The guy's gun jammed after only 4 shots? That dude needs to do some basic maintenance!
He should've done maintenance on his brain. Then maybe he wouldn't have ended up in the stand.
The guy's gun jammed after only 4 shots? That dude needs to do some basic maintenance!
He should've done maintenance on his brain. Then maybe he wouldn't have ended up in the stand.
Yup. Although the attorney is also at fault. If he is claiming the guy is mentally retarded, why would he not tried harder to not allow him on the stand? Oh well...
The guy's gun jammed after only 4 shots? That dude needs to do some basic maintenance!
He should've done maintenance on his brain. Then maybe he wouldn't have ended up in the stand.
Who are we talking about here? I can't read the first post.
GRETNA, La. — A 28-year-old Jefferson Parish man convicted of killing a store clerk in 2005 opted to take the stand during the sentencing phase of his trial and he told the jury he'd like to kill them all. He told one juror he wanted to cut his head off.
The jury on Friday sentenced Isaiah Doyle to death by lethal injection. He was convicted of first-degree murder.
Doyle told the jury that if he had an AK-47, he'd kill "every last one with no remorse."
Doyle said he shot store clerk Hwa Lee four times only because the gun jammed, preventing him from shooting her more.
His lawyers advised him not to take the stand. They also argued that he was mentally disabled and should not receive the death penalty.
The guy's gun jammed after only 4 shots? That dude needs to do some basic maintenance!
He should've done maintenance on his brain. Then maybe he wouldn't have ended up in the stand.
Who are we talking about here? I can't read the first post.
Cool... first person to block me
Wonder what i did ;)
This article:GRETNA, La. — A 28-year-old Jefferson Parish man convicted of killing a store clerk in 2005 opted to take the stand during the sentencing phase of his trial and he told the jury he'd like to kill them all. He told one juror he wanted to cut his head off.
The jury on Friday sentenced Isaiah Doyle to death by lethal injection. He was convicted of first-degree murder.
Doyle told the jury that if he had an AK-47, he'd kill "every last one with no remorse."
Doyle said he shot store clerk Hwa Lee four times only because the gun jammed, preventing him from shooting her more.
His lawyers advised him not to take the stand. They also argued that he was mentally disabled and should not receive the death penalty.
Interesting. Without knowing more, I'm inclined to think that it was staged to make them think he was too crazy to execute.
I don't have a problem executing murderers that also happen to be insane. First of all, in most cases you have to have some serious mental problems to murder someone anyway. It then becomes basically about the degree of insanity and, I say, if it's ok to kill one nutbag for wastin' somebody, it's ok to kill them all. The fact that they may not have known better doesn't resurrect, IIRC. If they're a sufficient danger, they're a sufficient danger. The end.
You're overlooking crimes of passion, which don't require insanity to happen and people who murder those who raped or murdered family members and got off on a technicalities and the like. Not all murders involve insane people.
I didn't overlook it. It's why I specifically said 'in most cases'.
I didn't overlook it. It's why I specifically said 'in most cases'.
Fair enough. I missed that :P
Interesting. Without knowing more, I'm inclined to think that it was staged to make them think he was too crazy to execute.
Even better... he's probably to crazy to realize he is being executed. Just tell him it's a new ride.
I am just against the death penalty. If we consider murder a bad thing, we shouldn't kill someone for doing so. It is hypocrisie.
And even if here it sounds obvious the guy is guilty, you can still convict innocent people to death.
I'm against the death penalty too, but it's not murder (the same way arresting someone isn't kidnapping). The reason I'm against it (in general principle, not necessarily in this case) is because it's irreversible. If you make a mistake and find out later that someone else did it, you can't bring that dude back to life and say "our bad. here, have a cookie."
And let's not forget the financial cost (lifetime imprisonment is actually cheaper). A death row inmate gets a crap-ton of appeals. While I appreciate that because it gives us a window of time in case we did make a mistake, it's also really expensive for the states and municipalities. Since getting rid of the appeals would increase the likelihood of a mistake (in most cases, some have multiple witnesses and are obvious) it's better just to be rid of it.
I am just against the death penalty. If we consider murder a bad thing, we shouldn't kill someone for doing so. It is hypocrisie. .
