent people who are serving time who are guilty of nothing. )I'll even allow you to go back 5 decades, since this will give you mucho data, going back farther is not reasonable since Chicago democrats used jails as a political tool for voter intimidation etc and you could skew the results from that city alone.

[Balloon guy 158]

Read my lips...

Ahhh a cute catch phrase favored by liberals even though they have no ability to understand what happened..Bush signed a democrat bill that included increasing existing taxes. The democrats changed the tax laws that reduced the allowed write offs for second homes. This resulted in the collapse of the Savings and Loans.So the DEMOCRAT bill that Bush signed RUINED the economy, and the Dems blame Bush for allowing THEM to ruin the economy.And you guys bring it up all the time. "Hey remember when we used political trickery to force Bush to allow us to ruin the economy? Man those were good times"Besides, we didn't vote him back in for allowing existing taxes to be raised ( there were no 'new taxes' which is what he said in his Read My Lips sentence). And for allowing the democrats to ruin the economy and created the future system of banks 'too big to fail'So Read My Lips is probably the single greatest failure of the democrat party ever. Thanks for reminding me why Democrats are completely unable to do anything correct ever and should be placed in prison for life for their destruction of so many lives through their misguided policies.

[Balloon guy 158]

look at you using the census as some way to prove your point. Census is just a liberal job creating to reduce unemployment numbers scam!

FYP

[speedz99 145]

You have made no effort to prove that your 'sense' of life in prison is better than killing them for their heinous crimes.No effort at all.

What? I'd like to kill the ones who actually committed the "heinous crimes". I'm referring to the ones who didn't actually commit the crimes. You're getting more and more confused as we go along...it's like you don't actually read what I write, you kind of mesh together my words to say what you assume I want to say.

Yes, should be easy because you once again are implying that its a known fact. Please use either graphs, or at least a nice pie chart with colors favoring reds. This should be a real softball for you, just an easy hit it out of the park with a snazzy report that proves that thousands of people are currently in prison unjustly. ( not for being wrongly tried, no 'they didn't follow procedure so they get a pass on the crime they committed, only actual innocent people who are serving time who are guilty of nothing. )I'll even allow you to go back 5 decades, since this will give you mucho data, going back farther is not reasonable since Chicago democrats used jails as a political tool for voter intimidation etc and you could skew the results from that city alone.

Well, the trick here is that I'll only be able to find these numbers on websites you won't like. Obviously a conservative website isn't going to publish them, so you'd have to be willing to admit that a website like the one for The Innocence Project, which uses DNA evidence to exonerate innocent prisoners (something that everyone should be totally behind), wouldn't just make up statistics like the ones below:

There have been 271 post-conviction DNA exonerations in United States history. These stories are becoming more familiar as more innocent people gain their freedom through postconviction testing. They are not proof, however, that our system is righting itself.The common themes that run through these cases — from global problems like poverty and racial issues to criminal justice issues like eyewitness misidentification, invalid or improper forensic science, overzealous police and prosecutors and inept defense counsel — cannot be ignored and continue to plague our criminal justice system. •Seventeen people had been sentenced to death before DNA proved their innocence and led to their release. •The average sentence served by DNA exonerees has been 13 years.•About 70 percent of those exonerated by DNA testing are members of minority groups.•In almost 40 percent of DNA exoneration cases, the actual perpetrator has been identified by DNA testing.•Exonerations have been won in 34 states and Washington, D.C.

DNA evidence only came into play in the last two decades. So, if you'd like to give me five decades, it's fair to say that there would have been around 700 DNA exonerations. And, realistically, there would be more than that for the decade or two in that time period when it was relatively easy to convict any random black guy (liberals LOVE the blacks!) for any crime in the south. Then add in the fact that of course there are more cases in which there was no DNA evidence.You really think that wouldn't all add up to four figures? Really? You're in that much denial?And, for the record, it's not like I think our criminal justice system is totally horrendous...it's run by humans, of course there are flaws and mistakes will be made. Which is why shutting the door on someone through the death penalty is a poor choice, as there will always be people proven innocent after the time when an execution would have taken place. Stop trying to deny that fact, it's ridiculous. If you're ok with a few innocent people being put to death for the sake of executing a lot of people who truly deserved it, that's fine. Just admit it and we can move on.

