Originally posted by Vato26

Originally posted by Zindaihas

 I see, so a woman can engage in the most risky promiscuous sexual behavior possible, get pregnant as a result of HER actions and if she happens to get pregnant, discard her baby as if it were nothing more than a bowel movement?  Is that what you believe?

Wow, I sure hope you are not in any way associated with the health industry or are a health teacher.

The real question is, "Would you want a tramp like that to actually birth a child and, if the child grows up, having another individual living off the welfare system or in jail?"

 As you like saying, a lot of assumptions in that argument.  You assume that a party girl who becomes a mother remains one.  In the case of Casey Anthony, it was true.  But many new mothers decide to take their parental responsibilites seriously and become good mothers.  And even if they don't, that's not a guarantee that the child will grow up on welfare or end up in jail.  Yes, the child would have a lot of obstacles to overcome and might fail to do so.  But there are also many examples of those who have.

Originally posted by Zindaihas

Originally posted by Vato26

Originally posted by Zindaihas

 I see, so a woman can engage in the most risky promiscuous sexual behavior possible, get pregnant as a result of HER actions and if she happens to get pregnant, discard her baby as if it were nothing more than a bowel movement?  Is that what you believe?

Wow, I sure hope you are not in any way associated with the health industry or are a health teacher.

The real question is, "Would you want a tramp like that to actually birth a child and, if the child grows up, having another individual living off the welfare system or in jail?"

 As you like saying, a lot of assumptions in that argument.  You assume that a party girl who becomes a mother remains one.  In the case of Casey Anthony, it was true.  But many new mothers decide to take their parental responsibilites seriously and become good mothers.  And even if they don't, that's not a guarantee that the child will grow up on welfare or end up in jail.  Yes, the child would have a lot of obstacles to overcome and might fail to do so.  But there are also many examples of those who have.

Crack babies, meth babies, heroine babies, Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, child brain damage, autism (usually caused by FAS).  Those are just some of the consequences of drinking or doing drugs while pregnant.  Those children, especially brain damaged or severely autistic children end up depending on the system if they grow up to be adults.  As you stated, they also have a ton of developmental issues due to the mother's drug use during their development.

As you state, there probably are many new mothers that decide to change their ways when they become pregnant.  However, there are many mothers who do not.  There are also many mothers that revert to their old ways after they have their child.  Thus, neglecting the child.  Which means the child could either die or end up in DFS.

Originally posted by seabass2003

Originally posted by Josher

Originally posted by seabass2003

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by C-B-M

Who said it belongs to the state?  It still belongs to her.  She just doesn't get to kill a baby.

By the way, it's amusing you're still using the "you're like a Mullah" argument after you blew it up by saying it's fine to ban mosques.  Apparently, you get to choose when people are like Mullahs.  LOLZ.

\

Do you really think trying to deceive people with semantic tricks is persuasive?

 

Definition of BABY

1

a (1) : an extremely young child; especially : infant (2) : an extremely young animal b : the youngest of a group

2

a : one that is like a baby (as in behavior) b : something that is one's special responsibility, achievement, or interest

3

slang a : girl, woman —often used in address b : boy, man —often used in address

4

: person, thing baby>

— ba·by·hood noun

— ba·by·ish adjective

 

 

fe·tus

noun \?f?-t?s\

 

: an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth

 

 

 

 

Doctors play this game too. Did you know that when you are planning, considering or talking about aborting they refer to the "creature inside the womb" as a fetus. Although, if you are planning on carrying it to full term they refer to it as a baby as early as when you find out you are pregnant. It's a nice little trick so when people consider abortion they refer to it as something else. It makes it easier to destroy a life when you refer to it as less than human.

 

We do this in the military so it was easier to kill our enemies.

I've never been in a doctor's office talking about an abortion, but do Doctors try to talk you out of having one?   I'd think they simply find out the reason to see if its a medical danger  or just an inconvenience and decide if they'll do it or not.  

Most doctors are actually pretty unbiased but when refrencing what you want to do with it, is when they either call it a baby or a fetus.

You support killing babies!

The idea is to project an image of shooting 3 year old children in the head (babies).

It's silly.

We're talking about abortion, not shooting 3 year old children in the head.

There is a difference, so why not stick to the abortion debate, instead of pretending "mothers want to kill babies" (shoot 3 year olds in the head).

A 3 year old child is also a baby. It is a baby that has just left the terrible two's and has mostly likely entered the terrible threes.

Are we talking about 3 year old children?

No, we are not. So why confuse the issue?

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Do you really think trying to deceive people with semantic tricks is persuasive?

 

Wait ...Ihmotepp is accusing me of "semantic tricks"?  That's hilarious.  This from the guy who says:

- "it is the woman's body, so she gets to make the decisions" but "she's not responsible for preventing pregnancy."

- "it is the woman's body, so she gets to make the decisions" but he's only allowing abortion in the first trimester, which "is reasonable."

- wanting to stop abortions makes you "like the mullahs" but when he wants to ban mosques, that "makes sense."

I'm getting lectured by Mr. I Say Whatever I Want Even If It Doesn't Make Sense And Contradicts Myself Because I'm Ihmotepp.

LOLZ.

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by seabass2003

Originally posted by Josher

Originally posted by seabass2003

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by C-B-M

Who said it belongs to the state?  It still belongs to her.  She just doesn't get to kill a baby.

By the way, it's amusing you're still using the "you're like a Mullah" argument after you blew it up by saying it's fine to ban mosques.  Apparently, you get to choose when people are like Mullahs.  LOLZ.

\

Do you really think trying to deceive people with semantic tricks is persuasive?

 

Definition of BABY

1

a (1) : an extremely young child; especially : infant (2) : an extremely young animal b : the youngest of a group

2

a : one that is like a baby (as in behavior) b : something that is one's special responsibility, achievement, or interest

3

slang a : girl, woman —often used in address b : boy, man —often used in address

4

: person, thing baby>

— ba·by·hood noun

— ba·by·ish adjective

 

 

fe·tus

noun \?f?-t?s\

 

: an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth

 

 

 

 

Doctors play this game too. Did you know that when you are planning, considering or talking about aborting they refer to the "creature inside the womb" as a fetus. Although, if you are planning on carrying it to full term they refer to it as a baby as early as when you find out you are pregnant. It's a nice little trick so when people consider abortion they refer to it as something else. It makes it easier to destroy a life when you refer to it as less than human.

 

We do this in the military so it was easier to kill our enemies.

I've never been in a doctor's office talking about an abortion, but do Doctors try to talk you out of having one?   I'd think they simply find out the reason to see if its a medical danger  or just an inconvenience and decide if they'll do it or not.  

Most doctors are actually pretty unbiased but when refrencing what you want to do with it, is when they either call it a baby or a fetus.

 

You support killing babies!

The idea is to project an image of shooting 3 year old children in the head (babies).

It's silly.

We're talking about abortion, not shooting 3 year old children in the head.

There is a difference, so why not stick to the abortion debate, instead of pretending "mothers want to kill babies" (shoot 3 year olds in the head).

A 3 year old child is also a baby. It is a baby that has just left the terrible two's and has mostly likely entered the terrible threes.