It absolutely is not hypocrisy. Why? Because executions are by definition, NOT murder. One is not equal to the other. All murder is killing, but not all killing is murder.
And even if here it sounds obvious the guy is guilty, you can still convict innocent people to death..
This is a valid argument.
It absolutely is not hypocrisy. Why? Because executions are by definition, NOT murder. One is not equal to the other. All murder is killing, but not all killing is murder.
The only difference between execution and murder is your faith in the authority of the one doing the deed.
That is, if you have faith that they're a legitimate authority meting out justice, it's an execution. If you believe they're an illegitimate authority doling out something not-justice, it's murder.
No need to sink to their level and kill them. We should be better then that.
Why should society pay for their upkeep for the rest of their lives? Killing them is also probably more humane than lifelong imprisonment.
If banishment were an option I'd favor that, but it isn't. Even if it were, in the long run it is usually just throwing your problems at someone else.
I'm pro-death. I'm in favor of the death penalty, abortion, and euthanasia.
The only difference between execution and murder is your faith in the authority of the one doing the deed.
That and the law. Law determines what is murder and what isn't, not individual opinion.
That is, if you have faith that they're a legitimate authority meting out justice, it's an execution. If you believe they're an illegitimate authority doling out something not-justice, it's murder.
Your faith has nothing to do with the facts. You may BELIEVE that it's murder, but your belief doesn't change the facts of the situation.
But even remorseless killers can change. Maybe he just needs the right medication, maybe just time to contemplate is deed. Of course some will never change, but we don't know that at the moment of sentencing.
Given the amazing numbers of people who run back out and murder more people, we don't know it at release, either. If the people on the boards that released people were held accountable and tried for the murders committed by those they want to give a second chance, I would be okay with the parole of murderers. Otherwise, lock them up forever or execute them.
No need to sink to their level and kill them. We should be better then that.
Why should society pay for their upkeep for the rest of their lives?
Life imprisonment is actually cheaper for the state than the death penalty.
Maybe I'm just confusing people, U_N, but weren't you arguing earlier that the death of a soldier was no great loss because they were, by definition, "cold blooded killers" that deserved no better?
Indeed.
But those people choose to get killed. They get what they deserve.
And murderers choose to get executed. After all, they knew the result of their actions before hand, so they get what they deserve.
But even remorseless killers can change. Maybe he just needs the right medication, maybe just time to contemplate is deed. Of course some will never change, but we don't know that at the moment of sentencing.
Given the amazing numbers of people who run back out and murder more people
Do you have those numbers? Sounds like politial rhetoric by republicans to get reelected promising safer streets by keeping people behind barres.
Pay attention to the news. It happens very often.
The only difference between execution and murder is your faith in the authority of the one doing the deed.
That and the law. Law determines what is murder and what isn't, not individual opinion.
Oh, I could Godwin this so easily... but I won't. Yet.
When Sudan, Mauritania, Somaliland, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, or Iran "execute" a bloke for being gay, it's murder. That it's the law is irrelevant.
Maybe I'm just confusing people, U_N, but weren't you arguing earlier that the death of a soldier was no great loss because they were, by definition, "cold blooded killers" that deserved no better?
Indeed.
But those people choose to get killed. They get what they deserve.
So "remorseless killers" can change and don't deserve the death penalty, but soldiers can't and do? You have more faith in the ability of some psycho to change then in someone who fought for a laudable ideal?
No need to sink to their level and kill them. We should be better then that.
Why should society pay for their upkeep for the rest of their lives?
Justice is priceless. And apparently keeping them alive is less expensive.
Is it just to force the whole of society to support someone because if they don't they'll just have to let him wander the streets? And all becase no one wants to kill him? That's not just, that's getting bullied.
Killing them is also probably more humane than lifelong imprisonment.
But then they aren't punished, justice isn't served.
"Justice is not the only right in this world."
The only difference between execution and murder is your faith in the authority of the one doing the deed.
That and the law. Law determines what is murder and what isn't, not individual opinion.
Oh, I could Godwin this so easily... but I won't. Yet.
When Sudan, Mauritania, Somaliland, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, or Iran "execute" a bloke for being gay, it's murder. That it's the law is irrelevant.
