Elephantman said this: 'There is simply no comparative basis by which someone could seriously argue that lethal injection is "cruel and unusual," unless the precept was that ALL death sentences are cruel and unusual. And we know that the Founders did not believe that all death sentences were cruel and unusual.'

I'm wondering whether or not you actually read the article before you started trying to smear liberals with your typical 'don't let the facts get in the way of a good argument' method.

IF the chemicals are not correctly measured out & used, the prisoner will feel the effects of being slowly suffocated over the span of approx 5 minutes. Also, IF the prisoner is not unconcious by the time the last chemical is given, they will feel burning in whatever veins the last chemical moves though (until they are dead).

I'm pretty sure that if you explained that to one of our founding fathers, they would have been able to see that this would be a 'cruel & unusual' punishment (suffocating for a period of minutes followed by burning inside your body).

There used to be a method of execution where they piled stones on a slab that your body was under until you suffocated. That was outlawed many, many years ago (before our country was founded). What I described above is just a chemical version of the same thing (with the vein burning added in extra).

I personally don't believe that the condemned should feel no pain in their execution. I just think it should be pretty quick & not be horribly painful (example: being dropped into lava would certainly be quick, but would be too painful to be a methos of execution, IMO).

Feel free to twist my arguments around to make whatever stupid point you usually try to make.

My point was that Lethal Injection (when administered as intended) is not 'cruel & unusual'. In fact, it's an easier way out than a condemned, actually-guilty person could hope for.

However, when incorrectly administered (as I outlined in my previous post) it is a very cruel means of execution (IMO).

To me, the cruelty is the minutes-long drawn out nature of it (talking about a 'botched' lethal injection). As you can see from my previous posts, I'm not agin some methods that produce pain & squished bodies (and neither were our founding fathers). The method should be relatively quick, though (though, not the lava ;-) ).

I think the thrust of the article & most of the poster's comments had to do with a 'botched' lethal injection (not using enough anesthetic & then the 2nd chemical paralyzing you completely while you are concious & slowly suffocating, topped off by the third chemical & that burning in the veins) & not a correctly administered lethal injection.

Elephantman, thank you for your comments above. I think anyone who would argue that a correctly administered lethal injection (inmate is absolutely unconcious by time 2nd & 3rd chemicals are given) is 'cruel & unusual' is playing into stereotypes about us on the Left being a bunch of namby-pamby sissies.

I would hope that you will come around to seeing that a botched lethal injection (botched in the manner I outlined previously) is definitely cruel & unusual punishment (much more cruel, IMO, than being hung or pushed off a cliff or electrocuted).

Hope you are having a happy New Year.

conists of doing stuff you'd rather not do, if it means that it will further you to your goal. I know Kitt will be slamming me for being a 'concern troll' & to that I say 'fuck you', but the fact is that you need to be on friendly terms (if at all possible) with people who buy ink in 50 gallon drums.

Why hasn't Sen. Clinton been on the bus before? Why hasn't she been shmoozing them? That's what Pres. Cookoo Bananas did back in 2000. You think he actually likes Margaret Carlson?!

Schmoozing the elite press is a valid campaign strategy. If Sen. Clinton can't get on there & kiss a little ass, then maybe she doesn't want to be President.

I anticipated you calling me a 'concern troll' (which you have in the past & it pissed me off) for pointing out that Sen. Clinton should make a concerted effort to get some of the elite press not to hate her so much.

I probably should not have inserted that comment. I do think I can comment on any aspect of any public figure (Right or Left) & never be a 'concern troll'.

Around my office, me & one of our supervisors are known as the most gassy dudes there are. We laugh about it. A couple of famous farts (bad ones in meetings) are 'reminiced' about at times to generally uproarious laughter.

I personally think it can be bad to your digestive system to 'hold' a fart, so when I got one...out it goes.

I do not share a cubicle with anyone (go figure).

That 23% would be on top of your state sales tax (forgot about that, did you).

So if you live in a state with a 6% sales tax, that would make it 29% (in tax).

29% tax on everything you purchase. You talk about a rich person's wet dream...

I'm sitting a a very small pile of money that has already been taxed. I find it hard to weep that the rich person would get his/her huge pile of money taxed again (horrors), just as my small pile of money would get taxed again under the 'Fair Tax' (personally, I think the Orwell estate needs to look into suing the GOP for infringing upon Mr. Orwell's 'newspeak').

I guess if you think that the larger the pile of money, the larger the fondness for it, your above post makes sense.