News Sep 21, 2011 at 6:33 am


Poster at a public memorial for Jamey Rodemeyer : It takes a village to kill a child.

American Exceptionalism indeed.…
Being black in the South can be a terminal condition. That's nothing new.
Shocking that the south is killing a black man who did nothing wrong.

We should have let them leave the union when they wanted to. It would have saved the rest of us decades of pain.
Adding to the barbarism--the execution is scheduled for International Peace Day. What's next, stoning accused adulterers to celebrate Valentine's Day?
@4, SHUT UP!!! Don't give the Dominionists in this fucked up country any more ideas!!!!
this is why I'm pro death penalty IN THEORY, and anti death penalty IN PRACTICE.

i think some crimes deserve to be punished by death, but i don't trust our judicial system (or any other, really) to sort of who did them.
I think some of us believe that we are in fact a barabarous country, revel in it in fact, and believe that barbarous punishment is therefore appropriate.

Of course, many more believe that Some Other People are barbarous and merit barbarous punishment, but they and their own kids deserve all the civilised nuance the law can manage.

(I think was the Onion, but I can't find it there: "Lawyer tries to get accused ghetto drug-dealer tried as a seventeen-year-old rich white kid with a great future in front of him", though I did find its inverse:…

today Texas is killing the guys who dragged a black man to death behind their pickup truck. Not sure if that's progress, but I won't miss 'em.
Danny you are so right.
The cold blooded murder of that policeman was barbaric beyond words.
Sadly true.
Black on black crime is pervasive and often lethal.
No, not "the guys," @8, just one of them.
Did nothing wrong?
If you have helpful information please contact Georgia authorities.
In the interest of Justice.

If you are just venting
tired old HomoLiberal anti-Southern bigotry, ignorance and hate
perhaps you would be so kind as to
shut your ignorant fucking piehole, honeychild....
cosmic irony is often confused with barbarism....
@12 - Oh shit! Did nobody think to say anything to the authorities? Dammit, why do we always do this!

Somebody at least tell me we've said something to the president about his campaign promises to the LGBT community. That might be why it's taking so long.
@6 I'm completely with you. It's not that I don't think a person can deserve death, it's that I am certain that the inherent flaws of a judicial system composed of humans - petty, fallible, vindictive humans - mean it can't be trusted to determine who needs to die with any accuracy.

If a system can't be sure that it only kills those deserving of death, how can we support it making the decision to kill people at all?

In addition, the presence of a death penalty has not been shown to deter crime, and death penalty cases routinely cost more to tax payers versus simple permanent imprisonment. So where is the benefit?
For those of you who hate this country (for reference, if you use words like progressive or left to describe yourself, this would be you) the borders are pretty easy to find. Just get in your imported car wearing your imported clothes, check the time on your imported wristwatch or cell phone and leave. Believe me, no American would miss the likes of Dan Savage if he went where he claims to be married. Or to hell. Either suits me.

Yeah, there's the collateral damage of the Europeans or Canucks getting a bad impression of what Americans are like if the left emigrated en masse, but the leftists there seem to pull the strings anyway, so they likely won't notice your political idiocies.

BTW, I have no fear of an influx of disgruntled lefties descending on Africa or Asia or South America. Where would you get that special brand of lufa sponge in Cuzco, or the ONLY brand of spring water that has that perfect taste in Cambodia or India, or the pre-torn, pre-shrunk, pre-faded (for rational people this means pre-ruined) jeans to go with your t shirt you wear to dinner in fine restaurants in Beijing? As for Africa a collective shudder probably passes through your delicate sensibilities at the thought of living...there.

Seriously, emigrate, and soon. America will be so much better without you.
Shit like this scares me. Like, really, really scares me. The thought that I could one day be falsely accused of something, and have my freedom and/or my life taken away because of it, and of there being nothing that I can do about it, it's just frightening. This is horrible...
I'm so happy you have no problem with people being killed for no reason, Seattleblues. That will make it so much easier when your turn comes around.

As it happens, I don't agree with the death penalty for pretty much the same reasons others have stated here.

As it happens, I don't equate one flaw in our system with us being barbarians.

As it happens, I realize the tremendous force for good our nation has been both here and abroad for the past 2 and a half centuries, death penalty or no.