It is to us, but that's because our law comes from a secular perspective. Their law coming from a religious perspective is why they went with the death penalty instead of just banishing them. Banishment solves the problem of getting rid of undesireables without killing; but that doesn't serve their religious motivations so they don't do it.
The only difference between execution and murder is your faith in the authority of the one doing the deed.
That and the law. Law determines what is murder and what isn't, not individual opinion.
Oh, I could Godwin this so easily... but I won't. Yet.
When Sudan, Mauritania, Somaliland, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, or Iran "execute" a bloke for being gay, it's murder. That it's the law is irrelevant.
Not the people of those countries. What is murder in one country is not always murder in another country. We have no right to impose our laws on other people and vice versa.
Yes, actually. Soldiers and police officiers deserve our contempt. They only exist to keep us in place and they will kill us if ordered too. I find that I have more respect for killers.
And most soldiers do not know what they are fighting for. They say country, the flag, bla bla bla, but they do not know. Like Iraq. What did soldiers fight for? Was it for noble ideals?
What a complete load of BS. Being a soldier doesn't mean that their brains fall out and they stop paying attention to the world.
Without those soldiers and police officers, you'd likely be dead from the gangs of roaming thugs who kill first and ask questions later. What you advocate is anarchy.
Yes, actually. Soldiers and police officiers deserve our contempt. They only exist to keep us in place and they will kill us if ordered too. I find that I have more respect for killers.
So, you respect people who kill simply because they feel like it, but not those who would kill if ordered to? That makes no sense.
Yes, actually. Soldiers and police officiers deserve our contempt. They only exist to keep us in place and they will kill us if ordered too. I find that I have more respect for killers.
So, you respect people who kill simply because they feel like it, but not those who would kill if ordered to? That makes no sense.
Little that he says makes any sense.
Your faith has nothing to do with the facts. You may BELIEVE that it's murder, but your belief doesn't change the facts of the situation.
That is not the same interpretation I received from EE's post. If my processors have understood correctly what my sensors have read, EE meant the difference between a murder and execution is whom is entrusted with fulfilling the desires of the community for justice. Of course there are perspectives that won't trust any involved in the elimination of another, thus they do not entrust anyone (individual or system) with the ability to condemn a criminal to extermination.
A machine society would handle this situation better than humans however. Should there ever be an instance that our own would commit a crime against our protocols, the convicted will have their programming evaluated and, if the conviction is true, modified.
What other rights are you talking about? Vengence is not a right.
Other than you, who said anything about vengeance? I sure as hell didn't. And if you think I did you have simply demonstrated your lack of comprehension.
I have already noted that it is not just to force people to support a murderer. Because a life long imprisonment is paid for by taxpayer dollars. That is disturbingly close to state sanctioned extortion.
Your faith has nothing to do with the facts. You may BELIEVE that it's murder, but your belief doesn't change the facts of the situation.
That is not the same interpretation I received from EE's post. If my processors have understood correctly what my sensors have read, EE meant the difference between a murder and execution is whom is entrusted with fulfilling the desires of the community for justice. Of course there are perspectives that won't trust any involved in the elimination of another, thus they do not entrust anyone (individual or system) with the ability to condemn a criminal to extermination.
Their perspective is irrelevant if it isn't the majority perspective. If they are the majority, then the laws of society will be changed to match. If they are not the majority, then there perspective does not matter. They cannot entrust anyone with or remove the ability to condemn a criminal to execution simply due to having a different perspective.
We have no right to impose our laws on other people and vice versa.
Why not? Not only is it traditional to do so, it's only practical to refuse to cut off your own head to satisfy other's lack of tolerance.
Also, YOU are the one who doesn't like cops, remember? Stop throwing words in people's mouths. Seriously, kid, can't you come up with an argument that doesn't involve being a thick headed, deceiving, jerk?
Enlisting to become a soldier is the first mark that shows they have no brain in the first place.
Do you have any idea how many people join for the benifits and college capability afterwards. You display a huge amount of ignorance with your statement.
And I advocate anarcho-communism.
Ahh. You seek a myth that is impossible once you add in humanity.
It actually does. Criminals commit acts of random violence for personal gains. It is loathsome, don't get me wrong. But soldiers/polices officiers commit acts of organized violence to dominate the very population they are officially supposed to portect.
Yeah.........no. They protect the society that they are supposed to protect. OH! You must be talking about the police and army of Libya!