Are we talking about 3 year old children?

No, we are not. So why confuse the issue?

 

 

This post makes no sense.

Originally posted by seabass2003

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by seabass2003

Originally posted by Josher

Originally posted by seabass2003

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by C-B-M

Who said it belongs to the state?  It still belongs to her.  She just doesn't get to kill a baby.

By the way, it's amusing you're still using the "you're like a Mullah" argument after you blew it up by saying it's fine to ban mosques.  Apparently, you get to choose when people are like Mullahs.  LOLZ.

\

Do you really think trying to deceive people with semantic tricks is persuasive?

 

Definition of BABY

1

a (1) : an extremely young child; especially : infant (2) : an extremely young animal b : the youngest of a group

2

a : one that is like a baby (as in behavior) b : something that is one's special responsibility, achievement, or interest

3

slang a : girl, woman —often used in address b : boy, man —often used in address

4

: person, thing baby>

— ba·by·hood noun

— ba·by·ish adjective

 

 

fe·tus

noun \?f?-t?s\

 

: an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth

 

 

 

 

Doctors play this game too. Did you know that when you are planning, considering or talking about aborting they refer to the "creature inside the womb" as a fetus. Although, if you are planning on carrying it to full term they refer to it as a baby as early as when you find out you are pregnant. It's a nice little trick so when people consider abortion they refer to it as something else. It makes it easier to destroy a life when you refer to it as less than human.

 

We do this in the military so it was easier to kill our enemies.

I've never been in a doctor's office talking about an abortion, but do Doctors try to talk you out of having one?   I'd think they simply find out the reason to see if its a medical danger  or just an inconvenience and decide if they'll do it or not.  

Most doctors are actually pretty unbiased but when refrencing what you want to do with it, is when they either call it a baby or a fetus.

 

You support killing babies!

The idea is to project an image of shooting 3 year old children in the head (babies).

It's silly.

We're talking about abortion, not shooting 3 year old children in the head.

There is a difference, so why not stick to the abortion debate, instead of pretending "mothers want to kill babies" (shoot 3 year olds in the head).

A 3 year old child is also a baby. It is a baby that has just left the terrible two's and has mostly likely entered the terrible threes.

Are we talking about 3 year old children?

No, we are not. So why confuse the issue?

 

 

This post makes no sense.

I'll try and simplify it for you.

Obama's health care is ruining the country!

Why do you hate black people?

Radical Islamists in Afghanistan have committed acts of international terrorism.

Why do you hate all Muslims?

Women should have the right to choose an abortion.

Why do you want to murder babies?

That's Ihmotepp, who says that if you're against abortion, you're "like the Mullahs."  Ironic, eh?

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by seabass2003

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by seabass2003

Originally posted by Josher

Originally posted by seabass2003

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by C-B-M

Who said it belongs to the state?  It still belongs to her.  She just doesn't get to kill a baby.

By the way, it's amusing you're still using the "you're like a Mullah" argument after you blew it up by saying it's fine to ban mosques.  Apparently, you get to choose when people are like Mullahs.  LOLZ.

\

Do you really think trying to deceive people with semantic tricks is persuasive?

 

Definition of BABY

1

a (1) : an extremely young child; especially : infant (2) : an extremely young animal b : the youngest of a group

2

a : one that is like a baby (as in behavior) b : something that is one's special responsibility, achievement, or interest

3

slang a : girl, woman —often used in address b : boy, man —often used in address

4

: person, thing baby>

— ba·by·hood noun

— ba·by·ish adjective

 

 

fe·tus

noun \?f?-t?s\

 

: an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth

 

 

 

 

Doctors play this game too. Did you know that when you are planning, considering or talking about aborting they refer to the "creature inside the womb" as a fetus. Although, if you are planning on carrying it to full term they refer to it as a baby as early as when you find out you are pregnant. It's a nice little trick so when people consider abortion they refer to it as something else. It makes it easier to destroy a life when you refer to it as less than human.

 

We do this in the military so it was easier to kill our enemies.

I've never been in a doctor's office talking about an abortion, but do Doctors try to talk you out of having one?   I'd think they simply find out the reason to see if its a medical danger  or just an inconvenience and decide if they'll do it or not.  

Most doctors are actually pretty unbiased but when refrencing what you want to do with it, is when they either call it a baby or a fetus.

 

You support killing babies!

The idea is to project an image of shooting 3 year old children in the head (babies).

It's silly.

We're talking about abortion, not shooting 3 year old children in the head.

There is a difference, so why not stick to the abortion debate, instead of pretending "mothers want to kill babies" (shoot 3 year olds in the head).

A 3 year old child is also a baby. It is a baby that has just left the terrible two's and has mostly likely entered the terrible threes.

Are we talking about 3 year old children?

No, we are not. So why confuse the issue?

 

 

This post makes no sense.

 

I'll try and simplify it for you.

Obama's health care is ruining the country!

Why do you hate black people?

Radical Islamists in Afghanistan have committed acts of international terrorism.

Why do you hate all Muslims?

Women should have the right to choose an abortion.

Why do you want to murder babies?

 

It still doesn't make sense in relation to my post.

Originally posted by Vato26

Originally posted by Finwe

Originally posted by Vato26

Originally posted by Finwe

Originally posted by Cleffy

I think the media circus around the case set a very dangerous environment for Casey Anthony.  Pretty much every media outlet has been trying their best to get this woman killed.  How a person can live with themselves by doing this is beyond me.  They obviously have no respect for the US legal system; and constantly air people talking about how she should be tried guilty and killed.  Maybe they could have convicted her if the Prosecutors scenario wasn't so ludicrous.  They didn't have a good case on murder, but they tried anyway and lost.

Duh?

Of course the american populace doesn't have faith in the legal system. Should they?

I've seen no reason as to why they should. It's a joke, a damn bad joke.

People are calling this OJ 2.0. And for good reason. Bitch is guilty. Someones going to kill her, and she'll deserve it.

"So, you admit it, you do endorse murder, yes?" - http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/4335872

 

So, you admit it.  You do, in fact, endorse murder.

Murder is the killing of the innocent, she is not innocent. She is guilty, And therefor, it is not murder. Justice, execution. Whatever you desire to call it. But no. Not murder.

A judge and jury says otherwise.  Your opinion on her "guilt" or "innocence" is completely meaningless.  Unless you are trying to insinuate that YOUR beliefs on justice outweigh what the courts rule.  Which, if you are, then I will laugh my ass off if you are arrested, tried, and found guilty, because you will be crying at nights that you were "innocent" and it would mean jack shit.

Again, she is innocent under law and you are praising others to kill her.  Thus, you are endorsing murder.  That is a FACT.

Murder according to the law.

But...That really doesn't matter.

Because she comitted murder...According to the law. She did not. According to the law. OJ didn't commit murder.

According to german law during WWII, hitler wasnt comitting murder.

A corrupt, inefficient, and arbitrary system is hardly something to base what is considered murder and what is not.

Also...A bit confused what your first paragraph was insinuating. If you meant to think I'm stupid enough to go out and kill this stupid bitch and end up executed or someones bitch for the next 30 years...That's why I'm stating opinion, and not doing it.

