Interesting Poll Results

[kapkomet]

Cause that would be, like, really offensive?  Yeah.  Too bad, the "other side" doesn't have a vulgarity regulator.  Well, of course they do.  They just choose not to employ it cause they don't have to here.

 

And, ya know, considering that females other than other posters and maybe, say, Rosa Parks, are usually referred to around here only as body parts (and that's when guys are being nice!) ..... Well, Penis-in-Chief just seems like poetic justice to me.

 

Move over Cheney, the real Dick is in the (White) House.

I'm not going down this path much more other then to say, now you're the moral compass of soxtalk?

 

If Nuke wants to look stupid in saying that blankety blankety blank blank got what he deserved, he looks stupid to some. If you want to run around calling our president Penis-In-Chief, fine. I see your point, but then you just go down to their level, and then you're not the moral compass you think you are.

 

I'll bow out now, I don't think I have to say anymore... Penis-In-Chief away.

 

Oh... one other thing... I personally don't like the female drooling here either, for the record. But it's here and I can click off just as fast as I click on it.

Edited December 13, 2005 by kapkomet

[Mercy!]

Vote ol' Tits Magee in '08

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Give me a little while. Jesus on my team is going to be a laugh riot. Mercy!

[mreye]

Cause that would be, like, really offensive?  Yeah.  Too bad, the "other side" doesn't have a vulgarity regulator.  Well, of course they do.  They just choose not to employ it cause they don't have to here.

 

And, ya know, considering that females other than other posters and maybe, say, Rosa Parks, are usually referred to around here only as body parts (and that's when guys are being nice!) ..... Well, Penis-in-Chief just seems like poetic justice to me.

 

Move over Cheney, the real Dick is in the (White) House.

You know, you had a good arguement until you went this route. Don't be like them and lump everyone on the "other side" together.

[kapkomet]

Wow. This thread just did an about face. At least most have a sense of humor.

[mreye]

I'm not going down this path much more other then to say, now you're the moral compass of soxtalk?

 

If Nuke wants to look stupid in saying that blankety blankety blank blank got what he deserved, he looks stupid to some.  If you want to run around calling our president Penis-In-Chief, fine.  I see your point, but then you just go down to their level, and then you're not the moral compass you think you are.

 

I'll bow out now, I don't think I have to say anymore... Penis-In-Chief away.

 

Oh... one other thing... I personally don't like the female drooling here either, for the record.  But it's here and I can click off just as fast as I click on it.

Well said, Kap.

[kapkomet]

You know, you had a good arguement until you went this route. Don't be like them and lump everyone on the "other side" together.

I agree. I think I said that a few posts up. Go Jesus Team.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

I just want to know how it put something right.

 

I'm asking this really genuinely, because I want to know exactly what this solved. If you're going to respond with sarcastic comments or smileys just don't bother answering. I'm serious, I want to know what this put right.

 

 

Read my post please. I said killing him DIDN'T put things right, but its a start.

[Rex Kickass]

Oh... one other thing... I personally don't like the female drooling here either, for the record.  But it's here and I can click off just as fast as I click on it.

 

*insert traditional "clicking off" joke here*

[kapkomet]

*insert traditional "clicking off" joke here*

 

Ohhh Booooooooo. That's not what I meant.

[Soxy]

Read my post please.  I said killing him DIDN'T put things right,  but its a start.

Right, but I don't even understand how it's a start.

[kapkomet]

Let me ask this. Do you soxtalkers think that murders will RISE if we got rid of the death penalty?

 

Or to say it another way - how much of a deterrent is the death penalty? I personally think it's NOT a deterrent at all. If you're crazy enough to kill someone, then you're crazy enough to not give a crap if you die. Therefore, the death penalty isn't doing anything to keep crime down, so why sanction government killing?

[SoCalSouthSider59]

I'm gonna respond to this publicly, because I feel everyone has a right to know why I do the things that I do. We've let a lot of stuff go in this forum. To the point where a lot of our users and guests feel uncomfortable entering into what could be some wonderful discussions. As a mod in this forum, I've made the decision to be more aggressive in terms of trying to thin out the pissing matches and make this a place where anyone can feel comfortable. Because I don't want that to happen anymore.

 

I lock threads for a couple reasons. First, if posters are being directly attacked and the conversation is completely derailed, I lock the thread. Second, if people are posting things that I feel to portray this messageboard and website in a less than good light, I'll lock the thread. If you wanna post somewhere every half hour about how its xxx minutes til somebody dies, fine. You're just not gonna do it here. Because its the opinion of myself and other mods and admins that its in poorer taste than the poor taste that we already know and love.

 

K, thanks.

 

I can respect that........

 

 

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Let me ask this.  Do you soxtalkers think that murders will RISE if we got rid of the death penalty?

 

Or to say it another way - how much of a deterrent is the death penalty?  I personally think it's NOT a deterrent at all.  If you're crazy enough to kill someone, then you're crazy enough to not give a crap if you die.  Therefore, the death penalty isn't doing anything to keep crime down, so why sanction government killing?

