0
peacefuljeffrey

I might not be so in favor of the death penalty...

Recommended Posts

Quote

MR Ridgeway got sentenced to 47 lifr term w/o the chance of parole.

Some defense lawyers in the area are already argueing that if a confessed 47 time killer can get life w/o parole, why can't their clients who only killed
a few people or just one, get the same sentence.
Argue on



Life in prison without parole does not eliminate the possibility of a convict ESCAPING -- and this DOES happen. To argue that there is zero chance of it is to lie through one's teeth. Execution is the only way to be assured a murderer will never kill again.

There should be no such thing as a life sentence with anything other than "absolutely no parole or release, ever, until death."

I think that the killers should also never have their bodies released. The prison system should cremate them and dispose of the ashes in the trash. Yet another deterrent to being a murderer: your family does not even get to have your remains for a "proper" burial. Too motherfuckin' bad.

-Jeffrey
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Oh, yes, silly me. I better go stock up now... can't risk having a room w/o a gun it it... that would bring the chances of death to someone I know down signifigantly.



Hmm, besides self defense ever hear of target shooting, skeet shooting, hunting of various varieties, or pellet gunning the freaking cat that keeps trespassing in my yard and killing stuff? Anything can kill. I can do just as much damage with a sledge hammer as a gun (and have the torn down walls in my house to prove it). They are tools, nothing more. Tools that can kill, but tools that can benefit as well. Just like any other tool, not everyone needs one, that is a choice. A choice that I have chosen to have multiple firearms for multiple purposes in my house.

None of them are loaded. And generally are not kept loaded in my house. But there is a gun with a full clip next to it very accessable. Safety is important. My kids will know gun use and safety as soon as they are strong enough to hold my .22

Jen

Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Oh, yes, silly me. I better go stock up now... can't risk having a room w/o a gun it it... that would bring the chances of death to someone I know down signifigantly.



Hmm, besides self defense ever hear of target shooting, skeet shooting, hunting of various varieties, or pellet gunning the freaking cat that keeps trespassing in my yard and killing stuff? Anything can kill. I can do just as much damage with a sledge hammer as a gun (and have the torn down walls in my house to prove it). They are tools, nothing more. Tools that can kill, but tools that can benefit as well. Just like any other tool, not everyone needs one, that is a choice. A choice that I have chosen to have multiple firearms for multiple purposes in my house.

None of them are loaded. And generally are not kept loaded in my house. But there is a gun with a full clip next to it very accessable. Safety is important. My kids will know gun use and safety as soon as they are strong enough to hold my .22

Jen



Nice job.
But I think that Angela is still under the myth perpetrated by Dr. Arthur Kellerman, of the Centers for Disease Control, who lied through his teeth to produce a "study" that said a gun in the home is 43 er 27 er 13 er 9 times more likely to kill a family member than to be used to kill an attacker. The "study" has been utterly debunked, but we all know that a lie can go halfway around the world while the truth is still putting its shoes on. MANY people believe this -- even to the point of refusing to own a gun because they think there is nothing they personally can do that makes a difference in how likely a loved one is to die from his or her gun.

Kellerman arrived at his (ever-changing) numbers by discounting any defensive gun use in which the attacker is not KILLED (i.e. he didn't count it if you shot and wounded an attacker, or even just scared him off by presenting a gun). He counted as "loved ones" any acquaintance whatsoever, even if it was two drug dealers who knew each other on adjacent corners.

Angela has some reading to do. Search Google for "arthur kellerman gun"

Here is a good place to start:
Kellerman's Lies Exposed

-Jeffrey
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

How about not paroling them?



Do you think it's conservatives or liberals who perpetuate this insane parole system?

-Jeffrey



Both. Some extreme liberals push for rehabilitation of people that can't be rehabilitated. Some extreme conservatives push for incarceration of perpetrators of victimless crimes who could be easily rehabilitated outside of a prison causing overpopulation and necessitating excessive paroles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

How about not paroling them?



Do you think it's conservatives or liberals who perpetuate this insane parole system?