So laugh all you want, your assumption was completely retarded.

And imhotepp...I don't want you to respond to logical points I make. Because you only respond with illogical ones filled with ridiculous strawman arguments and insane comparisons. By the way...What I said about you being crazy, wasn't really an insult. What is an insult, would be calling you a fucking retard.

But in all reality...You are nuts. You more or less think anybody who disagrees is a terrorist.

And so therefor, argueing with you would be the equivalency of argueing with ray charles about the colors of the rainbow.

Originally posted by Finwe

 

And imhotepp...I don't want you to respond to logical points I make. Because you only respond with illogical ones filled with ridiculous strawman arguments and insane comparisons. By the way...What I said about you being crazy, wasn't really an insult. What is an insult, would be calling you a fucking retard.

But in all reality...You are nuts. You more or less think anybody who disagrees is a terrorist.

And so therefor, argueing with you would be the equivalency of argueing with ray charles about the colors of the rainbow.

No, not anyone that disagrees with. Specifically you, for your views about controlling people's bodies. I believe it is a Totalitarian ideology, similar to how the Taliban ruled in Afghanistan, although perhaps less brutal. You only want to put the evil wicked sinful women in jail after all, not behead them, so I do give you credit for that. 

Democracy is nothing more than Tyranny of the Majority, without rights.

Originally posted by Finwe

Originally posted by Vato26

Originally posted by Finwe

Originally posted by Vato26

Originally posted by Finwe

Originally posted by Cleffy

I think the media circus around the case set a very dangerous environment for Casey Anthony.  Pretty much every media outlet has been trying their best to get this woman killed.  How a person can live with themselves by doing this is beyond me.  They obviously have no respect for the US legal system; and constantly air people talking about how she should be tried guilty and killed.  Maybe they could have convicted her if the Prosecutors scenario wasn't so ludicrous.  They didn't have a good case on murder, but they tried anyway and lost.

Duh?

Of course the american populace doesn't have faith in the legal system. Should they?

I've seen no reason as to why they should. It's a joke, a damn bad joke.

People are calling this OJ 2.0. And for good reason. Bitch is guilty. Someones going to kill her, and she'll deserve it.

"So, you admit it, you do endorse murder, yes?" - http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/4335872

 

So, you admit it.  You do, in fact, endorse murder.

Murder is the killing of the innocent, she is not innocent. She is guilty, And therefor, it is not murder. Justice, execution. Whatever you desire to call it. But no. Not murder.

A judge and jury says otherwise.  Your opinion on her "guilt" or "innocence" is completely meaningless.  Unless you are trying to insinuate that YOUR beliefs on justice outweigh what the courts rule.  Which, if you are, then I will laugh my ass off if you are arrested, tried, and found guilty, because you will be crying at nights that you were "innocent" and it would mean jack shit.

Again, she is innocent under law and you are praising others to kill her.  Thus, you are endorsing murder.  That is a FACT.

Murder according to the law.

But...That really doesn't matter.

Because she comitted murder...According to the law. She did not. According to the law. OJ didn't commit murder.

According to german law during WWII, hitler wasnt comitting murder.

A corrupt, inefficient, and arbitrary system is hardly something to base what is considered murder and what is not.

Also...A bit confused what your first paragraph was insinuating. If you meant to think I'm stupid enough to go out and kill this stupid bitch and end up executed or someones bitch for the next 30 years...That's why I'm stating opinion, and not doing it.

So laugh all you want, your assumption was completely retarded.

As are your opinion on her guilt... completely retarded.

I get it.  You hate the system.  Too damn bad for you that its here to stay.

Originally posted by Vato26

Originally posted by Finwe

Originally posted by Vato26

Originally posted by Finwe

Originally posted by Vato26

Originally posted by Finwe

Originally posted by Cleffy

I think the media circus around the case set a very dangerous environment for Casey Anthony.  Pretty much every media outlet has been trying their best to get this woman killed.  How a person can live with themselves by doing this is beyond me.  They obviously have no respect for the US legal system; and constantly air people talking about how she should be tried guilty and killed.  Maybe they could have convicted her if the Prosecutors scenario wasn't so ludicrous.  They didn't have a good case on murder, but they tried anyway and lost.

Duh?

Of course the american populace doesn't have faith in the legal system. Should they?

I've seen no reason as to why they should. It's a joke, a damn bad joke.

People are calling this OJ 2.0. And for good reason. Bitch is guilty. Someones going to kill her, and she'll deserve it.

"So, you admit it, you do endorse murder, yes?" - http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/4335872

 

So, you admit it.  You do, in fact, endorse murder.

Murder is the killing of the innocent, she is not innocent. She is guilty, And therefor, it is not murder. Justice, execution. Whatever you desire to call it. But no. Not murder.

A judge and jury says otherwise.  Your opinion on her "guilt" or "innocence" is completely meaningless.  Unless you are trying to insinuate that YOUR beliefs on justice outweigh what the courts rule.  Which, if you are, then I will laugh my ass off if you are arrested, tried, and found guilty, because you will be crying at nights that you were "innocent" and it would mean jack shit.

Again, she is innocent under law and you are praising others to kill her.  Thus, you are endorsing murder.  That is a FACT.

Murder according to the law.

But...That really doesn't matter.

Because she comitted murder...According to the law. She did not. According to the law. OJ didn't commit murder.

According to german law during WWII, hitler wasnt comitting murder.

A corrupt, inefficient, and arbitrary system is hardly something to base what is considered murder and what is not.

Also...A bit confused what your first paragraph was insinuating. If you meant to think I'm stupid enough to go out and kill this stupid bitch and end up executed or someones bitch for the next 30 years...That's why I'm stating opinion, and not doing it.

So laugh all you want, your assumption was completely retarded.

As are your opinion on her guilt... completely retarded.

I get it.  You hate the system.  Too damn bad for you that its here to stay.

*clap* Wtg! Ignore everything I said and result to a strawman and an ad hominem in one!

And no...The system is not here to stay. The collapse is immenent.

Geez...Sinking down to imhotepps level. I actually felt debating with you was possible for a minute...

Speaking of...

Imhotepp...You reinforced my point. Congrats. Everyone who disagrees with your point...Terrorist. Pretty much what I said, and pretty much what you just said.

Oh, and surprisingly we do agree on one thing! Shocking! Democracy is a totalitarian mob rule.

I would make a very tasteless Casey Anthony joke right now, but my mom would kill me.

Originally posted by Finwe

 

Imhotepp...You reinforced my point. Congrats. Everyone who disagrees with your point...Terrorist. Pretty much what I said, and pretty much what you just said.

Oh, and surprisingly we do agree on one thing! Shocking! Democracy is a totalitarian mob rule.

No, we don't agree on that. That's the opinion of moral relativists, and I'm not a moral relativist.

There's a difference between Mob rule  Tyranny of the majority, and liberal free democracy with rights for discrete and insular minorities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspect_classification

This is what countries that have elections, but not a Bill of Rights to protect freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc., are missing to make them free when compared to Western liberal Democracies.