Since Savage and his fellow travellers don't, since they hate this country, since they wish to tear down family and morality and integrity and replace it with their own depravity and barbarous behavior throwing around the word barbarian seems particularly poor strategy on their part.
Liberals love America. That's proven by our desire to improve the country. Cons are the ones who are being negligent on that count.
State sponsored lynching.
Also, STFU you global warming denying Bigot.
“Innocent” is a HUGE stretch. It’s not like his victim was the first man he’d shot (that night no less), and probably wouldn’t have been the last. Innocent people do not shoot up cars for yelling obscenities at them (ask Mr. Cooper if RAH (“Rough As Hell" Davis) is “innocent”). This is no loss to humanity. Sometimes the ends really do justify the means. Sending RAH to Hell ASAP is a public service.
I'm looking forward to the day when the unnecessary deaths of thousands of innocent foreigners at the hand of the government mean as much to Democrats as the death of one innocent American at the hand of the government.
@ 23, dead wrong. Justice means being prosecuted for, and convicted of, crimes actually committed. Your attitude is better suited to a banana republic.
As is our current government. What do you expect?
This guy is not a Sunday school teacher who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. He’s a thoroughly bad apple who’s shit caught up with him. I’m completely convinced he’s a killer and deserves to die.
Yay for snapping to judgment and forgoing due process! Who needs all that when you got press reports?
Dear SB @16: Fat chance. We're thrashing your sorry ass in the "culture war" (your name for it) and we're looking forward to *your* leaving the US for such morally upright countries as Afghanistan or such libertarian paradises as Somalia.

Not that "conservatives" can ever be counted on to keep their promises. The number of right-wing bullies who swore on TV and the radio they'd leave the country if Obama got elected and yet continue to pollute the airwaves here is mind-boggling.

Silvio Levy
He had due process. He exhausted due process. He’s been being processed since 1989 for Christ sake.

What (other than press reports) are you using in your snap to judgment of that process?

If you have new information proving his innocence I suggest you provide it to the authorities ASAP.

First, I could emigrate to Italy today, if I wished. Since I actually love my country I won't abandon it to the barbarians until the heart of what made us great is actually and irretrievably dead.

Funny, I recall a lot of noisy liberals saying that if George Bush won the election of 2000 or 2004 they'd leave for Canada. Since Canada hasn't reported a mass influx of Birkenstock and tie-dye wearing potheads, I'm guessing that didn't happen.

And if you're winning so handily, why all the snarky comments about America? After all, by your narrative we're becoming the PC workers paradise you want us to be, so why the complaints? Why the constant comparisons to supposedly better places who do it right in your sorry estimations?

Could it be that you've reached a saturation point for believing the lies you tell yourselves?

Nah. The Democrat party would cease to exist were that to happen.
I repeat, STFU you global warming denying Bigot.
@ 32, phony outrage and the disparagement of those who stand against him are all he has.


I'd give you the same advice I've given others. Don't use words unless you understand what they mean. Websters has an online dictionary for your convenience which I'd strongly suggest you use.


I capitalize bigot because it's your name, Bigot.

big•ot noun \ˈbi-gət\
Definition of BIGOT
: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.

Looks like I'm using the word properly after all. Also Bigot, if you wouldn't mind linking to the post where I stated such an asinine timeline for climate change, I'd be much obliged.
@ 35, funny, I recall proving beyond all doubt that you fit that definition. You talk about studying psychology in college; isn't that what they call a mental block?

Also funny is your appeal to evidence when you think it helps you; you never seem to have it on your side, though. Is that why you never answer challenges to prove your case?
@16: You're confusing liberals with hipsters.
@19: "Any one can make an error, Ensign. But that error doesn't become a mistake until you refuse to correct it." --Grand Admiral Thrawn
We're not barbarians because we allowed an innocent man to be sentenced to death. We're barbarians if we fail to correct this error even after it becomes apparent.
@16 The reason a lot of europeans have a general distaste for america is swaggering right wing pricks like you. The liberals, you know; the people who aren't trying to turn your country into a theocracy for the rich, are people we can actually talk to and reason with
@bigotry misunderstood

No. What you recall is proving to your personal satisfaction that someone you don't know fits a definition you appear not to understand.

By your understanding of bigotry I'm bigoted about enjoying vanilla ice cream over a fresh strawberry rhubarb pie. After all, offered this dessert or any other, I'd pick that one. I'm bigoted about loving my wife and kids, since I prefer her and them to any other wife or kids I know. All these things are more or less constant in my emotional or mental background. Yet of none of these would a sensible person say I or anyone else is bigoted.