[speedz99 145]

I can't even take a joke anymore.

You're too easy. But I appreciated the effort anyway.

[Balloon guy 158]

What? I'd like to kill the ones who actually committed the "heinous crimes". I'm referring to the ones who didn't actually commit the crimes. You're getting more and more confused as we go along...it's like you don't actually read what I write, you kind of mesh together my words to say what you assume I want to say.

But you are arguing that I my position is different than yours, since your position is that the truly guilty are worthy of being put to death, then to disagree with me you must be saying: I am for killing innocent people, or that I am saying no person on death row is innocent or ever has been ever. Which is it?

Well, the trick here is that I'll only be able to find these numbers on websites you won't like. Obviously a conservative website isn't going to publish them, so you'd have to be willing to admit that a website like the one for The Innocence Project, which uses DNA evidence to exonerate innocent prisoners (something that everyone should be totally behind), wouldn't just make up statistics like the ones below:

Ah the simple minded excuse that conservatives don't want truth, only propaganda...from people who are 100% fooled by the propaganda from their own side...it's sweeter than honey.

DNA evidence only came into play in the last two decades. So, if you'd like to give me five decades, it's fair to say that there would have been around 700 DNA exonerations. And, realistically, there would be more than that for the decade or two in that time period when it was relatively easy to convict any random black guy (liberals LOVE the blacks!) for any crime in the south. Then add in the fact that of course there are more cases in which there was no DNA evidence.

So the 'system' has been improving itself to prove the guilt or innocence of people. This is the same system that allows for a decade of appeals for people on death row. I'm not sure how you guys can argue that the system kills innocent people all the time while admitting that it is imp[roving and giving all chances possible to the condemned?Edit: I am curious if all these 'exonerations' were for people on death row? Cause if it was for people not scheduled to die, then using their numbers would be moot to the discussion. The report by Columbia in 2000 arguing against the death penalty in fact proved that there have been no people put to death who were innocent in the last 25 years.

You really think that wouldn't all add up to four figures? Really? You're in that much denial?

Well the prison population has increased exponentially in this country's history, so trying to argue that the number of innocent people in jail now is equal when there were considerably fewer inmates makes your position weak. Basic math you did didn't reach one thousand, you quoted 'thousands and thousands'

And, for the record, it's not like I think our criminal justice system is totally horrendous...it's run by humans, of course there are flaws and mistakes will be made. Which is why shutting the door on someone through the death penalty is a poor choice, as there will always be people proven innocent after the time when an execution would have taken place. Stop trying to deny that fact, it's ridiculous. If you're ok with a few innocent people being put to death for the sake of executing a lot of people who truly deserved it, that's fine. Just admit it and we can move on.

I 100% deny this '''''fact''''. This is a made up phrase to try to allow you to argue an impossible position. There is no way I believe that we can never be 'sure' about a persons guilt of innocence. We already place huge conditions on the possibility of the death penalty even being allowed in a murder case. So before we even begin we are placing huge restrictions on the prosecutors. Then we have a 'fair trial' followed by years and years of appeals. We also have groups like the one you quoted who make it their jobs to find innocent people to free ( using tax dollars to do this, they are still lawyers after all )So yes, I believe that we can have enough assurance of a person's guilt to fry em. And if there is any reasonable doubt ( not liberal doubt, but actual based on reality doubt ) then I am fine with life without parole in solitary confinement.

[Balloon guy 158]

You're too easy. But I appreciated the effort anyway.

One of us jumped off the 'joke for joke' train....and it wasn't me ( first )

[speedz99 145]

I'm sometimes baffled by the joke train, sorry.Be back later with more propaganda, only to be fed the other side's propaganda, which is basically just saying that I've been fed propaganda. The circle of life.

[Balloon guy 158]

I'm sometimes baffled by the joke train, sorry.Be back later with more propaganda, only to be fed the other side's propaganda, which is basically just saying that I've been fed propaganda. The circle of life.

Here's a propaganda site to short cut the procedure for you.Feel free to discredit their assertions.

[AmScray 355]

I'm not arguing most products being sold have merit, I am arguing that most products farmer's actually buy have merit, based on their being smarter than most people.No reason for salesmen to try to fool the intelligent while there are so many democrats/Canadians around giving them easy targets.