They don't protect people's rights. They just have a vote. A mere vote is nothing more than tyrrany of the majority, which I would never support.

Originally posted by Finwe

Originally posted by Vato26

Originally posted by Finwe

Originally posted by Vato26

Originally posted by Finwe

Originally posted by Vato26

Originally posted by Finwe

Originally posted by Cleffy

I think the media circus around the case set a very dangerous environment for Casey Anthony.  Pretty much every media outlet has been trying their best to get this woman killed.  How a person can live with themselves by doing this is beyond me.  They obviously have no respect for the US legal system; and constantly air people talking about how she should be tried guilty and killed.  Maybe they could have convicted her if the Prosecutors scenario wasn't so ludicrous.  They didn't have a good case on murder, but they tried anyway and lost.

Duh?

Of course the american populace doesn't have faith in the legal system. Should they?

I've seen no reason as to why they should. It's a joke, a damn bad joke.

People are calling this OJ 2.0. And for good reason. Bitch is guilty. Someones going to kill her, and she'll deserve it.

"So, you admit it, you do endorse murder, yes?" - http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/4335872

 

So, you admit it.  You do, in fact, endorse murder.

Murder is the killing of the innocent, she is not innocent. She is guilty, And therefor, it is not murder. Justice, execution. Whatever you desire to call it. But no. Not murder.

A judge and jury says otherwise.  Your opinion on her "guilt" or "innocence" is completely meaningless.  Unless you are trying to insinuate that YOUR beliefs on justice outweigh what the courts rule.  Which, if you are, then I will laugh my ass off if you are arrested, tried, and found guilty, because you will be crying at nights that you were "innocent" and it would mean jack shit.

Again, she is innocent under law and you are praising others to kill her.  Thus, you are endorsing murder.  That is a FACT.

Murder according to the law.

But...That really doesn't matter.

Because she comitted murder...According to the law. She did not. According to the law. OJ didn't commit murder.

According to german law during WWII, hitler wasnt comitting murder.

A corrupt, inefficient, and arbitrary system is hardly something to base what is considered murder and what is not.

Also...A bit confused what your first paragraph was insinuating. If you meant to think I'm stupid enough to go out and kill this stupid bitch and end up executed or someones bitch for the next 30 years...That's why I'm stating opinion, and not doing it.

So laugh all you want, your assumption was completely retarded.

As are your opinion on her guilt... completely retarded.

I get it.  You hate the system.  Too damn bad for you that its here to stay.

 

*clap* Wtg! Ignore everything I said and result to a strawman and an ad hominem in one!

And no...The system is not here to stay. The collapse is immenent.

Geez...Sinking down to imhotepps level. I actually felt debating with you was possible for a minute...

Speaking of...

 

Imhotepp...You reinforced my point. Congrats. Everyone who disagrees with your point...Terrorist. Pretty much what I said, and pretty much what you just said.

Oh, and surprisingly we do agree on one thing! Shocking! Democracy is a totalitarian mob rule.

No strawman.  It's facts.  Your opinion of her guilt is completely meaningless and retarded.  And, you have NO leg to stand on when calling out someone else on ad hominem attacks (blue highlight of your prior two replies above as with the blue in this reply).

The fact remains, your opinion of her guilt is completely meaningless and retarded.  You do not decide the law.  The Judges and politicians decide the law.  And, the law says that she is innocent.  You wanting to kill her, even though she is innocent, under law, means that you are SPONSORING MURDER!  You are just mad because you were caught in a contradiction and now you cannot get yourself out of it with an actual argument that isn't torn to shreds with logic.

As to the green:  Do you have a certified crystal ball?  Are you a registered psychic?  Do you have precognitive powers?  No?  Didn't think so.  Just more wishful thinking from a Conservative.

Also, please stop replying to Ihmotepp into replies to my post.  It's disrespectful (which is your typical MO).  If you want to reply to him, either make a new post or PM him.

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by Finwe

 

Imhotepp...You reinforced my point. Congrats. Everyone who disagrees with your point...Terrorist. Pretty much what I said, and pretty much what you just said.

Oh, and surprisingly we do agree on one thing! Shocking! Democracy is a totalitarian mob rule.

 

No, we don't agree on that. That's the opinion of moral relativists, and I'm not a moral relativist.

There's a difference between Mob rule  Tyranny of the majority, and liberal free democracy with rights for discrete and insular minorities.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspect_classification

 

This is what countries that have elections, but not a Bill of Rights to protect freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc., are missing to make them free when compared to Western liberal Democracies.

They don't protect people's rights. They just have a vote. A mere vote is nothing more than tyrrany of the majority, which I would never support.

 

*shakes head*

Now you're argueing merely for the state of argueing...

Originally posted by Vato26

Originally posted by Finwe

Originally posted by Vato26

Originally posted by Finwe

Originally posted by Vato26

Originally posted by Finwe

Originally posted by Vato26

Originally posted by Finwe

Originally posted by Cleffy

I think the media circus around the case set a very dangerous environment for Casey Anthony.  Pretty much every media outlet has been trying their best to get this woman killed.  How a person can live with themselves by doing this is beyond me.  They obviously have no respect for the US legal system; and constantly air people talking about how she should be tried guilty and killed.  Maybe they could have convicted her if the Prosecutors scenario wasn't so ludicrous.  They didn't have a good case on murder, but they tried anyway and lost.

Duh?

Of course the american populace doesn't have faith in the legal system. Should they?

I've seen no reason as to why they should. It's a joke, a damn bad joke.

People are calling this OJ 2.0. And for good reason. Bitch is guilty. Someones going to kill her, and she'll deserve it.

"So, you admit it, you do endorse murder, yes?" - http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/4335872

 

So, you admit it.  You do, in fact, endorse murder.

Murder is the killing of the innocent, she is not innocent. She is guilty, And therefor, it is not murder. Justice, execution. Whatever you desire to call it. But no. Not murder.

A judge and jury says otherwise.  Your opinion on her "guilt" or "innocence" is completely meaningless.  Unless you are trying to insinuate that YOUR beliefs on justice outweigh what the courts rule.  Which, if you are, then I will laugh my ass off if you are arrested, tried, and found guilty, because you will be crying at nights that you were "innocent" and it would mean jack shit.

Again, she is innocent under law and you are praising others to kill her.  Thus, you are endorsing murder.  That is a FACT.

Murder according to the law.

But...That really doesn't matter.

Because she comitted murder...According to the law. She did not. According to the law. OJ didn't commit murder.

According to german law during WWII, hitler wasnt comitting murder.

A corrupt, inefficient, and arbitrary system is hardly something to base what is considered murder and what is not.

Also...A bit confused what your first paragraph was insinuating. If you meant to think I'm stupid enough to go out and kill this stupid bitch and end up executed or someones bitch for the next 30 years...That's why I'm stating opinion, and not doing it.

So laugh all you want, your assumption was completely retarded.

As are your opinion on her guilt... completely retarded.

I get it.  You hate the system.  Too damn bad for you that its here to stay.

 

*clap* Wtg! Ignore everything I said and result to a strawman and an ad hominem in one!

And no...The system is not here to stay. The collapse is immenent.