The turning point lies in hostility at least, hatred more likely. I don't feel hostility towards gays or lesbians. I certainly feel no hatred, though a certain pity at poor life choices is inevitable. Nor could any person not reading to find what they wish to find read such hatred or hostility in what I write.

Again, using words should entail understanding what they mean and how they apply.
“If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.”
--Bishop Desmond Tutu
@ 40, if making false claims about sexual orientation isn't motivated by hostility, then what drives you to do that?

Since you said that "Nor could any person not reading to find what they wish to find read such hatred or hostility in what I write.", is that a challenge to find a time when you posted something hateful and hostile? You know that won't take too much time - any post where you call Savage "Danny", in contradiction to your claims that people you don't like don't get to be called by nicknames (your justification for calling Goldy by his last name) counts.
SB @31, we're winning alright.
"The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice".
The end of DADT and the increasing realization that the death penalty is an usurpation of the Omnipotent's prerogative ("Vengeance is mine") by a swarm of frightened, pathetic beings who think that "it takes balls to execute an innocent man" is a statement of praise are but two recent illustrations of the statement often repeated by MLK. (Yes, I know he didn't invent it.)

Of course, we're not winning on all fronts. It's perfectly possible that your side will succeed in destroying all coral reefs and
in making large swaths of the world uninhabitable to our grandchildren, or at least the grandchildren of the people who are already leading a very marginal existence in poor countries.

But on the equality front, yeah, we're winning alright, and you and your fellow bigots are smarting cuz you see don't stand a chance. And after all, how could you, when your enemy is Birkenstocks, tie-dye, pot, loofahs, spring water -- everything you happen not to like and which you conflate into one great big strawman? You LIKE to be a "victim".

But seriously, you'd move to ITALY if you didn't so love this country? I'd expect a manly man like you to move to a country where they have morals, not one where a porn star served in Parliament until recently. Or one where your gospel of small government has actually been put in practice -- unlike the US, where every republican administration consistently increases the percentage of the GDP channeled through the government, or Italy, where, you know, "socialized medicine" ensures the 2nd best health-care system in the world, right after France.

Silvio Levy

So, uh, you guys are still talking to Seattlebigot, huh? How's that working out? Now this thread's cluttered with his drivel. Thanks a lot.
Maybe you folks should organize a letter-writing campaign to the Ku Klux Klan's headquarters, try to get them to see the error of their ways.
@45/46 -- guilty as charged. Won't do it again.

Silvio Levy
I think we need a legally binding Slog poll to answer this question once and for all, Matt.
If the south is such a terrible place, why have Black people, African Americans, been moving back here in increasing numbers since the late 70's? Look it up.
So the next time you denigrate the south, are you also denigrating Black southeners for living in this part of the country? If they choose to live here, there's something wrong with them, too?
*sigh* Don't feed the trolls, people. All you get is fat trolls.
The "right wing" point of view.…
@49: I like your word choice, particularly your use of "denigrate".

Yeah! Because thinking America a pretty decent place to live and be a citizen, rather than exceptionally barbaric as Dan Savage thinks it, is EXACTLY like being a KKK member!
@ 53, keep going for the low hanging fruit. I know my questions are probably beyond your means to answer honestly.

The arc of history moves in the end towards justice? Well, one hopes. But what DADT ending has to do with the death penalty, the arc of history, or justice is a bit murky to me.

For me the whole DADT thing hinged on how the commanding officers said gay or lesbian members of the armed forces impacted the armed services in general. They thought the issue unimportant. That's good enough for me, since it's their job to run the armed forces, not mine.

Like defending torture as an interrogation technique or wiretapping without warrants, I thought that whole DADT thing a waste of conservatives time and energy. Saving those political resources for defending marriage and family makes sense. Using those resources to try to keep the country out of the swamp of socialism makes sense. Squandering them on non-issues doesn't.

As far as 'vengeance is mine,' you're right. You've convinced me. I agree completely. So let's abolish the criminal codes entirely, since vengeance is God's.

Italy, yes. We already own a home there, we like the village life where the government rarely gets involved with anything, and the food, art, sense of history and people are amazing. Their health care system is crap, and when you do have to deal with the government it's like something from Kafka. But once you own property and have your visa status worked out that's relatively rare. The crazy politics, incursion of church into state, and general left wing looniness of the place can be counted off as a small cost to pay for the enjoyments.