-Jeffrey



Both. Some extreme liberals push for rehabilitation of people that can't be rehabilitated. Some extreme conservatives push for incarceration of perpetrators of victimless crimes who could be easily rehabilitated outside of a prison causing overpopulation and necessitating excessive paroles.



You're using conservatives pushing for incarceration as a means of demonstrating how they're responsible for PAROLING criminals?

Sorry, if drug sentences mean that there's not room in the prisons for all, you build more prisons -- you don't do what the idiot liberals do and LET THE VIOLENT CRIMINALS OUT, claiming they've been "rehabilitated."

This is NOT a function of there not being enough room in prisons. If that were the case, they would simply pick violent criminals and let them out. But that is not the case, because paroles come up for review and are given a YES or a NO. If the overpopulation were forcing them out of prison, there would be no chance for a NO, now would there.

If the liberals did not believe in letting violent criminals out of prison to prey on the civilian population (oh, and cops, let's not forget that they kill cops, too), they would PROPOSE AND PUSH LEGISLATION FOR THE SAME MANDATORY MINIMUM SENTENCES FOR [I]VIOLENT[/I] FELONS AS THE CONSERVATIVES DID FOR [I]DRUG[/I] FELONS.

And then, if it came down to it, they would have mandatory sentence butting up against mandatory sentence, and there would be only two things to do: either let the drug criminals out first, or build enough prison space to house everybody.

I don't see liberals rushing to pass mandatory sentence laws for violent crimes, nor to repeal drug sentence laws, so I don't believe they are bothered at all by violent criminals being forced out of prison. It gives them more ammunition to push for gun control, anyway...

-Jeffrey
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Angela has some reading to do. Search Google for "arthur kellerman gun"



I have no intention of buying a gun at this point and probably not ever. I don't believe in hunting animals, unless you are truly going to eat the whole thing, just like I don't like sport fishing. You shoot a harmless creature, you should eat it! I have better shit to spend my time on than shooting stuff. I guess maybe if I could not outsmart a cat w/o a gun, I might consider it:P.

I see no real reason to own a gun, really... hell, if everyone thought the same thing, there would be a lot less needless deaths in this world. Regardless of what the stats are, the chance of shooting someone I know is not worth owning a gun to me, even if that chance is only 1%... Still, I bet the chances are better than actually harming or warding off an intruder. In fact, i'll bet a large dog would do a better job of that.

And, no, I do not wish to shoot a certain someone who might have 'forgotten' to do the dishes, either;):D

Angela.



Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Sorry, if drug sentences mean that there's not room in the prisons for all, you build more prisons



So you want tax cuts and more prisons, is that about right? Are you building them out of clouds? Prisons are constantly being built and expanded and guess what, the incarceration rate outpaces construction due to drug convictions.

Quote

This is NOT a function of there not being enough room in prisons. If that were the case, they would simply pick violent criminals and let them out. But that is not the case, because paroles come up for review and are given a YES or a NO. If the overpopulation were forcing them out of prison, there would be no chance for a NO, now would there.



Often times there isn't a chance for a no. Parole boards are frequently ordered to release a specific number of parolees. Funny thing is, the way the laws currently are, drug sentences have mandatory minimums so it's illegal for those convicts to be released. However the same isn't true for violent convicts. They're not left with any choice.

Quote

If the liberals did not believe in letting violent criminals out of prison to prey on the civilian population



Drop the rhetoric. No one sits down and says "I think I want violent ciminals on the streets to prey on people."

Quote

they would PROPOSE AND PUSH LEGISLATION FOR THE SAME MANDATORY MINIMUM SENTENCES FOR VIOLENT FELONS AS THE CONSERVATIVES DID FOR DRUG FELONS.



That's draconian. Judges should be responsible for evaluating the merits of a case and imposing sentence, not legislators. It would be hypocritical to push for something that they are opposed to. Mandatory minimums in all sentencing should be elliminated so that we can actually evaluate criminals individually. Then the parole system would work as designed instead of having to comply with arbitrary rules that have nothing to do with a an individual crime or propensity to commit more crime.

