Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#579423 Dec 29, 2012
UR BS wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry but it still doesn't hold water. Are there people that are racists? Hell yes there are on every side of the issue. Notice that the only ones that ever get the publicity are the so called White Supremacists. No one ever metions the NBPP, or other such groups. That is what makes the whole argument lame.
You bring up 1 guy and somehow expect that to justify your claim that it is rampant in the US? Now that is Lame.
Considering whites far outnumber all other groups in the USA, I kind of think that the impact of white racism has a major impact as well. I particularly object to white supremacist because they embarrass and offend me as a fellow white person.

If one is Black or one is a Native American, then racism against Whites though not an admirable characteristic has some rationale behind why it happens. If I was a member of either of those groups I think I would find it rather difficult to really look at whites as objectively as I can as a white.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#579424 Dec 29, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I disagree.
There are several good arguments for why this matter is everybody's business. Here's one:
Kids need to be able to develop a natural conscience before it is poisoned by Christian doctrine, which quite clearly stunts its natural development. The Christians here are continually asking us why we don't go on killing rampages or rape people without a god belief. What does that tell you?
It tells you that they don't know what we know - the reason why, which is what an inner moral compass feels like, and how it can determine behavior.
Furthermore, it shows that the Christian doesn't care about the consequences of his actions to others, just to himself. He doesn't know why not to harm others if he won't be punished.
Do we really want to live among such people? Aren't we all at risk if they suddenly lose their faith or rebel against their god? That makes what your church does to developing children everybody's business. It means that he have a interest in seeing that the church not teach them ethics until they are mature so that they will know why not to rape and murder even in the absence of retributive torture. Does that make sense?
The same is true for the reasoning faculty, which tells us how it is out there. Christians learn to disesteem evidence, reason and critical thought, and to trust faith instead. They tend to be scientifically illiterate and to distrust scientists, which also puts the rest of us at risk, especially if the scientists are climate scientists.
We depend on our neighbors to have a 21st century understanding of our world, not the seventh century version, and to use it to make intelligent decisions. Thus, we need to educate children unimpeded by the church until a capacity for critical thought and reasonable judgment emerges, perhaps at age twenty-one, when we trust them to drink.
Then the church can have those that are interested.
Of course, the church would object, and the reason is clear: it's much harder to capture minds that can think clearly and that know right from wrong using the a bible than it is to capture the innocent and vulnerable.
Does that sound reasonable?
Infinitely.

“Bringing the Paranoia !!”

Since: Oct 11

MY hometown is YOUR Hometown

#579425 Dec 29, 2012
unbelievable.

judging by the # of posts some of you have you either:

a) have NO job
b) have NO life
c) are a TOTAL looooser
d) all of the above

the answer is "D" folks lmbo!

just sad...

p.s.

some of you really need to take your pic down because you are making some of us sick O_o

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#579426 Dec 29, 2012
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>He said he wanted to kill more than he did.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/25/world/europ...
I've seen interviews where prisoners said they couldn't wait to get out to kill someone, one guy had AIDS and he said he looked forward to infecting anybody and everybody that he could because he was so full of rage about having it himself that he wanted as many other people to get it and suffer from it too. His victims were still strangers in his mind....not anybody who had ever wronged him in any way.
That doesn't cover being choked from behind by someone twice your size while lying down on a flat surface.

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#579427 Dec 29, 2012
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah, right. Moron.
I've been choked before and it seemed a breeze for the guy doing it.
what encouragement did you give?

the same as you do here?

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#579428 Dec 29, 2012
UR BS wrote:
<quoted text>
The comment was that guns had only one purpose to kill people. Not true.
As to your comment about killing animals, well duh genius! How else are we gonna eat them? Let me guess you are one of those that says us people that eat meat should buy it in the store where no animals were hurt to get it.
The sole purpose of assault weapons is to kill people.

That's kind of why they're called ASSAULT weapons.

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#579429 Dec 29, 2012
UR BS wrote:
<quoted text>
The comment was that guns had only one purpose to kill people. Not true.
As to your comment about killing animals, well duh genius! How else are we gonna eat them? Let me guess you are one of those that says us people that eat meat should buy it in the store where no animals were hurt to get it.
from the store, the animals there never died feeding some gun-nut's blood thirst.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#579430 Dec 29, 2012
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
What's a supremist?
Twenty pushups.
Dianna Ross.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#579432 Dec 29, 2012
karl44 wrote:
<quoted text>
what encouragement did you give?
the same as you do here?
It was hardly encouragement.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#579433 Dec 29, 2012
Believer wrote:
Whether you choose to acknowledge the existence of God or not, I think that most thinking people acknowledge the existence of an afterlife. Whether you suscribe to what Michael Newton is doing in Lives between Lives or Brian Weiss's idea, both have pretty much empirically proven the existence of an afterlife.
Is there a hell? I personally doubt it. While I don't accept Christianity's version of the way things are, I am absolutely convinced there is an afterlife and we will all get there.
Now plesae don't just discount what I've said until you have taken a look at Michael Newton, PhD and Brian Weiss, MD. Then, if you have a disagreement, we can talk.
One would kind of like to believe some of those stories, especially the one about the boy James Leininger, who 'remembered' having been an American pilot who died at Iwo Jima, but something in the back of my mind tells me there is more to these stories than what we have been told.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#579434 Dec 29, 2012
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Not really.
You weren't there.