And if we're going to do all the dumb things the socialist countries of Europe do anyway, why stay here? I love my country but I love the great country it is, not the effeminate leftist insane assylum it's becoming. If we're going to turn it into a watered down version of someplace else it's dead. Honor the memory, but don't let that become ones life, I guess is my thought.

I've not once lied about sexual orientation. It may or it may not be innate as an inclination. Whatever it is, the behavior of homosexuality is the single notable difference between a heterosexual identifying and a homosexual identifying person. And sexual behavior is chosen or it's rape.

What another citizen does in the privacy of their bedroom or I in mine is our respective business, and I like it that way. When a gay citizen uses their private sexual behavior as a means of blackmail to gain special citizen status, or to alter millenia old social structures for their convenience, then I have a problem. But not until then.

And disliking a barbaric, vulgar, deviant and perverse person evangelizing barbarism, vulgarity and perversity is different from disliking the sexual orientation he chooses to call himself. I'd have thought you'd know that, but would have been wrong.

I was writing about the death penalty and particularly about Dan Savage expressing hatred for this country, not about homosexuality. I think it was Outer Cow that turned it into a gay rights thing for whatever reason.

So I could answer the critique and be called obsessive about homosexuality (which I didn't bring up) or not answer it and be told I wasn't answering arguments. Can't win for losing I guess.
You've called sexual orientation a choice. That is false, and you've put up nothing to counter all the evidence others have countered your claim with. And your second paragraph has similarly been swept away before - no need to rehash already-victorious arguments.

You've also never even offered an explanation as to what, exactly, makes Dan savage "deviant" or "perverse" or "barbaric." (I'll give you "vulgar," but ask what's so bad about vulgarity.)
BTW, Seattleblues, are all criticisms of America "hate?" If not, where's the line?

A patriotic person is often the first to critque errors or injustices.

But if the left hates our approach to family and marriage, our approach to health care, our approach to economics, our center right mentality, our approach to transportation- I have to wonder what exactly they like about the place.

It's like saying I love my wife, if she were blond, taller, had different eye color and, oh yeah, had a different personality. I suppose if you dislike more than you like about this country, that might be the line.


I said that the sole difference between one who identifies as homosexual and one who identifies as heterosexual is choice driven. Whether the inclination is or isn't I don't know, or care.

I have any number of inclinations. Some of them are benign or neutral, and I act on them. Some are not so benign and I unfortunately sometimes act on them as well. And some I choose not to act on, in either category. In any case, they're all choices which impose no obligation on any other person in this world.

So with homosexual behavior. If someone wants to act on that inclination, not my call. If they think that means they can alter family structures and laws and the larger morality to fit their choices, then it infringes on others rights to choose and becomes the business of their fellow citizens.
@56: What "special citizen status" would gays be receiving if same-sex marriage is allowed? I've asked you this question many times, and you have yet to answer.
@60: There's a slight distinction that you seem to have glossed over. We liberals don't hate how America does things; we disagree with how America's conservatives do things. And I'm sorry, but America and her values are not defined by her conservatives, no matter how much your lot toot the "family values" horn.
So apparently gay marriage would "[infringe] on others [sic] right to choose"? What choice would gay marriage be taking away from straights? Well?
The right to look down their noses and think themselves superior because their relationships are deemed "worthy" of legal protections and tax benefits. Sadly it comes off as an obsession with penises going into vaginas, because they don't wish to prevent those that are infertile, post menopause, or those who wish not to procreate in the club. If there is a penis and a vagina then it's all good. It would seem that they wish to maintain their special class citizenship. Sad.
@ 60, so you can't say where the line can or should be drawn, and went off on an irrelevant tangent in order to demonize those you disagree with and misrepresent their position.

This is why I usually have to repeat my questions.

You seem to feel that things are better left alone rather than changed. Is that true or false?
If you worry about things like whether someone is guilty or not, you don't belong in Seattleblues' America.
PS Although that was sarcastic, I think there's some truth in the idea that many conservatives, while they might intellectually support the idea that "it's better for 100 guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to be convicted.", deep down are more worried about guilty men going free.
PPS And perhaps some of those conservatives have a particular image of 'guilty men', which Troy Davis might fit more closely than, say, Frasier.
@38: When can we get the death penalty for hipsters? It's barbaric that we don't already have that.
@60 Seattleblues, you shouldn't expect anyone to take your constant repetition of the same tired arguments seriously when you've been caught lying repeatedly, and have yet to admit it.
To be fair, SB isn't actually lying: An intentionally false statement

Deluded and uninformed yes, but they do believe what they are saying.

