Previous  1 ... 3  4  5  6  7  Next

Concur!

It seems the lefties watch Beck more than I ever did. The only two times I cared to watch Beck was first on a cruise ship when I was falling down drunk and, second, when he ran his series on George Soros.

Aside from that I can't stand listening to him.

Another thing is that the past few months I'm mostly watching CNN for news as FOX is irritating the snot out of me with one program after another that features a panel of people yelling at each other. It reminds me way too much of my family.

   

You mean you're inspired by your buddy Breivik?

   

Nah, he probably got his inspiration from the vile, disgusting bullshit that spews forth from Glenn Goebbels yap.

   

More like your buddy, jerk-ass. Violence was Breivik's first selected course of action, a pathway that you haven't exactly gone out of your way to refute around here, like when you give a big "meh, who care?" when anyone tries to discuss the ever-growing list of "isolated instances" of rightist violence in your country. Like when you go out of your way to repeatedly mention Bill Ayers so you can smear President Obama some more, but get kind of quiet about Eric Rudolph, Randy Weaver, Tim McVeigh, Scott Roeder, or Jared Loughner when we talk about it here. Asshat, you don't think that we're not noticing what you're up to with your two-faced game that you keep playing? Screw you.

   

Thanos, so maybe I'm wrong. If so, then what do you mean by this...?

What makes a bitter end to you? The bitter end of a valiantly fought flame war on a forum? A blistering email campaign?

What do you mean when you propose confronting and fighting people right down to the bitter end?

It sure doesn't sound like you're proposing to hold a sit-in followed by a rousing sing-along of 'Imagine'.

   

Uh, in this case I mentioned Ayres not to marginalize Obama but to make the point that Ayres is no longer viewed as a radical. That's simply true and I'm not sure how that would smear Obama unless you think that Ayres is still the same person he was 40 years ago.



Nope. I've consistently condemned Rudolph for being a hypocrite. You don't make a pro-life argument by killing people.



Bad example. Keep in mind he won a $3 million dollar settlement from the government for violating his civil rights and that the original charge against him for shortening a shotgun barrel below the legal limit (which is why his wife and kid were murdered) was thrown out because the shotgun was determined to be of a legal length after all. As to his views? Whatever they were or are he's entitled to them and given the man was living well away from anyone they had no effect on anybody.



I don't know of anyone on my side of the argument who isn't happy that this guy got the death penalty.



Same as Rudolph. You can't be pro-life and then kill people.



Still trying to pin this jerk on the right, huh? Aside from yourself no one I know of anymore is blaming Loughner's actions or his incomprehensible political views ('What is government if words have no meaning?') on anyone else.

   

Well, that's what civilized people do. That and vote.

   

I'd +1 you on that if I could.

   

I take back everything bad I said about Beck. Thanos' kind and Beck deserve each other.

   

Heh, I e-mailed Glenn earlier today. Addressed him as Glenn Goebbels, suggested he incorporate himself as the Glenn Goebbels Propaganda Ministry, and asked him if his little youth camps could possibly be the equivalent of the Hitler Youth when one factors in his rabid, ultra right-wing delusions?
And then asked how he'd feel if someone went and shot up his campers to remove that possibilty.

Naturally I don't condone or seriously suggest that last part, it was more of a rhetorical question than anything else.

   

Just a thought and a question... or 2.

Are you pro-life?
Are you for the death penalty?

   

rotfl

thx for that

   

Most of the time. But I do slip on occasion when I read certain posts from certain people and then find myself contemplating the obvious positive attributes of abortion.

I've often wondered if the pro-choice crowd would go for the following deal:

Only people who are registered in pro-abortion parties would be allowed to have abortions.

I'd be okay with that in the spirit of compromise.



In select circumstances, yes. Breivik, for instance, should be put to death not so much as retribution but because I think he is far too dangerous to be allowed to live. Ted Bundy, as an example, killed as many as 300 women and when he escaped from custody once he managed to kill three more people (as I recall). Even the liberal Democrat governor of Florida at the time, Lawton Chiles, said that Bundy was too dangerous to be allowed to live.

I utterly oppose the death penalty in cases where the accused is convicted solely on circumstantial evidence. I also oppose it when the victims contributed to their own demise by being criminals. What I mean by that is that some murder victims are not entirely innocent. Like if a hit man kills five members of a rival drug cartel I'm really not interested in equating his victims with law abiding citizens. True, that's not equal justice under the law, but all the same...

   

Shouldn't really have asked the question specifically to you.

I was just wondering if the 2 are compatible... pro-life and pro-death penalty and how someone can justify being both?

   

It is justified by saying that society as a whole holds life so sacred that when someone callously takes the life of another that they should pay with their own life as a proportionate penalty.

Like in Florida right now there's a couple of abortion doctors who've now been indicted for several hundred counts of murder in the first degree because they delivered babies alive in the course of performing illegal late term abortions and then let the babies die due to the intention that the babies were supposed to have been aborted anyway. It is supected that the Florida Attorney General is going to seek the death penalty for these crimes.

   

Previous  1 ... 3  4  5  6  7  Next