If politicians actually called soldiers/police officers "guardians of the rich and powerful" it would be a step in the right direction to make the rhetoric less hypocritical.
Dude. You need to stop reading left wing conspiricy web sites.
That's some serious Crazy **** there.
Goldo, did a soldier take a girlfriend of yours, or something from you once upon a time by being a decent human being?
Also Goldilocks, it's nice of you to be honest about your views about many posters on this forum. Myself included. I was going to enlist, so I could actually get a semblence of job training, and then be able to go to school after I got out of the service.
That kind of blunt honesty is something we should all cherish, because the next time one of us that has served or was going to serve (and can't for whatever reason) think that they should hold back something nasty to say to you, that we shouldn't because you're such a lowlife that you can't even appreciate it when people are willing to put their ass on the line for you, even when they know there are people out there like you, that are nothing more than a waste of the world's oxygen.
Not to mention that in any society of any size trying to go without a police force is just absurd. Once you get beyond a hundred people or so you need a sheriff or something to maintain order. When you're in the hundreds of millions category? Trying to go without the police would be pure anarchy, and not the good and idealistic kind.
Also Goldilocks, it's nice of you to be honest about your views about many posters on this forum. Myself included. I was going to enlist, so I could actually get a semblence of job training, and then be able to go to school after I got out of the service.
It could be worse cap'n. I thought about becoming a priest for a while (still do from time to time). I'm sure there's a pedo in-training comment waiting somewhere in his quiver just for me.
Also Goldilocks, it's nice of you to be honest about your views about many posters on this forum. Myself included. I was going to enlist, so I could actually get a semblence of job training, and then be able to go to school after I got out of the service.
It could be worse cap'n. I thought about becoming a priest for a while (still do from time to time). I'm sure there's a pedo in-training comment waiting somewhere in his quiver just for me.
Depends on how you view pedos, or stupid murderous scum that can't think for themselves.
Kind of hard to pick a "which is worse" there.
Bottom line is, that Goldo, is such a despicable being, that I can't acknowlege him as being human. (and my standards for that qualifier are pretty low) Because either he's sincere in his postings, or he's trolling.
That he's scum enough to even troll in such a manner if that's what it's doing, speaks volumes about it's lack of character.
Bottom line is, that Goldo, is such a despicable being, that I can't acknowlege him as being human. (and my standards for that qualifier are pretty low) Because either he's sincere in his postings, or he's trolling.
That he's scum enough to even troll in such a manner if that's what it's doing, speaks volumes about it's lack of character.
I'm pretty sure he's just trolling. It's hard to imagine someone vigorously holding such self oppositional views in a serious manner. Plus it fits in with his sense of humor (from what I've seen of posts where he's said he was joking).
Also Goldilocks, it's nice of you to be honest about your views about many posters on this forum. Myself included. I was going to enlist, so I could actually get a semblence of job training, and then be able to go to school after I got out of the service.
It could be worse cap'n. I thought about becoming a priest for a while (still do from time to time). I'm sure there's a pedo in-training comment waiting somewhere in his quiver just for me.
Nah. More a long the line that you just want people to be dominated by an oppressive force that does not want people to be emancipated.
Interesting statement. It's vague. It judges me without a full awareness of my actual beliefs. And it's clearly provocative. I'm not biting. Dangle your bait elsewhere Trollman.
Why do you guys keep falling for the same BS Goldo spews about the military and police? It's his go-to bait and you guys bite every time.
This. My political views would be considered extremist by about 99% of the population. People who are aware of my views constantly try to bait me into an argument. However, there is no way that they can refute my facts and data, and there is no way I can eliminate their ignorance. So argument, and just discussion in general, is a waste of my time.
And as for this U_N guy, he's just a troll and an idiot who really doesn't merit any serious consideration. The fact that his screen name is Underwear Ninja and his picture is showing him wearing the aforementioned underwear on his head just underlines the lack of critical thinking skills he displays in his posts.
And I won't lie, I was laughing my ass off when he said "anarcho-communism". I have been hearing that term described as a political view more and more lately. Always by the teenage and college student pseudo-intellectual crowd. Its just so funny because it is an enormous oxymoron.