Quote

I don't see liberals rushing to pass mandatory sentence laws for violent crimes, nor to repeal drug sentence laws, so I don't believe they are bothered at all by violent criminals being forced out of prison.



There is quite a large liberal base in favor of reforming drug laws. Unfortunately more people share your attitude so they haven't successfully passed much legislation in that regard. But it is being pushed.

Quote

It gives them more ammunition to push for gun control, anyway...



That's just a complete non-sequitor and more rhetoric. You try and make is sound like people want violent crime to happen so that they can pass laws. If you believe that you're cynical beyond belief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

You shoot a harmless creature, you should eat it! I have better shit to spend my time on than shooting stuff. I guess maybe if I could not outsmart a cat w/o a gun, I might consider it.



I would never shoot a deer or anything else unless I planned to eat what I can fresh and freeze the rest. I do fish, and I let go everything that I catch. I fish right in eyesight of three mile island. Don't need any radioactive fishies in my diet, but I do enjoy fishing occasionally. When I went deep sea fishing, we did eat what we caught and donated everything extra.

I have tried everything with that damn cat. Even talking to it's owners. It kills harmless birds, baby rabbits, chipmunks and the fish in my fishpond regularly. I whack it in the ass with a pellet gun every time it is near my house. Very therapeutic for me, scares the shit out of the cat, and he is not truly hurt in the least. I don't pump enough air into the gun to penetrate skin, only sting a little. You can watch the pellet bounce off. I don't have the heart to actually kill it. No need to call me stupid for not 'outsmarting' it. I'm defending the other creatures that make my yard their home.

Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I see no real reason to own a gun, really... hell, if everyone thought the same thing, there would be a lot less needless deaths in this world.



You are certainly right -- but all you've done is state a tautology. If everyone decided to be on their best behavior, needless deaths would decline. If criminals decided to not commit criminal acts, there would be fewer victims.

But getting rid of ONLY GUNS -- I can think of no other such crusade, not against knives, bats, swimming pools, or anything else that causes "needless deaths" -- will not address the many many things that cause MORE needless deaths than guns do! I think it would take society as a whole deciding to be more gentle to each other to get needless KILLINGS to decline.

The only trouble is, historically, BAD PEOPLE are ALWAYS the LAST people willing to give their weapons up!! So good, non-violent, non-criminal people like you do not do society any good by giving up (or not owning) guns because you owning guns do not present a threat to those around you. It's like when Sharon Stone went and surrendered a bunch of guns to the police department. Sharon, were you planning on killing anyone with those guns, and now you won't be able to? No? Then who have you saved?

Quote

Regardless of what the stats are, the chance of shooting someone I know is not worth owning a gun to me, even if that chance is only 1%... Still, I bet the chances are better than actually harming or warding off an intruder. In fact, i'll bet a large dog would do a better job of that.



Do you remember the recent killings in Florida, where a gun got three of his friends to storm a house where six people were bludgeoned with aluminum bats AND stabbed? A sextuple murder -- committed with nary a gun. And they had a dog, which was also killed by the murderers. Some of the people were killed in their beds as they slept. Guns would not have saved them if they were asleep, obviously, but the dog didn't save them. Oh, and the killers didn't need guns to murder six people.

See, I don't take issue with you deciding to not own a gun, although to me, the decision is similar to any other decision to not avail oneself of protection that one could easily obtain. What I take issue with is the implications that good people owning guns creates a problem for society, or that good people owning guns are not able to use them effectively for protection. Somehow, some people believe that guns are great for criminals and make committing crimes a breeze, but those same guns cannot be effectively used for self-protection.

-Jeffrey
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you for your oh-so eloquent and finely articulated point. But here's the American Bar Association's thoughts on it, I'll defer to them on the argument as I'd think they are what you'd call 'experts' on subject.

http://www.abanet.org/moratorium/why.html

Quote


Since 1976, when the U. S. Supreme Court permitted states to reinstate capital punishment, over 100 individuals sentenced to death have been freed from death row because later-considered evidence established their innocence or because other systemic failures prompted officials to conclude that the death sentence was unwarranted. In most of these cases, the system that erroneously convicted these individuals and sent them to death row also failed to discover and correct its errors.