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#579435 Dec 29, 2012
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Dianna Ross.
Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#579436 Dec 29, 2012
Mylan wrote:
<quoted text>And my point is that it is NOT easy to choke a person. It is easy to choke an uneducated person. BIG difference. There are MANY ways to prevent someone from choking you, and it doesn't matter how big they are or how small you are. Here is one quick example;
http://www.ehow.com/video_2287014_get-out-fro...
She left out "And then run like hell".

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#579437 Dec 29, 2012
UR BS wrote:
<quoted text>
No fluff just facts.
1. I and as far as I know never said that, "All criminals will be repeat offenders of the same crime" as you claim. That being said you can not deny that many do commit the same crime over and again including murder.
2. What terrorism? No one is advicating terroism. A trial, judgement by a jury of your peers and sentencing. That is not terrorism that is our justice system.
3. No one is advocating killing all those charged with murder. See item 2 above as there is a process that must be followed.
What I am advocating is a person found guilty of first degree capitol murder should not be let out of jail they should be put to death. Now notice the key words there, First Degree, Capitol, and found guilty.
I always hear about so called trumped up charges but the evidence is very thin when looking at the numbers. Does it happen, maybe. Did it happen in the past yes but not to the extent that some would have us believe. May not guilty people possibly be put to death, maybe. Will carrying out the sentence handed down in a timely manner prevent any possibility of that person murdering someone again, you bet it will!
Now prior to the usual come back about, "You would feel different if it were you" thing sorry but I wouldn't. If I were somehow wrongfully convicted of murder and sentenced to death I would want it done fast. Don't leave my on death row for years. Let my family sue if I am proved not guilty later.
Bottom line is the only way to ensure that a murderer never murders again is to end his or her life.
you want to kill people

you need be locked up

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#579438 Dec 29, 2012
boooots wrote:
<quoted text>
Considering whites far outnumber all other groups in the USA, I kind of think that the impact of white racism has a major impact as well. I particularly object to white supremacist because they embarrass and offend me as a fellow white person.
If one is Black or one is a Native American, then racism against Whites though not an admirable characteristic has some rationale behind why it happens. If I was a member of either of those groups I think I would find it rather difficult to really look at whites as objectively as I can as a white.
Ahem!

" http://www.livescience.com/20467-minority-bab... ;

Try again.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#579439 Dec 29, 2012
karl44 wrote:
<quoted text>
you want to kill people
you need be locked up
Fanatic!

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#579440 Dec 29, 2012
UR BS wrote:
<quoted text>
As usual you miss the point. I do not filter my links to bolster ,y argument I present facts. The facts were that many were released, some were escapees, but all were murderers that repeated their offenses when they were out of prison. Had each of them been executed none of them would have murdered again.
I am firmly against the extended dragged out process after a person is condemned. There should be 1 appeal and of course procedurals review and then get it over with. Max time 2 years from sentence to burial.
As to PJ it just shows you do not understand the US Justice system at all regardless of how much you try to hint to the contraray.
In a criminal case the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person did the crime. That is a high standard to maintain. In a civil suite the complainent must prove by a prponderance of the evidence that is is most likely the way they say it is. That is one of the built in safety nets of the US justice system to prevent people being sent to jail unjustly.
sure, they all get a short jury trial and then summarily executed.

Later, if they are proven innocent, the jury needs be rounded up and shot.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#579441 Dec 29, 2012
nanoanomaly wrote:
The chicken's death was very fast, it happened in the blink of an eye. She never saw it coming.
At least it was somewhat humane. When they kill pigs they herd around 30 of them in a device that looks like an elevator, and when the doors close the walls move in and crush them. You can hear them screaming as they are painfully crushed to death against one another. Then the door opens and the whole mechanism tilts and they fall out into an area where they are cut up. There really should be a more humane way.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#579442 Dec 29, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I sympathize with ya, man. I Do. But that doesn't answer the quesion of how does a gun kill people.
It grabs the hand of the nearest innocent passerby and forces it to point at the nearest crowd of innocent people then twitch uncontrollably.

Ain't it obvious?

Sorta like that subway forced a woman to push an innocent bystander in front of it.

We should ban subways too!

<sarc>

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#579444 Dec 29, 2012
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
The sole purpose of assault weapons is to kill people.
That's kind of why they're called ASSAULT weapons.
Admittedly that is why they were designed. But they also come in handy for fending off rampant pitbulls, and keeping rioters away from your house.

Just sayin ....

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 5 min hojo 573,845
Obama earned Giuliani's assessment 9 min what side is she on 6
my wife neha ki chudai (May '14) 17 min rajput 3
Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 21 min Rosa_Winkel 97,874
Moses never existed 26 min HipGnozizzz 1,276
There is Everything Wrong with Abortion (Nov '07) 55 min TheNorthRemembers 221,732
pijat pasutri bali (Jan '13) 1 hr HappyBoy 29
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 1 hr RADEKT 268,843
Sleeping with mother (Oct '13) 4 hr Jack 18
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 9 hr Naked Truth from ... 608,142
More from around the web