Sulaco

As you well know it not negotiable. Nor will it ever be. One doesn't put one's suicide on the table. The return requested would amount to suicide for ISrael. Palestinians have been making demands that cannot be met constantly. The leadership then uses Israel's expected refusal to make concessions on such demands as an excuse and rallying call to engage in perpetual warfare. Good for them but they shouldn't be listened to when they come a-cryin'.

Meaningless. Poland was at times divided into multiple polities. Mazovia and Silesia were at times independent. The Czech Republix is composed of parts and pieces of multiple countries. Romania used to be Transylvania and Wallachia. France comprises something like seven powerful ex-kingdoms. Spain was composed of two main kingdoms. The US includes the Confederate States, the ex Republics of Texas and California. So on so forth ad infinitum. What's not a "made up country."

I stated one part of it before. First, retribution against those who commit heinous crimes, for the victims and society as a whole, is a valid reason for continuing the death penalty. Second, society should always ahve an ultimate penalty simply to demostrate the most vigorous disapproval for the worst crimes. You take away the death penalty you might as well start scaling down all sentencing to fit the scales. Call it punishment deflation. This has occured in Europe - the death penalty went out the window and sentences begun falling after that. Third, multiple recent studies show that the death penalty acts as a substantial deterrent. Thems are the reasons. You have no evidence for this "massive railroading". This is merely an accusation based on your biases. Furthermore, what the heck are you talking about. The various States have always had vigorous appeals processes. Constitutional review has been and continues to be robust. Some defense attonreys would actually argue that constitutional protections have been eroded by the supreme court in the last 25 years. This is not "new case law". Defendant's have always ahd and continue to have opportunities to challange convictions. Those opportunities multiply as the seriousnes of the sentence rises because the system puts more resources into examining more serious cases. You're talking outta your ass.

That's not correct. The question is limited to the applicability of the "cruel and unusual" clause to a specific method of killing.

Yes. No. The Supreme Court of the United States is not supreme in all cases or on all issues. It wasn't meant to be and remains not.

Weren't they an ethnic group, long extinct, who resided somewhere near or on the current territory of Israel. Their name now being hijacked by upstart Arabs who believe in wiping out or subjugating any and all Jews in the Middle East?

Frankly the federales should keep their nose out of this issue as much as possible. It's a state issue and should be left up to individual states. What does "the US" mean in your statement anyway. How often wrong? How often "bungle"? What's the definition of "bungle"? Nothing cleaner than a very sharp, very heavy, quickly descenging, highly controlled blade - and a drainage basin. It seems even cleaner, simpler and more humane to release the person with a pat on the back.

The strawmen you put up are that a: the death penalty is a matter of expedience, and b: it is a matter of cost consideration. 10 years is the average length of time. On the short end - let's say 7 years, you hove those who run out of appeals quickly because there are few to no doubts about the procedures in investigation and trial. At the high end you have those who wait 15 yhears because the appealable issues in the prosecution of their cases are myriad. If you will - the less like the sentence is to be accurate the more likely the defendant will be on the high side of the spread. So you don't mind locking the inocent away forever with no possiblity of parole? A matter of degree but I am not sure you can claim any real moral high ground here. By the way - I am not sure jingoism means what you seem to think it means.

Again - no one believes its cheaper or more expedient. Stop nailing up strawmen. The reason is simple - some crimes deserve the retribution that the death penalty provides. Why your resistance to putting highly violent criminals to death?

9-15 years before excution (In Texas the average time a convict gets to put off the executionw hile going through the many appeals is 10 years - http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idU...30247320070813). Countless appeals - far more than any provided to a non-death penalty convict. You call that expediency? In fact, the American State justice systems afford far more post-conviction protections and error-checking opportunities to those who are sentenced to death than to those who are not. Your statement flies in the face of facts.

Well I support the death penalty. And I am looking at it.

Another is New York. Spitzer - it figures. Another is Connecticut. It figures. So on so forth.

Myata might be undergoing some confusion. If China ever reaches the same GDP as the US the number will still be meaningless in talking about catching up economically. Haven't people been saying for decades that these paragons of lefty virtue, these exemplars to the world, the powers who can stop the evil Americans, will catch up to the US within the decade. Ah - if dreams became reality what else could we hope for.

This is why I am calling for the return of the guillotine. Despite its grisliness the guillotine is the most "humane" method of execution ever invented. If lethal injection is rule cruel and inhumane I will start a blog on this wonderful French invention.

If you're gonna educate those who speak out of their asses you need to be more verbose. I am sure trex does not really know what a burqa is. I've never seen a picture of an iranian woman in a burqua. As far as I know it doesn't happen. Burquas are a Sunni fetish.

What rights did he take away? Please specify.

Small country - increasing interdependence. Highly autonomous regions. A very long history of confederation.

So in what sense is the US using oil and gas to bully others? Please expound. I mean really - do expound. The NED - it funds organizations. It doesn't send weapons, it doesn't send tunnel building expertise. it does not teach how to create crude nuclear weapons. It doesn not assassinate. It does not silence. In short - what Argus said.

Umm no - what is being discussed is which of the candidates appeals to whcih Republican sub-groups. Some will appeal to Social Cons, others to financial others to both but not at the same levels.

Umm --- no... As is always the case the battle is between the various ideological groups that make up the party (same as for the democrats). The question in the end will be which ideological groups prevail and/or which candidate appeals to the most voting members of the party - whether by striking the best policy compromises or by seeming most electable or both. It's not about who is "most Republican". Really - talking politics with you is like speaking with a 9th grader.

This answer demonstrates the inanity of the question.

The tragi-comic thing is that Syria does not look to you like "the bad guy" already. What twisted thinking. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hama_Massacre

NOOOOO!!! Not the Sandanistas. They good. Not bad. They victim of American pig-dog imperialism and counter-revolutionary kulaks from coasts. Their harbour mined long time.

Yes - Tibet's history has been whitewashed. Tibet was not the pretty place that we are currently being sold. On the other hand - The Han have a voracious apetite for land - and for assimilating other cultures via invasion and Hanitization.

I sure hope they prosecute the leaker. I am sure your position regarding leaks was similar when a leak exposed the various NSA activities and the NYT decided to report on them.