With its emphasis on presumed innocence and protection of individual rights, the United States criminal justice system often has served as a model for other nations. But in death penalty cases, the reality is far from the ideal, often lacking even basic due process. Administration of the death penalty, far from being fair and consistent, is instead a haphazard maze of unfair practices with no internal consistency. As a practical matter, the best way to consider and fix these unfair practices requires removing the pressure of impending executions. The ABA, while taking no position on capital punishment per se, therefore has urged the federal and state governments to halt executions in order to take a hard look at the growing body of evidence showing that race, geography, wealth, and even personal politics can be factors at every stage of a capital case - from arrest through sentencing and execution.

Although the moratorium movement has gained ground in recent years, it no longer can be doubted that many of the 3,500 death row inmates nationwide have not received the quality of legal representation that the severity and the finality of a death sentence demand. Restrictions on meaningful appellate review and inconsistencies in prosecutorial treatment of cases remain serious problems. Racial and ethnic bias still are endemic in the criminal justice system. Geographic disparities still are rampant in the application of the death penalty. Mentally retarded individuals still are being executed. Young people still are being tried and sentenced to death for offenses they committed when they were under age 18. And the innocent still are not protected adequately from erroneous conviction. Indeed, our system cannot protect the innocent unless it is protecting everyone in a criminal justice system that administers capital punishment in a fair and nondiscriminatory way. Until that time, the need for a moratorium remains as urgent as ever, both to prevent further executions of individuals whose convictions and death sentences have been imposed by an unfair and arbitrary system and to ensure an atmosphere conducive to full and objective analysis of systemic problems and remedies.



Quote

...if THIS wasn't the constant result of the motherfuckin' liberal pussy way of dealing with criminals!

PAROLED MURDERERS?!

IF WE [I]TRULY[/I] WERE GOING TO KEEP THEM ROTTING IN A CELL WITH FUCKING BREAD AND WATER UNTIL THEY [I]DIED[/I], ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE OF EVER GETTING OUT OF PRISON AGAIN, [I]MAYBE[/I] I WOULD STOP SUPPORTING CAPITAL PUNISHMENT. BUT LIBERALS INSIST THAT THEY DESERVE "A CHANCE TO BE A CONTRIBUTING MEMBER OF SOCIETY" AND THE SEVERITY OF THEIR CRIMES BE DAMNED.

IT'S TIME TO STOP LETTING LEFTIST ASSHOLES RELEASE THE WORST CRIMINAL SHITBAGS OUT TO MURDER MORE INNOCENT PEOPLE. THIS IS WHAT FUCKIN' HAPPENS, OVER AND OVER. OUR ATTITUDE SHOULD BE, "YOU MURDER, YOU DIE."

Blue skies,
-Jeffrey
-



edit: i spel gud

You be the king and I'll overthrow your government. --KRS-ONE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

So you want tax cuts and more prisons, is that about right? Are you building them out of clouds? Prisons are constantly being built and expanded and guess what, the incarceration rate outpaces construction due to drug convictions.



Tax cuts have never been a big political priority for me, so I don't care if we have to tax in order to build enough prisons. The fact that prisons cost money is NOT an excuse to not have enough prison space to keep criminals locked up! And LONG have I supported legalizing drugs, and taxing them like anything else. The prison/court savings PLUS the tax revenues would be stupendous.

Quote

Often times there isn't a chance for a no. Parole boards are frequently ordered to release a specific number of parolees. Funny thing is, the way the laws currently are, drug sentences have mandatory minimums so it's illegal for those convicts to be released. However the same isn't true for violent convicts. They're not left with any choice.



You're using the word in its own definition. Parole boards are required to release a number of parolees? What makes them parolees in the first place? Did you mean to say "prisoners"?

If drug sentence minimums mean the prisons are legally obligated to keep the drug offenders in prison, (you didn't respond to this facet of my post) WHY DON'T LIBERALS MAKE SIMILAR LAWS TO REQUIRE [I]VIOLENT[/I] CRIMINALS BE KEPT IN JAIL TOO?!?!

