T1B

Van wrote:Why yes, you did, right here...

Uh, no.

I said that for you these things were impediments to your utopia. That's not the equivalent of saying that you were/are infringing on anyone's rights. Read closely.

Okay, so it's official Dr. D: Your inherent cuntiness simply prevents you from being able to avoid going off on wild-ass tangents.

I'm sorry...what? You're the guy pining for autocracy...I'm just pointing it out. If you weren't cheerleading that shit then I wouldn't be pointing that out.

Go ahead and point out to me where I mentioned anything about, well, any of your nonsequitur points.

Oh? Your applause for the effective containment of crime by dictators and autocrats shouldn't lead anyone to believe that you're, like, well, applauding that shit?

Better yet, don't. You just plain suck at this, so never mind.

Don't jailsex your own mouth and expect not to be called out on it...

I hope R-Jack visits you in your sleep.

Van,
When DrD is schooling you it's time to eject.

Van wrote: commision commited

Let me help you out. Commission and committed. You’re welcome you pissy little asshat.

Van wrote:I hope R-Jack visits you in your sleep.

Yeah, you need the help, bitch.

Rack Dr. D.

TVO, thank you for the 's' and the 't'. As to your other point? Whenever you're on the side of Dr. D, I'm feeling pretty good about things, especially when he's attempting to make a wholly separate point from the one I'm making.

Van: "The sky is blue!"

Dr. D: "So? Shaq gets away with way too many charging fouls, and autocrats have been known to wear blue!"

TVO: "Bwaaaha! Great points, Dr. D! Way to school 'im!"

Missed the Saturday dance
Heard they crowded the floor
Couldn't bear it without you
Don't get around much anymore

OK, so when did JMuck get outed as DrDipshit?

Van wrote:... especially when he's attempting to make a wholly separate point from the one I'm making.

Well you're half right. He is fucking up his side of the coin and making himself look the fool again. And he is still kicking your ass.

It's more like this, Godwin's law notwithstanding.

VAN: "Hitler was a really cool dude. LOVED his work."

Dr. D: "So? Shaq gets away with way too many charging fouls, and autocrats have been known to wear blue!"

TVO: "Bwaaaha! Great points, Dr. D! Way to school 'im!"

Lights yet tardbucket?

Goober McTuber wrote:

Missed the Saturday dance
Heard they crowded the floor
Couldn't bear it without you
Don't get around much anymore

OK, so when did JMuck get outed as DrDipshit?

It's been common knowledge for quite some time, you cum-drunk, dolphin-flogging fucktard.

Screw_Michigan wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:

Missed the Saturday dance
Heard they crowded the floor
Couldn't bear it without you
Don't get around much anymore

OK, so when did JMuck get outed as DrDipshit?

It's been common knowledge for quite some time, you cum-drunk, dolphin-flogging fucktard.

You being aware of this fact would certainly make it common, but that would also remove it from the realm of knowledge.

JMak wrote:I'm not sure why you're rooting for dictatorships, autocracies, and modern monarchies in the style of Saudi Arabia...

He's not. He is pointing out the all too obvious fact that killing violent criminals reduces violent crime to almost nill.

mvscal wrote: He's not. He is pointing out the all too obvious fact that killing violent criminals reduces violent crime to almost nill.

I wonder if the same holds true for cowards and racists.

Volunteers?[/i]

mvscal wrote:

JMak wrote:I'm not sure why you're rooting for dictatorships, autocracies, and modern monarchies in the style of Saudi Arabia...

He's not. He is pointing out the all too obvious fact that killing violent criminals reduces violent crime to almost nill.

He needn't cheerlead the Chinese, Saudis, etc to make such a point. It merely takes a statement that imposing capital sentences for minor crimes would reduced crime...it's that obvious. However, Van has gone out of his way to applaud these regimes. Not sure why you're cutting him slack on this.

Dr. D, in no way am I applauding those regimes. Show me a single post of mine where I applaud them. Hell, I even referred to the Saudis as "backwards-assed."

All I'm saying is that there is no disputing the basic fact that a lack of tolerance for crime reduces crime. Killing violent criminals will reduce crime, no matter how much Terry's sensibilities may be offended by the notion. I don't care about sensibilities. My only goal there is to reduce crime, and I'll break all the eggs necessary to make that omelette.

In no way would I extend that to - nor would I applaud - the killing of political opponents, or any of the other absurd examples you gave. In fact, it would be quite the opposite. Anyone who attempted to do something of that sort would be killed.

It's pretty simple: Follow the law, and that means everyone. Break the law in a violent fashion? You die.

Five years later, let's compare our crime statistics to those of our current society.

KC Scott wrote:All the Death row acquittals resulting from DNA evidence says if you don't have adequate legal representation, your chances of getting convicted are pretty high -

Right. Like there's so many of them.

KC Scott wrote:It's 14 so far:

...maybe and I seriously doubt that many.

Sorry, that is no reason not to execute scumfucks. Only an infintesimal fraction of the murderers in this country are given the death penalty and those only after years if not decades of appeals.

KC Scott wrote:All of the exonorations in that National Geographic article were based on DNA evidence.

That hardly exonerates anybody of their crimes. Say you and a buddy rape and murder a woman. You get caught and he doesn't, but his DNA is found. Is supposed to exonerate YOU? Does that make YOU innocent? I don't think so.