Just a hint kids: A political and societal system that allows people to do whatever they want is not compatible with a political and societal system that demands that everyone be "equal" (their words, not mine), and institutes this "equality" through brute force and huge systems of bureacracy.
Yet you did the same. Without knowing who I am you said I was going to make some sort comment about a pedo-in-training.
to be fair, you know you want to.
Yet you did the same. Without knowing who I am you said I was going to make some sort comment about a pedo-in-training.
to be fair, you know you want to.
Nah. Calling a priests a pedo is too easy and isn't true. Priests can be attack on better fronts.
And contrary to what you like to think HS or everyone else, I do not bait or troll.
How about goblin?
I prefere post in an alternative fashion.
So what you are saying is that you don't troll because you prefer goblin?
No. I am saying that I have alternative views thus alternative comments. This might look like trolling/baiting, but only because people do not like what I say.
To really troll/bait I would have to have some desire to antagonize people here.
Also Goldilocks, it's nice of you to be honest about your views about many posters on this forum. Myself included. I was going to enlist, so I could actually get a semblence of job training, and then be able to go to school after I got out of the service.
It could be worse cap'n. I thought about becoming a priest for a while (still do from time to time). I'm sure there's a pedo in-training comment waiting somewhere in his quiver just for me.
Nah. More a long the line that you just want people to be dominated by an oppressive force that does not want people to be emancipated.
Interesting statement. It's vague. It judges me without a full awareness of my actual beliefs. And it's clearly provocative. I'm not biting. Dangle your bait elsewhere Trollman.
Yet you did the same. Without knowing who I am you said I was going to make some sort comment about a pedo-in-training.
In all fairness I did make an assumption with nothing to back it up except...
for everything you've ever said here.
No. I am saying that I have alternative views thus alternative comments. This might look like trolling/baiting, but only because people do not like what I say.
To really troll/bait I would have to have some desire to antagonize people here.
What? I don't have that desire.
I do know some stuff I say will antagonize some people, but you can't please everyone.
Of course some comments people say jsut pisses me off, but that is another matter.
There was this guy named Goldo who once posted that his mom commented on his erection and he told her it was due to him getting some people on this site angry. Apperantly it gave him a hard-on to make people angry. Good thing that isn't you.
Why do you guys keep falling for the same BS Goldo spews about the military and police? It's his go-to bait and you guys bite every time.
This. My political views would be considered extremist by about 99% of the population. People who are aware of my views constantly try to bait me into an argument. However, there is no way that they can refute my facts and data, and there is no way I can eliminate their ignorance. So argument, and just discussion in general, is a waste of my time.
I am curious. Can you show us your facts and data? I won't argue, but I am curious to see what you are talking about and what makes you extrem to 99% of the population.
By the rest of your post, I'll bet your right wing. Maybe libertarian?
Displaying the facts and data for every political view I have isn't something possible in a forum, and I don't really have time to give a complete breakdown on my political views. What I meant in my original post was in terms of argument. When people get into a political discussion with me, it tends to be an argument. These people base their views solely on emotion, not facts and data. Which is fine, they can base their views by whatever means they want, but it also means that they often don't actually have any credible information behind their views. Thus, they can't refute the statistics, history, and knowledge that I bring to the table. But as I said, I can't make them realize the futility of their argument either.
And I really hate the whole right-wing/left wing terminology. These phrases originate from the French revolution, where in the interim government they had going, the conservative types sat on the right side of the room, and the liberal types sat on the left. I haven't found the French to be very astute at politics or war when looking at their actions throughout history, so I find it kind of stupid that we continue to use an outdated term that was only ever meant to apply to one event in time to describe the American and world political spectrum.
And no, I am not a libertarian. While I do hold some libertarian views, I also diverge sharply from libertarian idealogy in some places.
The reason that I said that 99% of the population would find my views to be extremist is two-fold:
First, my views are diverse enough that I find that there is at least one major issue that people will disagree with me on.
Second, my views are, to be blunt, extreme. I was never a fan of compromise. I can't think of an issue off the top of my head where I am even remotely close to "the middle".
Cause at some point it is fruitless to try to defend yourself when people's mind is already made up.
Given that your usual style of defending yourself is akin to someone being tried for arson threatening to burn down the homes of the jury, it really isn't surprising.