Geez...Sinking down to imhotepps level. I actually felt debating with you was possible for a minute...

Speaking of...

 

Imhotepp...You reinforced my point. Congrats. Everyone who disagrees with your point...Terrorist. Pretty much what I said, and pretty much what you just said.

Oh, and surprisingly we do agree on one thing! Shocking! Democracy is a totalitarian mob rule.

No strawman.  It's facts.  Your opinion of her guilt is completely meaningless and retarded.  And, you have NO leg to stand on when calling out someone else on ad hominem attacks (blue highlight of your prior two replies above as with the blue in this reply).

The fact remains, your opinion of her guilt is completely meaningless and retarded.  You do not decide the law.  The Judges and politicians decide the law.  And, the law says that she is innocent.  You wanting to kill her, even though she is innocent, under law, means that you are SPONSORING MURDER!  You are just mad because you were caught in a contradiction and now you cannot get yourself out of it with an actual argument that isn't torn to shreds with logic.

As to the green:  Do you have a certified crystal ball?  Are you a registered psychic?  Do you have precognitive powers?  No?  Didn't think so.  Just more wishful thinking from a Conservative.

Also, please stop replying to Ihmotepp into replies to my post.  It's disrespectful (which is your typical MO).  If you want to reply to him, either make a new post or PM him.

Oh God...The more I actually converse with you, the more ignorant I see you are.

Assumption, Opinion = Two COMPLETELY different things.

An assumption, when unfounded, as was your assumption, is devoid of any sound intellectual backing, and therefor retarded.

My OPINION, though you might disagree with it, does not make it retarded on the basis of you having a differing view.

Reading comp is your friend...

As to the your first two paragraphs. I already responded to such in a previous post, which you decided to retort back with apparantly a "logical" response, which consisted of an inane strawman. Ya, really logical there buddy. Remember, just saying something doesn't make it true...Particularly when it's obvious it's not. Would you care to actually find this logic, and maybe some inkling of intellect and bring it to the table on your side? If not, don't bother responding, or I'll count you as a troll and just ignore any further statements you make that follow the same vein.

To the third paragraph. No crystal ball, just at this venture in the road there would need to be a miracle to salvage a failing system. Doesn't really take tarot cards to see the obvious.

To your last paragraph. Wow...I really try to refrain from base insults...But you're a fucking moron. It's a message board. Get your head out of your ass. If it's too complicated for you - Which it very well might be - Learn to deal with it.

I have a style of posting, particularly in debates, that predates your joining of this site for many years. So frankly...I don't give a damn. If you think it's disrespectful, it's your own problem that you have to struggle with. Sorry pal...Nothing, and I do mean nothing, at all, revolves around you.

Originally posted by Finwe

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by Finwe

 

Imhotepp...You reinforced my point. Congrats. Everyone who disagrees with your point...Terrorist. Pretty much what I said, and pretty much what you just said.

Oh, and surprisingly we do agree on one thing! Shocking! Democracy is a totalitarian mob rule.

 

No, we don't agree on that. That's the opinion of moral relativists, and I'm not a moral relativist.

There's a difference between Mob rule  Tyranny of the majority, and liberal free democracy with rights for discrete and insular minorities.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspect_classification

 

This is what countries that have elections, but not a Bill of Rights to protect freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc., are missing to make them free when compared to Western liberal Democracies.

They don't protect people's rights. They just have a vote. A mere vote is nothing more than tyrrany of the majority, which I would never support.

 

*shakes head*

Now you're argueing merely for the state of argueing...

 

 

Originally posted by Vato26

Originally posted by Finwe

Originally posted by Vato26

Originally posted by Finwe

Originally posted by Vato26

Originally posted by Finwe

Originally posted by Vato26

Originally posted by Finwe

Originally posted by Cleffy

I think the media circus around the case set a very dangerous environment for Casey Anthony.  Pretty much every media outlet has been trying their best to get this woman killed.  How a person can live with themselves by doing this is beyond me.  They obviously have no respect for the US legal system; and constantly air people talking about how she should be tried guilty and killed.  Maybe they could have convicted her if the Prosecutors scenario wasn't so ludicrous.  They didn't have a good case on murder, but they tried anyway and lost.

Duh?

Of course the american populace doesn't have faith in the legal system. Should they?

I've seen no reason as to why they should. It's a joke, a damn bad joke.

People are calling this OJ 2.0. And for good reason. Bitch is guilty. Someones going to kill her, and she'll deserve it.

"So, you admit it, you do endorse murder, yes?" - http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/4335872

 

So, you admit it.  You do, in fact, endorse murder.

Murder is the killing of the innocent, she is not innocent. She is guilty, And therefor, it is not murder. Justice, execution. Whatever you desire to call it. But no. Not murder.

A judge and jury says otherwise.  Your opinion on her "guilt" or "innocence" is completely meaningless.  Unless you are trying to insinuate that YOUR beliefs on justice outweigh what the courts rule.  Which, if you are, then I will laugh my ass off if you are arrested, tried, and found guilty, because you will be crying at nights that you were "innocent" and it would mean jack shit.

Again, she is innocent under law and you are praising others to kill her.  Thus, you are endorsing murder.  That is a FACT.

Murder according to the law.

But...That really doesn't matter.

Because she comitted murder...According to the law. She did not. According to the law. OJ didn't commit murder.

According to german law during WWII, hitler wasnt comitting murder.

A corrupt, inefficient, and arbitrary system is hardly something to base what is considered murder and what is not.

Also...A bit confused what your first paragraph was insinuating. If you meant to think I'm stupid enough to go out and kill this stupid bitch and end up executed or someones bitch for the next 30 years...That's why I'm stating opinion, and not doing it.

So laugh all you want, your assumption was completely retarded.

As are your opinion on her guilt... completely retarded.

I get it.  You hate the system.  Too damn bad for you that its here to stay.

 

*clap* Wtg! Ignore everything I said and result to a strawman and an ad hominem in one!

And no...The system is not here to stay. The collapse is immenent.

Geez...Sinking down to imhotepps level. I actually felt debating with you was possible for a minute...

Speaking of...

 

Imhotepp...You reinforced my point. Congrats. Everyone who disagrees with your point...Terrorist. Pretty much what I said, and pretty much what you just said.

Oh, and surprisingly we do agree on one thing! Shocking! Democracy is a totalitarian mob rule.

No strawman.  It's facts.  Your opinion of her guilt is completely meaningless and retarded.  And, you have NO leg to stand on when calling out someone else on ad hominem attacks (blue highlight of your prior two replies above as with the blue in this reply).

The fact remains, your opinion of her guilt is completely meaningless and retarded.  You do not decide the law.  The Judges and politicians decide the law.  And, the law says that she is innocent.  You wanting to kill her, even though she is innocent, under law, means that you are SPONSORING MURDER!  You are just mad because you were caught in a contradiction and now you cannot get yourself out of it with an actual argument that isn't torn to shreds with logic.

As to the green:  Do you have a certified crystal ball?  Are you a registered psychic?  Do you have precognitive powers?  No?  Didn't think so.  Just more wishful thinking from a Conservative.