If both DRUG and VIOLENT criminals had mandatory sentences, and it came down to a "split the baby" decision of which to keep in prison, don't you think that THEN the drug guys would get let out early to keep room for the violent guys?! Why have your liberals not come back with this solution? Mandatory minimums for violent crime, JUST like the drug minimums!


Quote

Quote

If the liberals did not believe in letting violent criminals out of prison to prey on the civilian population



Drop the rhetoric. No one sits down and says "I think I want violent ciminals on the streets to prey on people."



Then why aren't they working to solve an obvious problem that the country they serve is plagued with?

Quote

Quote

they would PROPOSE AND PUSH LEGISLATION FOR THE SAME MANDATORY MINIMUM SENTENCES FOR VIOLENT FELONS AS THE CONSERVATIVES DID FOR DRUG FELONS.



That's draconian. Judges should be responsible for evaluating the merits of a case and imposing sentence, not legislators. It would be hypocritical to push for something that they are opposed to. Mandatory minimums in all sentencing should be elliminated so that we can actually evaluate criminals individually.



Then why don't we read about liberals' efforts to repeal the stupid, problematic mandatory drug sentence minimums? If the solution to the problem is not to make mandatory minimums for violent offenders, then it must be to make room in prisons by preventing them from getting filled with sentenced under mandatory drug minimums.

Quote

Quote

I don't see liberals rushing to pass mandatory sentence laws for violent crimes, nor to repeal drug sentence laws, so I don't believe they are bothered at all by violent criminals being forced out of prison.



There is quite a large liberal base in favor of reforming drug laws. Unfortunately more people share your attitude so they haven't successfully passed much legislation in that regard. But it is being pushed.



If more people in the country want this ("share my attitude," even though you well know it is NOT "my attitude" -- I OPPOSE mandatory drug minimums and have said so) then isn't that democracy at work -- the people getting what they want, from their elected officials??

"It is being pushed," huh? Is that why it makes big news the way the expiration of a bullshit "assault weapons ban" does? Liberals can't manage to get ANY news coverage of this big push for drug law reform? The only thing I ever hear about the issue is when some joker from NORML gets arrested...

Quote

Quote

It gives them more ammunition to push for gun control, anyway...



That's just a complete non-sequitor and more rhetoric. You try and make is sound like people want violent crime to happen so that they can pass laws. If you believe that you're cynical beyond belief.



That is EXACTLY how it looks when right after Columbine, lib/dems trot out their gun control agenda, as if twelve different gun laws were not already broken by Harris & Klebold and their associates. Cynical, maybe, but for sure it does seem that leftists love an excuse to push gun control -- the more compellingly tragic, the better.

-Jeffrey
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Drop the rhetoric.



if he did that he'd have alot of empty posts... ;)



Dude, if you stopped commenting on what I have to say, you'd barely have any posts here at all!

I'm still waiting for YOU to ever say anything substantive.

By contrast, you seem very concerned all the time with the stuff I say. And you never adequately rebut any of it, either. You just talk amongst yourselves with other people who think I'm wrong.

-Jeffrey
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So what is your point?
Life without parole is an way to keep killers off the street forever without executing them. If that your point?



Yep:)
"The folks in prison aren't very nice and then you have to deal with the inmate's." Unless your the baddest dude in the place your in deep doo doo. For ever, like every day, every minute.

If the correctional offices slip up ridgeway will only be in the Big house for a couple yr's. Another inmate will take the guy out to climb up his career ladder.

BTW LTWOP is less expensive than a quick 15-20 yr death sentence.


OTOH Kill! Kill! Kill!:P

Flame on!

R.I.P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

MR Ridgeway got sentenced to 47 lifr term w/o the chance of parole.

Some defense lawyers in the area are already argueing that if a confessed 47 time killer can get life w/o parole, why can't their clients who only killed
a few people or just one, get the same sentence.
Argue on



Life in prison without parole does not eliminate the possibility of a convict ESCAPING -- and this DOES happen. To argue that there is zero chance of it is to lie through one's teeth. Execution is the only way to be assured a murderer will never kill again.