OK then, I agree with all of this.

[mrdannyg 274]

Here's a propaganda site to short cut the procedure for you.Feel free to discredit their assertions.

Thankfully they mainly discredit themselves. Point 3 -speedz' main assertion, is "discredited" thusly:"After reviewing 23 years of capital sentences, the study’s authors (like other researchers) were unable to find a single case in which an innocent person was executed. Thus, the most important error rate -- the rate of mistaken executions -- is zero."That is purposeful misstatement. The point of these studies is not to determine innocence, it is to determine a lack of guilt. You know what? My space bar isn't working properly, so typing out a proper response is too annoying. I'll let someone else vaguely familiar with science or the law demonstrate the obvious purposeful misstatements in that section. If you cannot figure out for yourself why that "correction" is meaningless, than your reading comprehension is worse than the 8 (edit: and a half!) year old who I just asked to read it, and let me know if he thought it had logical issues.

[Balloon guy 158]

Thankfully they mainly discredit themselves. Point 3 -speedz' main assertion, is "discredited" thusly:"After reviewing 23 years of capital sentences, the study’s authors (like other researchers) were unable to find a single case in which an innocent person was executed. Thus, the most important error rate -- the rate of mistaken executions -- is zero."That is purposeful misstatement. The point of these studies is not to determine innocence, it is to determine a lack of guilt. You know what? My space bar isn't working properly, so typing out a proper response is too annoying. I'll let someone else vaguely familiar with science or the law demonstrate the obvious purposeful misstatements in that section. If you cannot figure out for yourself why that "correction" is meaningless, than your reading comprehension is worse than the 8 (edit: and a half!) year old who I just asked to read it, and let me know if he thought it had logical issues.

?They would be hand in hand wouldn't they?Once they are in the system, which is what this study was pointing out.Before they get into the system is your point I think...it doesn't apply.

[brvheart 1,755]

Almost every farmer I currently know has a four year degree, but I still agree with most of what Speedz said.

[mrdannyg 274]

?They would be hand in hand wouldn't they?Once they are in the system, which is what this study was pointing out.Before they get into the system is your point I think...it doesn't apply.

No. I'm no lawyer, but innocence and guilt have to be proven. A lack of proof of guilt is not the same as innocence. This study pretends it is. The majority of the "68%" are absolutely just procedural errors and guilt is unchanged. But an appeals court would never determine innocence, so the article pretends there is no difference between those "not guilty" changes that are minor, and where the actual guilt is legitimately in question.Kudos to you for actually arguing with me, since I am one of the few you could legitimately call a liberal ideologue making little to no factual arguments.

[Balloon guy 158]

No. I'm no lawyer, but innocence and guilt have to be proven. A lack of proof of guilt is not the same as innocence. This study pretends it is. The majority of the "68%" are absolutely just procedural errors and guilt is unchanged. But an appeals court would never determine innocence, so the article pretends there is no difference between those "not guilty" changes that are minor, and where the actual guilt is legitimately in question.Kudos to you for actually arguing with me, since I am one of the few you could legitimately call a liberal ideologue making little to no factual arguments.

The study in question is a "This is why the death penalty is bad" study. The refuting of their points is just a paper by a guy with an above average IQ..also known as a conservative.The point they made was that in 68% of the death penalty trials, they found 'errors' implying that the trials were not factual enough to kill someone found guilty of heinous crimes, but this 'finding' of 68% of the times included silly nothing 'errors' like forgetting to do some procedural paperwork, or having a lower court review their findings, all standard methods any lawyer filing an appeal would request.As a result of all these 'so called errors' not one time was a person who was executed found to be innocent.So I am not sure what you are claiming, because the persons in question in these studies was no longer innocent until proven guilty, they are all guilty until proven innocent however.