Also, please stop replying to Ihmotepp into replies to my post.  It's disrespectful (which is your typical MO).  If you want to reply to him, either make a new post or PM him.

 

Oh God...The more I actually converse with you, the more ignorant I see you are.

Assumption, Opinion = Two COMPLETELY different things.

An assumption, when unfounded, as was your assumption, is devoid of any sound intellectual backing, and therefor retarded.

My OPINION, though you might disagree with it, does not make it retarded on the basis of you having a differing view.

Reading comp is your friend...

As to the your first two paragraphs. I already responded to such in a previous post, which you decided to retort back with apparantly a "logical" response, which consisted of an inane strawman. Ya, really logical there buddy. Remember, just saying something doesn't make it true...Particularly when it's obvious it's not. Would you care to actually find this logic, and maybe some inkling of intellect and bring it to the table on your side? If not, don't bother responding, or I'll count you as a troll and just ignore any further statements you make that follow the same vein.

To the third paragraph. No crystal ball, just at this venture in the road there would need to be a miracle to salvage a failing system. Doesn't really take tarot cards to see the obvious.

To your last paragraph. Wow...I really try to refrain from base insults...But you're a fucking moron. It's a message board. Get your head out of your ass. If it's too complicated for you - Which it very well might be - Learn to deal with it.

I have a style of posting, particularly in debates, that predates your joining of this site for many years. So frankly...I don't give a damn. If you think it's disrespectful, it's your own problem that you have to struggle with. Sorry pal...Nothing, and I do mean nothing, at all, revolves around you.

Has to be one of the best refutations I have seen in a long time!

Originally posted by Finwe

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by Finwe

 

Imhotepp...You reinforced my point. Congrats. Everyone who disagrees with your point...Terrorist. Pretty much what I said, and pretty much what you just said.

Oh, and surprisingly we do agree on one thing! Shocking! Democracy is a totalitarian mob rule.

 

No, we don't agree on that. That's the opinion of moral relativists, and I'm not a moral relativist.

There's a difference between Mob rule  Tyranny of the majority, and liberal free democracy with rights for discrete and insular minorities.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspect_classification

 

This is what countries that have elections, but not a Bill of Rights to protect freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc., are missing to make them free when compared to Western liberal Democracies.

They don't protect people's rights. They just have a vote. A mere vote is nothing more than tyrrany of the majority, which I would never support.

 

*shakes head*

Now you're argueing merely for the state of argueing...

 

 

Originally posted by Vato26

Originally posted by Finwe

Originally posted by Vato26

Originally posted by Finwe

Originally posted by Vato26

Originally posted by Finwe

Originally posted by Vato26

Originally posted by Finwe

Originally posted by Cleffy

I think the media circus around the case set a very dangerous environment for Casey Anthony.  Pretty much every media outlet has been trying their best to get this woman killed.  How a person can live with themselves by doing this is beyond me.  They obviously have no respect for the US legal system; and constantly air people talking about how she should be tried guilty and killed.  Maybe they could have convicted her if the Prosecutors scenario wasn't so ludicrous.  They didn't have a good case on murder, but they tried anyway and lost.

Duh?

Of course the american populace doesn't have faith in the legal system. Should they?

I've seen no reason as to why they should. It's a joke, a damn bad joke.

People are calling this OJ 2.0. And for good reason. Bitch is guilty. Someones going to kill her, and she'll deserve it.

"So, you admit it, you do endorse murder, yes?" - http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/4335872

 

So, you admit it.  You do, in fact, endorse murder.

Murder is the killing of the innocent, she is not innocent. She is guilty, And therefor, it is not murder. Justice, execution. Whatever you desire to call it. But no. Not murder.

A judge and jury says otherwise.  Your opinion on her "guilt" or "innocence" is completely meaningless.  Unless you are trying to insinuate that YOUR beliefs on justice outweigh what the courts rule.  Which, if you are, then I will laugh my ass off if you are arrested, tried, and found guilty, because you will be crying at nights that you were "innocent" and it would mean jack shit.

Again, she is innocent under law and you are praising others to kill her.  Thus, you are endorsing murder.  That is a FACT.

Murder according to the law.

But...That really doesn't matter.

Because she comitted murder...According to the law. She did not. According to the law. OJ didn't commit murder.

According to german law during WWII, hitler wasnt comitting murder.

A corrupt, inefficient, and arbitrary system is hardly something to base what is considered murder and what is not.

Also...A bit confused what your first paragraph was insinuating. If you meant to think I'm stupid enough to go out and kill this stupid bitch and end up executed or someones bitch for the next 30 years...That's why I'm stating opinion, and not doing it.

So laugh all you want, your assumption was completely retarded.

As are your opinion on her guilt... completely retarded.

I get it.  You hate the system.  Too damn bad for you that its here to stay.

 

*clap* Wtg! Ignore everything I said and result to a strawman and an ad hominem in one!

And no...The system is not here to stay. The collapse is immenent.

Geez...Sinking down to imhotepps level. I actually felt debating with you was possible for a minute...

Speaking of...

 

Imhotepp...You reinforced my point. Congrats. Everyone who disagrees with your point...Terrorist. Pretty much what I said, and pretty much what you just said.

Oh, and surprisingly we do agree on one thing! Shocking! Democracy is a totalitarian mob rule.

No strawman.  It's facts.  Your opinion of her guilt is completely meaningless and retarded.  And, you have NO leg to stand on when calling out someone else on ad hominem attacks (blue highlight of your prior two replies above as with the blue in this reply).

The fact remains, your opinion of her guilt is completely meaningless and retarded.  You do not decide the law.  The Judges and politicians decide the law.  And, the law says that she is innocent.  You wanting to kill her, even though she is innocent, under law, means that you are SPONSORING MURDER!  You are just mad because you were caught in a contradiction and now you cannot get yourself out of it with an actual argument that isn't torn to shreds with logic.

As to the green:  Do you have a certified crystal ball?  Are you a registered psychic?  Do you have precognitive powers?  No?  Didn't think so.  Just more wishful thinking from a Conservative.

Also, please stop replying to Ihmotepp into replies to my post.  It's disrespectful (which is your typical MO).  If you want to reply to him, either make a new post or PM him.

 

Oh God...The more I actually converse with you, the more ignorant I see you are.  Ad hominem.

Assumption, Opinion = Two COMPLETELY different things.

An assumption, when unfounded, as was your assumption, is devoid of any sound intellectual backing, and therefor retarded.

My OPINION, though you might disagree with it, does not make it retarded on the basis of you having a differing view.  Yes it does.  Because you are basing your beliefs of justice above the legal system.  Thus, since you believe that your beliefs of the justice are above the legal system's, then you actually can justify murder by trying to claim it isn't murder, but your own brand of justice.  No.  You are, in fact, retarded for making that statement.

Reading comp is your friend...  Pot... meet kettle.

As to the your first two paragraphs. I already responded to such in a previous post, which you decided to retort back with apparantly a "logical" response, which consisted of an inane strawman. Ya, really logical there buddy. Remember, just saying something doesn't make it true...Particularly when it's obvious it's not. Would you care to actually find this logic, and maybe some inkling of intellect and bring it to the table on your side? If not, don't bother responding, or I'll count you as a troll and just ignore any further statements you make that follow the same vein.