There should be no such thing as a life sentence with anything other than "absolutely no parole or release, ever, until death."

I think that the killers should also never have their bodies released. The prison system should cremate them and dispose of the ashes in the trash. Yet another deterrent to being a murderer: your family does not even get to have your remains for a "proper" burial. Too motherfuckin' bad.

-Jeffrey



Hi PJ

Good Point, How about executing all the murder's relatives to terminate the bad dudes gene pool and then execute the Dr that delivered the murder. Then burn all the info on the Family, no SS# etc like they never existed.

We can go a step further since the murder's family & Dr won't be needing anything whatever they had can be turned over to the victims families for "restitution".

Kill! Kill! Kill!!!!!!! All the dirty commies! ooops that was old stuff. Now its Al quada, next time .....Who cares Kill Kill Kill them all!!!!!!!:S:o:):D[:/]

R.i.P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Hi PJ

Good Point, How about executing all the murder's relatives to terminate the bad dudes gene pool and then execute the Dr that delivered the murder. Then burn all the info on the Family, no SS# etc like they never existed.



It's quite funny that you sarcastically mention this, since this thread originated with a story about a guy whose ENTIRE FAMILY [B]IS[/B] MADE UP OF MURDERERS!!
:D

Ya missed that part, didja slug? But you did come up with a very effective way of dealing with the problem.

-Jeffrey
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Hi PJ

Good Point, How about executing all the murder's relatives to terminate the bad dudes gene pool and then execute the Dr that delivered the murder. Then burn all the info on the Family, no SS# etc like they never existed.



It's quite funny that you sarcastically mention this, since this thread originated with a story about a guy whose ENTIRE FAMILY [B]IS[/B] MADE UP OF MURDERERS!!
:D

Ya missed that part, didja slug? But you did come up with a very effective way of dealing with the problem.

-Jeffrey



Hi PJ

Nothing personnel not that it matters.

The theory about Killing everyone in a conquered race ( the enemy/Inferior humans) men women children and them making the land uninhapital started a long time ago.

Then we had the WW2 thing. In a attempt to create a pure blooded super race. Purge in russia, Killing fields in laos, Then there was the "ethnic clensing" thing in Bosnia., Hutu's vs Tutu's in africa.

Bottom line the killing will never stop,Based on past and pesent events, for whatever reason some folks will mis behave, hate etc. So based on past history there will always be a excuse/reason for more death and destruction.

Now the mad dogs are in our back yard among others. So the killing will increase our back yard and its getting more personnel.:(

IMO No Solution.:(

OTOH Kill Kill Kill!!! "let god/allah sort them out at the the big DZ in the sky:S

R.I.P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Drop the rhetoric.



if he did that he'd have alot of empty posts... ;)



Dude, if you stopped commenting on what I have to say, you'd barely have any posts here at all!

I'm still waiting for YOU to ever say anything substantive.

By contrast, you seem very concerned all the time with the stuff I say. And you never adequately rebut any of it, either. You just talk amongst yourselves with other people who think I'm wrong.



wow. had your sense of humor surgically removed? ;)

actually we (or I at least, unlike you i dont attempt to speak for anyone but myself) generally just ignore it, you rarely have concrete points or evidence, no solid points to rebut, LOVE to use the old strawman fallacy, (which i've certainly wasted a bit of time setting fire to a few of yours, it is mildly entertaining at times) fail to read for comprehension, preferring instead to assume what others think and say, and become belligerent and insulting when confronted by facts and evidence that disagrees and disproves the bulk of your ravings.

Since your favorite mode of discourse appears to consist of rants, slander and labels, why would anyone really bother to attempt to engage you in reasoned debate? you don’t seem to understand the terms, conditions and basic courtesy involved.

at some point you'll grow out of the phase, lose the forum to grandstand on, or realize that your being ignored and wander off in search of something else shiny to become self righteous and indignantly offended over..... until then your really only a source of amusement

[I]predictable response follows[/I]:P
____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0