Perry has some 'splanin' to do...and he's trying his best to explain why he was so friendly with the Antichrist back then. But his Kool Aid drinkers will probably believe anything he tells them.
He let the state execute an innocent person. A person who he knew to almost certainly be innocent. And then had the inquiry which would have proved it shut down. Compared to that, who cares if he once supported Al Gore?
I've always said I'm a Republican. And pretty much everyone else on the right is consistent on what they are and think. And you've always been consistent in falsely claiming we redefine ourselves.
At this point, we are just fucked. Whether Obama remains in office or whether he gets ousted by one of these crazies... The best America can hope for is that the government will remain divided and in a state of gridlock. Without the power to pass any new bills or pursue any extreme agendas, the economy may possibly recover on its own.
The religious right does not have to stay out of politics. The whole principle of a democracy is that everyone gets their say, even if they are outside the mainstream of "approved" views. What the religious right needs is not to stay out of politics, but to understand the implications of their own theology. The "religious" right is in fact the Christian right. And Christianity, in the teachings of its founder, is one of the most choice-based religions there could be. The Christian right is not composed of people from what is called "multitudinous" churches, where you become a member by birth, but of churches where a personal profession of faith is necessary, based on your own free choice when you are no longer a child, to be part of it. Furthermore, they are strongly opposed to all teachings about salvation by works. They do not think that "doing the right thing" is enough to put a person right with God. If they would apply those principles to society, they would realize that true "Christian" values can never be forced on anyone and that it wouldn't actually do any good even if they could be. Thus, a "Christian right" that actually understood Christianity would be libertarian as far as society is concerned, uninterested in any attempts to require non-Christians to conform to Christian moral values. I have been telling this to conservative Christians for over 30 years, but I don't get many listeners. They just look at me like I'm some kind of heretical weirdo...
You may not have noticed you've become the exception around here. And I wasn't talking about Republicans who still consider themselves Republicans, but those who've restyled themselves, sometimes more than once. So it isn't always about you.
Yeah here's the rest you forgot to quote: " And pretty much everyone else on the right is consistent on what they are and think. And you've always been consistent in falsely claiming we redefine ourselves. "
How have I redefined myself, garamet? I've always been an independent and ripped on every president for the last 150 years. At least I'm consistent.
I've shifted my views, thus I've shifted my allegiances. Perfectly rational. but when I was mostly Republican, there were very few Republicans i liked and even fewer I voted for. I was a Republican for want of a better option.
That was pretty much my experience as well. I used to say: "I vote Republican because the Republicans are slowly destroying this country. The Democrats would do it much quicker." The Republicans have become speedier, though...
I will vote Republican when they nominate a candidate who actually acts like what they claim to be. That hasn't happened in a long time. I will not vote for Rick Perry, I would rather have 4 more years of Obama. If the Republicans don't want to be the party of small government then they do not deserve to be elected. At least the democrats aren't pretending. Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to vote Democrat either, it will probably be another Ron Paul write in. It's too bad the Republican party can't win an election without the religious whackos.
The Democrats also need their version of "religious wackos" of the Jesse Jackson/Al Shapton/Jim Wallis types.
As if being reminiscent in multiple dimensions of George W. Bush, executing innocent people, and throwing threats at federal officials weren’t bad enough, the success of Perry’s economic record is hardly beyond argument. Texas’ unemployment rate has been pretty much par with states like New York and Massachusetts. The nominal numbers for job creation have been the result of population surges.
It isn't the job of the governor to endlessly second guess the police, prosecutors, and jury who have access to all the evidence and have heard all the arguments.
So when faulty wiring burns your family to death and you're sentenced to death do you not think the Governor should take the time to see if your execution is just before letting it proceed? In my opinion this is one of the most, or even the most important part of the job of Governor in a death penalty state. It's not like there are so many executions that he couldn't spend a few hours reviewing each one. I couldn't go to sleep at night knowing that there was a chance I was allowing an innocent man to be put to death and I had the power to stop it. The thing is, once you kill them you can't undo that, so what is the harm in staying the execution to take a closer look at the evidence. If the state is going to have the power to take a life shouldn't we be extra cautious that the human being who's life we're taking is actually guilty of what we're using as a reason for taking it? I can't think of a logical reason not to have looked into the 2 cases mentioned in this thread. Experts say the fire wasn't arson, that is enough for Hypothetical-Governor Tex to commute the death sentence into a life sentence at the very least, and more likely given a real thorough review actually pardoning the man in that case. In the 2nd case I can't think of a logical reason why the Governor would want to block DNA evidence that may stop an innocent man from dying. For that matter I can't understand how a Dallas County DA can sleep at night knowing that once they started DNA testing and it showed that the man they were putting on trial was probably not guilty they would stop the testing immediately. The job of the prosecutor is not to convict, it is to seek justice. The men involved in coverups of exonerating evidence should be put on trial themselves. It is literally a life and death issue. What possible argument can you make that it shouldn't be treated with the utmost importance by everyone involved from the DA to the Governor?
In the case about the man who burned his daughters to death and was executed for it, serious questions about the quality of forensic evidence in that case were not raised until 8 months AFTER his execution. I doubt Governor Perry had the skills to look into the value of forensic evidence or double check the conclusions of arson investigators. By the way, there have been more than 200 executions in Texas since Perry has been governor. Or about 20 per year. Taking "a few hours" for each one would end up being a substantial portion of the governors time. And what makes you think that a governor who has no law enforcement or legal experience can locate anything in a case in "a few hours" that police, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and the jury DID NOT find over the course of months of investigations and weeks of trial?
Wasn't Dayton saying a while back how he would be fighting the guards violently if due to be executed himself?
I think anyone should fight death if at all possible. that has absolutely nothing to do with the governor of a state spending a "few hours" reviewing a death penalty case in some pointless attempt to find something not found by trained professionals and a legitimately chosen jury and a judge whose job it is to ensure that justice is done. When Tex argues that a governor should spend a "few hours" reviewing the case of each criminal who has received the death penalty before setting an execution date.... ....he is NOT arguing for any kind of serious review. He is basically arguing in favor of doing just enough salve your conscience. Personally, if I had to set an execution date for someone, my conscience might be clear but I do think it would bother me not matter how many times I reviewed it.
False. The arson expert completed his investigation four days before the execution date and Willingham's attorney filed a series of emergency last-minute appeals. I don't see what the harm would've been in delaying the execution while the new information was reviewed. It's not like Willingham was going anywhere.
Don't tell me what I'm arguing for, I think it's pretty clear I would like a real review. The thing is that most of the cases are quite clear cut and would not even take a few hours to review. But when something does come up that does need extra time for the experts to explain things and damn well expect the governor to take the time to do it. I'm not sure it actually would bother you at all, you clearly have no problem with Rick Perry's willful resistance of exonerating evidence, willingness to potentially kill innocent people, and coverup of his actions. You're not the good person you would like to believe if you can turn a blind eye when presented with logic and reason in the name of politics.
Did you vote for Rick Perry? If not, then "YOU" did not elect him to anything. Are we hearing any complaints about Governor Perry from someone that voted for him? And actually your math fails once you consider only hours on the job and only time spent inside the borders of TX. Because IIRC, a Texas governor cannot legally conduct state business (including a stay of execution) if he is outside of the state (correct me if I'm wrong).