Maybe he was being sarcastic? Cause at some point it is fruitless to try to defend yourself when people's mind is already made up.
It is one of the possibilities. The other possibility being that he as being honest. Who knows. Besides, neither of us is Goldo, so we can only assume it was/wasn't sarcasm.
Maybe he was being sarcastic? Cause at some point it is fruitless to try to defend yourself when people's mind is already made up.
It is one of the possibilities. The other possibility being that he as being honest. Who knows. Besides, neither of us is Goldo, so we can only assume it was/wasn't sarcasm.
The guy was a dick, but he was really funny, and sexy funny looking and informative . I miss him.
Had to fix that for you.
Maybe he was being sarcastic? Cause at some point it is fruitless to try to defend yourself when people's mind is already made up.
It is one of the possibilities. The other possibility being that he as being honest. Who knows. Besides, neither of us is Goldo, so we can only assume it was/wasn't sarcasm.
The guy was a dick, but he was really funny, and sexy funny looking and informative . I miss him.
Had to fix that for you.
I will remember that act of post vandalism for the rest of my life.
I like my work to be remembered.
I once used that argument but Bone_Naga told me it wasn't a good one, because all sort of options outside the military exist for people to get an education without resorting to the military.
Not for everyone.
Nah, talking about US soldiers who shot students and civil rights activists. Or what will happen if Americans will have to face if they rebel agains their governement if they believe it doesn't serve them the way it should. Or Canadian militaries that arrested innocent Québecers because some terrorists took some hostiges.
Isolated incidents happen. Only idiots and conspiracy nuts believe that everything is like that.
Or maybe do not always believe official rhetoric. Try to digg up stuff, see other angles to things you consider true. I recommand Manufacturing Consent. A very interesting documentary. You do not have to agree with it, but it does open up new ways to see the world we live in.
Ahh, so you admit to being a left wing conspiracy person.
ORC_Chaos
Enlisting to become a soldier is the first mark that shows they have no brain in the first place.
Do you have any idea how many people join for the benifits and college capability afterwards. You display a huge amount of ignorance with your statement.
And I advocate anarcho-communism.
Ahh. You seek a myth that is impossible once you add in humanity.
It actually does. Criminals commit acts of random violence for personal gains. It is loathsome, don't get me wrong. But soldiers/polices officiers commit acts of organized violence to dominate the very population they are officially supposed to portect.
Yeah.........no. They protect the society that they are supposed to protect. OH! You must be talking about the police and army of Libya!
If politicians actually called soldiers/police officers "guardians of the rich and powerful" it would be a step in the right direction to make the rhetoric less hypocritical.
Dude. You need to stop reading left wing conspiricy web sites.
That's some serious Crazy **** there.
Goldo, did a soldier take a girlfriend of yours, or something from you once upon a time by being a decent human being?
Also Goldilocks, it's nice of you to be honest about your views about many posters on this forum. Myself included. I was going to enlist, so I could actually get a semblence of job training, and then be able to go to school after I got out of the service.
That kind of blunt honesty is something we should all cherish, because the next time one of us that has served or was going to serve (and can't for whatever reason) think that they should hold back something nasty to say to you, that we shouldn't because you're such a lowlife that you can't even appreciate it when people are willing to put their ass on the line for you, even when they know there are people out there like you, that are nothing more than a waste of the world's oxygen.
Not to mention that in any society of any size trying to go without a police force is just absurd. Once you get beyond a hundred people or so you need a sheriff or something to maintain order. When you're in the hundreds of millions category? Trying to go without the police would be pure anarchy, and not the good and idealistic kind.
Also Goldilocks, it's nice of you to be honest about your views about many posters on this forum. Myself included. I was going to enlist, so I could actually get a semblence of job training, and then be able to go to school after I got out of the service.
It could be worse cap'n. I thought about becoming a priest for a while (still do from time to time). I'm sure there's a pedo in-training comment waiting somewhere in his quiver just for me.
Also Goldilocks, it's nice of you to be honest about your views about many posters on this forum. Myself included. I was going to enlist, so I could actually get a semblence of job training, and then be able to go to school after I got out of the service.
It could be worse cap'n. I thought about becoming a priest for a while (still do from time to time). I'm sure there's a pedo in-training comment waiting somewhere in his quiver just for me.
