• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Justice Elena Kagan's first vote is against an execution

ReverendHellh0und

I don't respect you.
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
79,903
Reaction score
20,981
Location
I love your hate.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian




yeah yeah. kagen voting the liberal line, that was expected.


But read the last line quoted......



 
Wow a recorde of one vote...one whole vote.....
 
As in could leave him not dead and sufferring terribly for hours while they freak out in the execution room wondering how to kill him when all the drugs are used and everyone watching starts screaming and crying etc etc.

Trying mighty hard to find something wrong with her voting as expected.
 
You two, please read that I didn't expect her to vote any other way, and don't really care. It was just humorus as to why. :shrug:
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
You two, please read that I didn't expect her to vote any other way, and don't really care. It was just humorus as to why. :shrug:
Click to expand...

But it is silly to claim she is "voting the liberal line" when she has only voted once. Her record suggest there will be occasions when she may break with the liberals on the court. However, no one has really claimed she is anything other than a liberal. A moderate liberal probably, but still a liberal.
 




really guys, I expect her to vote the liberal line, thats her prerogative and what Obama would have chosen her.. Don't care. I thought it notable we were worried about the "saftey" of killin drugs. :doh:
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
really guys, I expect her to vote the liberal line, thats her prerogative and what Obama would have chosen her.. Don't care. I thought it notable we were worried about the "saftey" of killin drugs. :doh:
Click to expand...


Well a lot of people in government seem to be worried about Americans buying Canadian drugs.
 
What's wrong with just shooting him in the head? Quick and painless, fo sho.
 
Anyhows American drugs should be killing American prisoners. Not crappy eurotrash **** !!!:mrgreen:
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
really guys, I expect her to vote the liberal line, thats her prerogative and what Obama would have chosen her.. Don't care. I thought it notable we were worried about the "saftey" of killin drugs. :doh:
Click to expand...

But you made the other line in your post, so it's reasonable to comment on it. Yes, worrying about the safety of a killing drug sounds amusing, but their is an underlying point to it. Not sure I agree with that point, but I do not know the details of the case in question either.
 
I find lethal injection lacking as an execution method. Drugs are inherently unpredictable in addition to being expensive and complicated to administer. A mechanical machine that delivers massive and precise trauma to the brain would likely be more reliable, painless and cheaper.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
environmental impact of lead discharge. DUH.
Click to expand...

Then I guess we should just use a crossbow instead. After all, it's the most fiscally responsible desion to begin with considering one arrow can be used multiple times.
 
Goof Noodle said:
After all, it's the most fiscally responsible desion to begin with considering one arrow can be used multiple times.
Click to expand...

<nerd> Crossbows use bolts, actually. </nerd>
 
Guy Incognito said:
<nerd> Crossbows use bolts, actually. </nerd>
Click to expand...

<nerd>Great tinfoil hat by the way. Is that from the episode where they graduate from their education beds and Hank wants to become a member of The Sphinx?</nerd>

Back to the conversation at hand...
 
:lamo That last line is golden. How moronic. If it's goal is to kill the person, the only way it's not "safe for intended use" would be if it was ineffective right?
 
FilmFestGuy said:
<nerd>Great tinfoil hat by the way. Is that from the episode where they graduate from their education beds and Hank wants to become a member of The Sphinx?</nerd>
Click to expand...

Nice! Glad to see another Venture Bros. fan here Actually I think it is from the first season episode where Brock, was trapped in the virtual reality machine and Dr. Orpheus had to rescue them.

But I could be wrong about that, I found it on a google image search.
 
digsbe said:
:lamo That last line is golden. How moronic. If it's goal is to kill the person, the only way it's not "safe for intended use" would be if it was ineffective right?
Click to expand...

As previously mentioned, there's the possibility that it doesn't kill them, and instead leaves them in horrendous pain and severe brain damage. I guess you'd have to read the actual trial documents to know for sure, but to assume someone's reasoning is moronic before knowing their reasoning at all is a bit silly in a court-of-law context. I can't tell you how many times I've heard a decision and thought "Wait, what the hell?" only then to read the supporting argument and go "Ooohhh... hadn't thought of that."
 
I am conducting a study, I'm going around to every thread seeing if they all eventually melt into a conservative/republican vs liberal/democrat fight. This one hasn't melted yet, per se, but I see the potential after just reading the first page of post.
 
digsbe said:
:lamo That last line is golden. How moronic. If it's goal is to kill the person, the only way it's not "safe for intended use" would be if it was ineffective right?
Click to expand...

If the drugs weren't safe to ... if they weren't effective it might lead to his... oh screw it. I can't even make it sound sillier than it already is. Can't we dust off the "chair" and use that or is that dangerous to use too?
 

I'm not sure how executions there are preformed. But this is how it goes (or at least what I was taught.) They anesthetize you, then they inject you with a muscle paralyzer (causing you to suffocate to death if the next injection doesn't kill you). Lastly, they typically inject the criminal with a potassium supplement to force cardiac arrest. The drug in question was sodium thiopental, which is used as an anesthetic. It doesn't matter, if the anesthetic gives you brain damage, the rest of the drugs will kill you. Regardless, I haven't seen a valid reason to doubt why the British company shouldn't be trusted.
 
The drug does not cause brain damage, but autopsy studies have revealed that there are commonly insufficient amounts in the tissue to guarantee complete anaesthesia. This in turn raises the prospect of someone being conscious and aware when they are paralysed with the pancuronium, then their cardiac function is arrested with potassium chloride. The process usually takes 10 minutes, but can last 30 to 40.
 

In that case, they know that that is a bad product and won't use it.

Trying mighty hard to find synpathy for a murderer who strangled his victim.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…