No strawman.  Maybe you should take your own advice.  Simply saying that it is a strawman does not make it true... "Particularly when it's obvious it's not."

Fact remains:  You are trying to justify murder by saying it's "justice" because you view your belief of "justice" is above the legal system's.  When, in fact, it is not.  Again, if you are actively going to hunt her down and kill her because, in your deluded mind, it is "justice", then prepare for the consequences of Bubba having his way with you.

To the third paragraph. No crystal ball, just at this venture in the road there would need to be a miracle to salvage a failing system. Doesn't really take tarot cards to see the obvious.  So... you were talking out of your ass with wishful thinking.  Called it!

To your last paragraph. Wow...I really try to refrain from base insults...But you're a fucking moron. It's a message board. Get your head out of your ass. If it's too complicated for you - Which it very well might be - Learn to deal with it.  QQ man... QQ.  Seriously, someone has some rage issues.  I guess that comes from when you hear or read stuff that contradict your own hard-set and completely delusional beliefs (like your sense of "justice" being above the legal system's).

I have a style of posting, particularly in debates, that predates your joining of this site for many years. So frankly...I don't give a damn. If you think it's disrespectful, it's your own problem that you have to struggle with. Sorry pal...Nothing, and I do mean nothing, at all, revolves around you.

I frankly don't care when you joined or not.  Seniority means jack squat.  So, for now, everytime you are disrespectful to me, I will be disrespectful to you.  Which, truthfully, won't take much as you have shown yourself to be a vile person anyways.

Originally posted by xpowderx

Originally posted by Finwe

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by Finwe

 

Imhotepp...You reinforced my point. Congrats. Everyone who disagrees with your point...Terrorist. Pretty much what I said, and pretty much what you just said.

Oh, and surprisingly we do agree on one thing! Shocking! Democracy is a totalitarian mob rule.

 

No, we don't agree on that. That's the opinion of moral relativists, and I'm not a moral relativist.

There's a difference between Mob rule  Tyranny of the majority, and liberal free democracy with rights for discrete and insular minorities.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspect_classification

 

This is what countries that have elections, but not a Bill of Rights to protect freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc., are missing to make them free when compared to Western liberal Democracies.

They don't protect people's rights. They just have a vote. A mere vote is nothing more than tyrrany of the majority, which I would never support.

 

*shakes head*

Now you're argueing merely for the state of argueing...

 

 

Originally posted by Vato26

Originally posted by Finwe

Originally posted by Vato26

Originally posted by Finwe

Originally posted by Vato26

Originally posted by Finwe

Originally posted by Vato26

Originally posted by Finwe

Originally posted by Cleffy

I think the media circus around the case set a very dangerous environment for Casey Anthony.  Pretty much every media outlet has been trying their best to get this woman killed.  How a person can live with themselves by doing this is beyond me.  They obviously have no respect for the US legal system; and constantly air people talking about how she should be tried guilty and killed.  Maybe they could have convicted her if the Prosecutors scenario wasn't so ludicrous.  They didn't have a good case on murder, but they tried anyway and lost.

Duh?

Of course the american populace doesn't have faith in the legal system. Should they?

I've seen no reason as to why they should. It's a joke, a damn bad joke.

People are calling this OJ 2.0. And for good reason. Bitch is guilty. Someones going to kill her, and she'll deserve it.

"So, you admit it, you do endorse murder, yes?" - http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/4335872

 

So, you admit it.  You do, in fact, endorse murder.

Murder is the killing of the innocent, she is not innocent. She is guilty, And therefor, it is not murder. Justice, execution. Whatever you desire to call it. But no. Not murder.

A judge and jury says otherwise.  Your opinion on her "guilt" or "innocence" is completely meaningless.  Unless you are trying to insinuate that YOUR beliefs on justice outweigh what the courts rule.  Which, if you are, then I will laugh my ass off if you are arrested, tried, and found guilty, because you will be crying at nights that you were "innocent" and it would mean jack shit.

Again, she is innocent under law and you are praising others to kill her.  Thus, you are endorsing murder.  That is a FACT.

Murder according to the law.

But...That really doesn't matter.

Because she comitted murder...According to the law. She did not. According to the law. OJ didn't commit murder.

According to german law during WWII, hitler wasnt comitting murder.

A corrupt, inefficient, and arbitrary system is hardly something to base what is considered murder and what is not.

Also...A bit confused what your first paragraph was insinuating. If you meant to think I'm stupid enough to go out and kill this stupid bitch and end up executed or someones bitch for the next 30 years...That's why I'm stating opinion, and not doing it.

So laugh all you want, your assumption was completely retarded.

As are your opinion on her guilt... completely retarded.

I get it.  You hate the system.  Too damn bad for you that its here to stay.

 

*clap* Wtg! Ignore everything I said and result to a strawman and an ad hominem in one!

And no...The system is not here to stay. The collapse is immenent.

Geez...Sinking down to imhotepps level. I actually felt debating with you was possible for a minute...

Speaking of...

 

Imhotepp...You reinforced my point. Congrats. Everyone who disagrees with your point...Terrorist. Pretty much what I said, and pretty much what you just said.

Oh, and surprisingly we do agree on one thing! Shocking! Democracy is a totalitarian mob rule.

No strawman.  It's facts.  Your opinion of her guilt is completely meaningless and retarded.  And, you have NO leg to stand on when calling out someone else on ad hominem attacks (blue highlight of your prior two replies above as with the blue in this reply).

The fact remains, your opinion of her guilt is completely meaningless and retarded.  You do not decide the law.  The Judges and politicians decide the law.  And, the law says that she is innocent.  You wanting to kill her, even though she is innocent, under law, means that you are SPONSORING MURDER!  You are just mad because you were caught in a contradiction and now you cannot get yourself out of it with an actual argument that isn't torn to shreds with logic.

As to the green:  Do you have a certified crystal ball?  Are you a registered psychic?  Do you have precognitive powers?  No?  Didn't think so.  Just more wishful thinking from a Conservative.

Also, please stop replying to Ihmotepp into replies to my post.  It's disrespectful (which is your typical MO).  If you want to reply to him, either make a new post or PM him.

 

Oh God...The more I actually converse with you, the more ignorant I see you are.

Assumption, Opinion = Two COMPLETELY different things.

An assumption, when unfounded, as was your assumption, is devoid of any sound intellectual backing, and therefor retarded.

My OPINION, though you might disagree with it, does not make it retarded on the basis of you having a differing view.

Reading comp is your friend...

As to the your first two paragraphs. I already responded to such in a previous post, which you decided to retort back with apparantly a "logical" response, which consisted of an inane strawman. Ya, really logical there buddy. Remember, just saying something doesn't make it true...Particularly when it's obvious it's not. Would you care to actually find this logic, and maybe some inkling of intellect and bring it to the table on your side? If not, don't bother responding, or I'll count you as a troll and just ignore any further statements you make that follow the same vein.