 

 

Like Ive said a million times already. If we gave murder 1 and other serious violent crimes a manditory death sentence and then had the balls to carry out sentencing in a timely fashion there would be a deterrent factor.

[Soxy]

Let me ask this.  Do you soxtalkers think that murders will RISE if we got rid of the death penalty?

No

 

Therefore, the death penalty isn't doing anything to keep crime down, so why sanction government killing?

Revenge? Make an example? Peace to the victim's family?

 

I have no idea. But I would, honestly, like to hear someone's honest answer.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Revenge? Make an example? Peace to the victim's family?

 

 

 

 

All of the above.

[kapkomet]

Like Ive said a million times already.  If we gave murder 1 and other serious violent crimes a manditory death sentence and then had the balls to carry out sentencing in a timely fashion there would be a deterrent factor.

ok, but that's not how it works. It takes 10 years or more most of the time to get through the "system".

 

How about, we just behead these son's a b****es who shoot people on the head, Al Zarqawi style.

 

How about, we just cut the dicks off the guys who rape women?

 

While we're at it, let's do all this on public TV, right away, because after all, it's all about JUSTICE.

 

And then, what about those cases where the "system" is wrong? That doesn't matter, because justice has been served.

 

Ugh. We're pretty much savages.

[Soxy]

All of the above.

But what's the ultimate goal of all those things? What is accomplished by doing that?

 

Does it actually help the vic's family? I've heard mixed things.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

But what's the ultimate goal of all those things? What is accomplished by doing that?

 

Does it actually help the vic's family? I've heard mixed things.

 

 

The stepmom of one of his murder victims sure seems to approve based on her quotes.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

ok, but that's not how it works.  It takes 10 years or more most of the time to get through the "system". 

 

Which is why the appeals process needs to be drastically shortened.

 

How about, we just behead these son's a b****es who shoot people on the head, Al Zarqawi style.

 

Thats going overboard.

 

How about, we just cut the dicks off the guys who rape women?

 

No. Lethal Injection works and is less messy.

 

 

While we're at it, let's do all this on public TV, right away, because after all, it's all about JUSTICE.

 

Id watch.

 

And then, what about those cases where the "system" is wrong?  That doesn't matter, because justice has been served. 

 

It does matter, which is why we need to utilize the forsenic technology we have to ensure we got the right guy. A lot of these people who are getting acquited of capital crimes were arrested and sentenced when DNA and like technology did not exist.

 

Ugh.  We're pretty much savages.

 

No we're not, the criminals are and need to be treated as such.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

In honor of Soxy, I gotta go with some Camus:

 

"Capital punishment is the most premeditated of murders, to which no criminal's deed, however calculated can be compared. For there to be an equivalency, the death penalty would have to punish a criminal who had warned his victim of the date at which he would inflict a horrible death on him and who, from that moment onward, had confined him at his mercy for months. Such a monster is not encountered in private life."

 

It is difficult to hear a politician talk about the sanctity of life but then in the same breath talk about how war and capital punishment are noble means of keeping a "civilized" society.

 

As to the "We need to do this fast" argument: Complex pre-trial motions, lengthy jury selections, and expenses for expert witnesses are all likely to add to the costs in death penalty cases. The irreversibility of the death sentence requires courts to follow heightened due process in the preparation and course of the trial. The separate sentencing phase of the trial can take even longer than the guilt or innocence phase of the trial. And defendants are much more likely to insist on a trial when they are facing a possible death sentence. After conviction, there are constitutionally mandated appeals which involve both prosecution and defense costs.

[mr_genius]

this thread rules!

[kapkomet]

I think you all can see that I pretty much come down against the death penalty. And against abortion. But for war in times when it's called for. So, LCR, I got blood on my hands, too, eh?

 

Two out of three ain't bad.

[kapkomet]

HEY PALEHOSEFAN, GET TO WORK!

[sox4lifeinPA]

"Capital punishment is the most premeditated of murders, to which no criminal's deed, however calculated can be compared. For there to be an equivalency, the death penalty would have to punish a criminal who had warned his victim of the date at which he would inflict a horrible death on him and who, from that moment onward, had confined him at his mercy for months. Such a monster is not encountered in private life."

 

Is this s*** head is presupposing that both "victims" were are equally qualified for their deaths? or what is his point then? That we should spring out of the bushes and ass rape the convicted murderer and watch him die as a suitable punishment because it's "equal"?

 

LCR, where do you find these moronic quotes?

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Is this s*** head is presupposing that both "victims" were are equally qualified for their deaths? or what is his point then? That we should spring out of the bushes and ass rape the convicted murderer and watch him die as a suitable punishment because it's "equal"?

 

LCR, where do you find these moronic quotes?

It is more of a commentary that if taking a life is deemed wrong by the state then how can the state supercede its supposed creed & take a life? I take it that you haven't read much Camus...

 

Would this one be better? "A punishment that destroys the condemned, degrades the executioner, arouses public manifestations of sadism and excites a hideous vainglory in certain criminals, while forestalling nothing, is in truth only a form of revenge: A punishment that penalises without forestalling is indeed called revenge. It is a quasi-arithmetical reply made by society to whoever breaks its primordial law."