Depends on how you view pedos, or stupid murderous scum that can't think for themselves.
Kind of hard to pick a "which is worse" there.
Bottom line is, that Goldo, is such a despicable being, that I can't acknowlege him as being human. (and my standards for that qualifier are pretty low) Because either he's sincere in his postings, or he's trolling.
That he's scum enough to even troll in such a manner if that's what it's doing, speaks volumes about it's lack of character.
Bottom line is, that Goldo, is such a despicable being, that I can't acknowlege him as being human. (and my standards for that qualifier are pretty low) Because either he's sincere in his postings, or he's trolling.
That he's scum enough to even troll in such a manner if that's what it's doing, speaks volumes about it's lack of character.
I'm pretty sure he's just trolling. It's hard to imagine someone vigorously holding such self oppositional views in a serious manner. Plus it fits in with his sense of humor (from what I've seen of posts where he's said he was joking).
Also Goldilocks, it's nice of you to be honest about your views about many posters on this forum. Myself included. I was going to enlist, so I could actually get a semblence of job training, and then be able to go to school after I got out of the service.
It could be worse cap'n. I thought about becoming a priest for a while (still do from time to time). I'm sure there's a pedo in-training comment waiting somewhere in his quiver just for me.
Nah. More a long the line that you just want people to be dominated by an oppressive force that does not want people to be emancipated.
Interesting statement. It's vague. It judges me without a full awareness of my actual beliefs. And it's clearly provocative. I'm not biting. Dangle your bait elsewhere Trollman.
Why do you guys keep falling for the same BS Goldo spews about the military and police? It's his go-to bait and you guys bite every time.
This. My political views would be considered extremist by about 99% of the population. People who are aware of my views constantly try to bait me into an argument. However, there is no way that they can refute my facts and data, and there is no way I can eliminate their ignorance. So argument, and just discussion in general, is a waste of my time.
And as for this U_N guy, he's just a troll and an idiot who really doesn't merit any serious consideration. The fact that his screen name is Underwear Ninja and his picture is showing him wearing the aforementioned underwear on his head just underlines the lack of critical thinking skills he displays in his posts.
And I won't lie, I was laughing my ass off when he said "anarcho-communism". I have been hearing that term described as a political view more and more lately. Always by the teenage and college student pseudo-intellectual crowd. Its just so funny because it is an enormous oxymoron.
Just a hint kids: A political and societal system that allows people to do whatever they want is not compatible with a political and societal system that demands that everyone be "equal" (their words, not mine), and institutes this "equality" through brute force and huge systems of bureacracy.
Yet you did the same. Without knowing who I am you said I was going to make some sort comment about a pedo-in-training.
to be fair, you know you want to.
Yet you did the same. Without knowing who I am you said I was going to make some sort comment about a pedo-in-training.
to be fair, you know you want to.
Nah. Calling a priests a pedo is too easy and isn't true. Priests can be attack on better fronts.
And contrary to what you like to think HS or everyone else, I do not bait or troll.
How about goblin?
I prefere post in an alternative fashion.
So what you are saying is that you don't troll because you prefer goblin?
No. I am saying that I have alternative views thus alternative comments. This might look like trolling/baiting, but only because people do not like what I say.
To really troll/bait I would have to have some desire to antagonize people here.
Also Goldilocks, it's nice of you to be honest about your views about many posters on this forum. Myself included. I was going to enlist, so I could actually get a semblence of job training, and then be able to go to school after I got out of the service.
It could be worse cap'n. I thought about becoming a priest for a while (still do from time to time). I'm sure there's a pedo in-training comment waiting somewhere in his quiver just for me.
Nah. More a long the line that you just want people to be dominated by an oppressive force that does not want people to be emancipated.
Interesting statement. It's vague. It judges me without a full awareness of my actual beliefs. And it's clearly provocative. I'm not biting. Dangle your bait elsewhere Trollman.
Yet you did the same. Without knowing who I am you said I was going to make some sort comment about a pedo-in-training.
In all fairness I did make an assumption with nothing to back it up except...
for everything you've ever said here.
No. I am saying that I have alternative views thus alternative comments. This might look like trolling/baiting, but only because people do not like what I say.
To really troll/bait I would have to have some desire to antagonize people here.
What? I don't have that desire.