To the third paragraph. No crystal ball, just at this venture in the road there would need to be a miracle to salvage a failing system. Doesn't really take tarot cards to see the obvious.

To your last paragraph. Wow...I really try to refrain from base insults...But you're a fucking moron. It's a message board. Get your head out of your ass. If it's too complicated for you - Which it very well might be - Learn to deal with it.

I have a style of posting, particularly in debates, that predates your joining of this site for many years. So frankly...I don't give a damn. If you think it's disrespectful, it's your own problem that you have to struggle with. Sorry pal...Nothing, and I do mean nothing, at all, revolves around you.

Has to be one of the best refutations I have seen in a long time!

Of course you would think that.  Because your insane hatred and obsession with me destroys any sense of logic or reason.

On top of it, please stop using an alt.  It's really pathetic.

Oh, and only 5 more days till your next big "prediction" status update!!!

Originally posted by Vato26

Originally posted by xpowderx

Originally posted by Finwe

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by Finwe

 

Imhotepp...You reinforced my point. Congrats. Everyone who disagrees with your point...Terrorist. Pretty much what I said, and pretty much what you just said.

Oh, and surprisingly we do agree on one thing! Shocking! Democracy is a totalitarian mob rule.

 

No, we don't agree on that. That's the opinion of moral relativists, and I'm not a moral relativist.

There's a difference between Mob rule  Tyranny of the majority, and liberal free democracy with rights for discrete and insular minorities.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspect_classification

 

This is what countries that have elections, but not a Bill of Rights to protect freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc., are missing to make them free when compared to Western liberal Democracies.

They don't protect people's rights. They just have a vote. A mere vote is nothing more than tyrrany of the majority, which I would never support.

 

*shakes head*

Now you're argueing merely for the state of argueing...

 

 

Originally posted by Vato26

Originally posted by Finwe

Originally posted by Vato26

Originally posted by Finwe

Originally posted by Vato26

Originally posted by Finwe

Originally posted by Vato26

Originally posted by Finwe

Originally posted by Cleffy

I think the media circus around the case set a very dangerous environment for Casey Anthony.  Pretty much every media outlet has been trying their best to get this woman killed.  How a person can live with themselves by doing this is beyond me.  They obviously have no respect for the US legal system; and constantly air people talking about how she should be tried guilty and killed.  Maybe they could have convicted her if the Prosecutors scenario wasn't so ludicrous.  They didn't have a good case on murder, but they tried anyway and lost.

Duh?

Of course the american populace doesn't have faith in the legal system. Should they?

I've seen no reason as to why they should. It's a joke, a damn bad joke.

People are calling this OJ 2.0. And for good reason. Bitch is guilty. Someones going to kill her, and she'll deserve it.

"So, you admit it, you do endorse murder, yes?" - http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/4335872

 

So, you admit it.  You do, in fact, endorse murder.

Murder is the killing of the innocent, she is not innocent. She is guilty, And therefor, it is not murder. Justice, execution. Whatever you desire to call it. But no. Not murder.

A judge and jury says otherwise.  Your opinion on her "guilt" or "innocence" is completely meaningless.  Unless you are trying to insinuate that YOUR beliefs on justice outweigh what the courts rule.  Which, if you are, then I will laugh my ass off if you are arrested, tried, and found guilty, because you will be crying at nights that you were "innocent" and it would mean jack shit.

Again, she is innocent under law and you are praising others to kill her.  Thus, you are endorsing murder.  That is a FACT.

Murder according to the law.

But...That really doesn't matter.

Because she comitted murder...According to the law. She did not. According to the law. OJ didn't commit murder.

According to german law during WWII, hitler wasnt comitting murder.

A corrupt, inefficient, and arbitrary system is hardly something to base what is considered murder and what is not.

Also...A bit confused what your first paragraph was insinuating. If you meant to think I'm stupid enough to go out and kill this stupid bitch and end up executed or someones bitch for the next 30 years...That's why I'm stating opinion, and not doing it.

So laugh all you want, your assumption was completely retarded.

As are your opinion on her guilt... completely retarded.

I get it.  You hate the system.  Too damn bad for you that its here to stay.

 

*clap* Wtg! Ignore everything I said and result to a strawman and an ad hominem in one!

And no...The system is not here to stay. The collapse is immenent.

Geez...Sinking down to imhotepps level. I actually felt debating with you was possible for a minute...

Speaking of...

 

Imhotepp...You reinforced my point. Congrats. Everyone who disagrees with your point...Terrorist. Pretty much what I said, and pretty much what you just said.

Oh, and surprisingly we do agree on one thing! Shocking! Democracy is a totalitarian mob rule.

No strawman.  It's facts.  Your opinion of her guilt is completely meaningless and retarded.  And, you have NO leg to stand on when calling out someone else on ad hominem attacks (blue highlight of your prior two replies above as with the blue in this reply).

The fact remains, your opinion of her guilt is completely meaningless and retarded.  You do not decide the law.  The Judges and politicians decide the law.  And, the law says that she is innocent.  You wanting to kill her, even though she is innocent, under law, means that you are SPONSORING MURDER!  You are just mad because you were caught in a contradiction and now you cannot get yourself out of it with an actual argument that isn't torn to shreds with logic.

As to the green:  Do you have a certified crystal ball?  Are you a registered psychic?  Do you have precognitive powers?  No?  Didn't think so.  Just more wishful thinking from a Conservative.

Also, please stop replying to Ihmotepp into replies to my post.  It's disrespectful (which is your typical MO).  If you want to reply to him, either make a new post or PM him.

 

Oh God...The more I actually converse with you, the more ignorant I see you are.

Assumption, Opinion = Two COMPLETELY different things.

An assumption, when unfounded, as was your assumption, is devoid of any sound intellectual backing, and therefor retarded.

My OPINION, though you might disagree with it, does not make it retarded on the basis of you having a differing view.

Reading comp is your friend...

As to the your first two paragraphs. I already responded to such in a previous post, which you decided to retort back with apparantly a "logical" response, which consisted of an inane strawman. Ya, really logical there buddy. Remember, just saying something doesn't make it true...Particularly when it's obvious it's not. Would you care to actually find this logic, and maybe some inkling of intellect and bring it to the table on your side? If not, don't bother responding, or I'll count you as a troll and just ignore any further statements you make that follow the same vein.

To the third paragraph. No crystal ball, just at this venture in the road there would need to be a miracle to salvage a failing system. Doesn't really take tarot cards to see the obvious.

To your last paragraph. Wow...I really try to refrain from base insults...But you're a fucking moron. It's a message board. Get your head out of your ass. If it's too complicated for you - Which it very well might be - Learn to deal with it.

I have a style of posting, particularly in debates, that predates your joining of this site for many years. So frankly...I don't give a damn. If you think it's disrespectful, it's your own problem that you have to struggle with. Sorry pal...Nothing, and I do mean nothing, at all, revolves around you.

Has to be one of the best refutations I have seen in a long time!

Of course you would think that.  Because your insane hatred and obsession with me destroys any sense of logic or reason.

On top of it, please stop using an alt.  It's really pathetic.

Oh, and only 5 more days till your next big "prediction" status update!!!

and?