[AmScray 355]

It's impossible to determine the likelihood of guilt or innocence, after the fact, based on court transcripts or evidence documents.In the vast majority of cases, guilt is a pretty well established thing in terms of inarguable facts.In other cases, it relies on things like "witnesses being right" or "the police telling the truth". I realize your insistence on trusting your fellow man combined with a conservative bend probably leads you to believe that Police are White Knights, but in many places, cop culture is hardly much better than the culture of any other gang, including the ones they arrest. They will lie, cheat and steal at will, including under oath, in cases that involve the death penalty. After being on the job for enough time, cops start to believe that they have an 'insight' into the human condition that others don't- and in many respects, this is absolutely true- but sadly, it usually devolves into them thinking their 'hunches' mean more than evidence and that railroading certain people they 'feel' to be guilty is for the net benefit of society... and even more sadly, that's absolutely true, too, but from time to time, they screw up and get someone totally innocent.You don't want to be a 19 year old black kid with a criminal record wearing a red shirt, walking around a neighborhood in proximity to a rape that just occurred, perpetrated by a 16-24 year old black kid wearing a red shirt. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Burge

[FCP Bob 1,320]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Burge

So his speciality was using a cattle prod to get confessions.

[ShakeZuma 585]

just want to point out that most farmers I know are fucking idiots

[AmScray 355]

So his speciality was using a cattle prod to get confessions.

Or, small crank generators from old style telephones with the wires attached to their balls, face, using high watt hairdryers to roast their skin, etc, etc... My kinda guy, albeit a bit amateurish. I've always thought that a TENS machine would have superb applications in this role. I have one and if you were to put the electrodes on the testicles of someone who doesn't know what it is and suddenly crank it up to 10, they're gunna sing like a ****ing canary.This idea that terrorists are so hardened, they "won't talk" and provide actionable information by way of torture just isn't true. There is no man on this earth who I couldn't make talk and snitch out his own mother... and clandestine government operatives are much better at it than I would be.

[mrdannyg 274]

The study in question is a "This is why the death penalty is bad" study. The refuting of their points is just a paper by a guy with an above average IQ..also known as a conservative.The point they made was that in 68% of the death penalty trials, they found 'errors' implying that the trials were not factual enough to kill someone found guilty of heinous crimes, but this 'finding' of 68% of the times included silly nothing 'errors' like forgetting to do some procedural paperwork, or having a lower court review their findings, all standard methods any lawyer filing an appeal would request.As a result of all these 'so called errors' not one time was a person who was executed found to be innocent.So I am not sure what you are claiming, because the persons in question in these studies was no longer innocent until proven guilty, they are all guilty until proven innocent however.

"Not guilty" is different than "innocent." Proving someone innocent is never a goal in a trial - they try to prove beyond a reasonable doubt they are not guilty. I'm not referring to the 68% of trials where there are errors. I'm referring to a small subset of those where the person is found not guilty.You are assuming that because your link says no one is found innocent, no guilty verdicts were overturned. That is probably not the case - your link conveniently ignores that by implying that because no one was found innocent, they are therefore guilty. What that conveniently leaves out is a few of those cases where the verdict was overturned due to findings like the one Amscray links, and not just procedural errors to be reviewed by lower courts, etc.

just want to point out that most farmers I know are fucking idiots

I work in agricultural commercial lending. Maybe a third of these small-medium farmers have university degrees. Most of their children do though, so at least the new generation is getting smarter.

[AmScray 355]

I work in agricultural commercial lending.

So, wait... That really is you in the avatar?

[mrdannyg 274]

So, wait... That really is you in the avatar?

Since I'm a sucker for punishment...why do you associate agricultural commercial lending with that picture?

[hblask 1]

just want to point out that most farmers I know are fucking idiots

I grew up in the heart of America's Dairyland... and I don't know whether to agree with this or not. My dad dropped out of school after grade school and was a farmer his whole life. But he was the original McGyver. He could get a broken combine running with a bent piece of metal and some wire. I think if he had cared about school he could've aced it, but he loved farming. (Plus, he started at a different time in America, when the family farm was still a prestigious way to go through life.)The only guy I know who is currently farming is a physics major. If you talk to him for a few minutes, he just oozes small-town redneck. If you talk to him for an hour, you start to see that physics guy. But mostly, you'd think redneck. He hides his brains well.Most farmers now are employees of corporations, there are very few actual farmers left.

[AmScray 355]

Since I'm a sucker for punishment...why do you associate agricultural commercial lending with that picture?

It would explain why a Jew might wear a mustache and hat like that- to trick the farmers into believing you're "one of them". Too bad about the nose.