I do know some stuff I say will antagonize some people, but you can't please everyone.
Of course some comments people say jsut pisses me off, but that is another matter.
There was this guy named Goldo who once posted that his mom commented on his erection and he told her it was due to him getting some people on this site angry. Apperantly it gave him a hard-on to make people angry. Good thing that isn't you.
Why do you guys keep falling for the same BS Goldo spews about the military and police? It's his go-to bait and you guys bite every time.
This. My political views would be considered extremist by about 99% of the population. People who are aware of my views constantly try to bait me into an argument. However, there is no way that they can refute my facts and data, and there is no way I can eliminate their ignorance. So argument, and just discussion in general, is a waste of my time.
I am curious. Can you show us your facts and data? I won't argue, but I am curious to see what you are talking about and what makes you extrem to 99% of the population.
By the rest of your post, I'll bet your right wing. Maybe libertarian?
Displaying the facts and data for every political view I have isn't something possible in a forum, and I don't really have time to give a complete breakdown on my political views. What I meant in my original post was in terms of argument. When people get into a political discussion with me, it tends to be an argument. These people base their views solely on emotion, not facts and data. Which is fine, they can base their views by whatever means they want, but it also means that they often don't actually have any credible information behind their views. Thus, they can't refute the statistics, history, and knowledge that I bring to the table. But as I said, I can't make them realize the futility of their argument either.
And I really hate the whole right-wing/left wing terminology. These phrases originate from the French revolution, where in the interim government they had going, the conservative types sat on the right side of the room, and the liberal types sat on the left. I haven't found the French to be very astute at politics or war when looking at their actions throughout history, so I find it kind of stupid that we continue to use an outdated term that was only ever meant to apply to one event in time to describe the American and world political spectrum.
And no, I am not a libertarian. While I do hold some libertarian views, I also diverge sharply from libertarian idealogy in some places.
The reason that I said that 99% of the population would find my views to be extremist is two-fold:
First, my views are diverse enough that I find that there is at least one major issue that people will disagree with me on.
Second, my views are, to be blunt, extreme. I was never a fan of compromise. I can't think of an issue off the top of my head where I am even remotely close to "the middle".
Cause at some point it is fruitless to try to defend yourself when people's mind is already made up.
Given that your usual style of defending yourself is akin to someone being tried for arson threatening to burn down the homes of the jury, it really isn't surprising.
Maybe he was being sarcastic? Cause at some point it is fruitless to try to defend yourself when people's mind is already made up.
It is one of the possibilities. The other possibility being that he as being honest. Who knows. Besides, neither of us is Goldo, so we can only assume it was/wasn't sarcasm.
Maybe he was being sarcastic? Cause at some point it is fruitless to try to defend yourself when people's mind is already made up.
It is one of the possibilities. The other possibility being that he as being honest. Who knows. Besides, neither of us is Goldo, so we can only assume it was/wasn't sarcasm.
The guy was a dick, but he was really funny, and sexy funny looking and informative . I miss him.
Had to fix that for you.
Maybe he was being sarcastic? Cause at some point it is fruitless to try to defend yourself when people's mind is already made up.
It is one of the possibilities. The other possibility being that he as being honest. Who knows. Besides, neither of us is Goldo, so we can only assume it was/wasn't sarcasm.
The guy was a dick, but he was really funny, and sexy funny looking and informative . I miss him.
Had to fix that for you.
I will remember that act of post vandalism for the rest of my life.
I like my work to be remembered.
I once used that argument but Bone_Naga told me it wasn't a good one, because all sort of options outside the military exist for people to get an education without resorting to the military.
Not for everyone.
Nah, talking about US soldiers who shot students and civil rights activists. Or what will happen if Americans will have to face if they rebel agains their governement if they believe it doesn't serve them the way it should. Or Canadian militaries that arrested innocent Québecers because some terrorists took some hostiges.
Isolated incidents happen. Only idiots and conspiracy nuts believe that everything is like that.
Or maybe do not always believe official rhetoric. Try to digg up stuff, see other angles to things you consider true. I recommand Manufacturing Consent. A very interesting documentary. You do not have to agree with it, but it does open up new ways to see the world we live in.
Ahh, so you admit to being a left wing conspiracy person.
ORC_Chaos