But then .... the witnesses to this case did lie and should take the man's place. ;)
Kitten Koder, did you just say that perjury should now be a capital offense? How about the cops and prosecutors who coerced that false testimony?

SeattleBlues, if you think I hate America, or that I am not a 'real' American, you can go to Hell. You don't get to define my patriotism.
Yes, the Republicans have been using that same old, tired line since at least the days of Richard Nixon, when those of us who opposed the Vietnam war were told we weren't "real" Americans and to "love America or leave it."

Funny thing, though. Vietnam was a colossal fuck-up. I guess we were right.
No one will ever convince me that the death penalty is appropriate. If I ever voice the opposite because I want revenge, then it is my desire for revenge, not me that is speaking. And... I should be denied that revenge. Killing is killing, whether the state does it or any other murderer. It is barbaric, inhumane and intollerable. While proud of our country in so many ways, this brings shame to us.
if you don't have an obsession with penises going into vaginas you aren't doing it right....
By your understanding of bigotry I'm bigoted about enjoying vanilla ice cream over a fresh strawberry rhubarb pie.

Not at all. You wouldn't even be a bigot if you believed that enjoying vanilla ice cream was more moral than enjoying fresh strawberry rhubarb pie, or that an essentially anthropomorphic deity whose presumed existence could not be illustrated via any empirical evidence preferred he who enjoyed vanilla ice cream to he who enjoyed said pie; you might be foolish or misguided, mind you, but you wouldn't be a bigot, per se.

However, you needn't go so far as to have animosity toward the rhubarb-eater to be a bigot (though it would certainly help, would probably even suffice in the absence of other characteristics). If, for instance, you felt that your moral views (and those of your brethren/tribe/ilk) justified legal process by which the vanilla ice-cream oriented could have their consumption subsidized or granted special privileges over the strawberry-rhubarb-oriented, conferring special rights upon them because, for reasons unrelated to demonstrable civic utility, you believed that vanilla-eating formed one of the cornerstones of civilization, I would that "bigot" would be well-applied.

Whatever it is, the behavior of homosexuality is the single notable difference between a heterosexual identifying and a homosexual identifying person.

Not really. If someone lacks erotic desire or romantic emotional interest for members of the opposite sex, and possesses both for members of his/her own sex, he/she is homosexual by orientation whether or not the individual acts on such proclivity. Conversely, people who engage in homosexual behavior in prison or during times of war are certainly engaging in homosexual activity, but aren't necessarily homosexual as a matter of orientation.

What's more, if we called everyone who engaged in homosexual activity at one time or another in his or her life "gay" or "lesbian," that "3% of the population" comment you throw out is no longer relevant, since the percentage by that point would be no less than 10% and, according to some studies, possibly as high as 20%.

Oh, yeah . . . the death penalty (got off topic; too much fun to wipe my feet on intelligent-sounding fallacies). I'm against it. Some people certainly deserve to die, but since the people who will discern as much are also people (some of whom almost certainly deserve to die according to some other human's metric), I'm really not comfortable putting that decisions in the hand of the collective, which always operates from a place of consensus, and thus a place of middling aptitude and imagination.
SeattleBlues: YOU ARE A BIGOT
@74: Are you against all punishments then? How else do we make those decisions? The decision to kill someone is not much different than the decision to imprison him for life. Execution is actually kinder in a lot of ways: prisons feature rape, torture, and emotional damage.
@70 Well, if you can prove they coerced then it falls to them instead ... ;) Note "prove" ... innocent people should not be punished, thus why their guilt has to be proven.

Lifting weights are you?

I'd stick to single syllable words, or just a grunt. Puts more behind the lift, in my experience. Good luck with the work-out.

Oh.... You actually don't understand the word still?

I'm not against all punishments, BlackRose, but I wouldn't go so far as to say I "believe in" any of them; I accept the notion of punishment on the same basis I accept the notion of civilization--cautiously, and as a necessary evil (or as a necessary potential evil, subject to abuses so hidden it is folly to imagine we can prevent all of them).

I disagree profoundly with your assertion that the decision to kill someone is no different than the decision to imprison him for life. I agree that execution may be "kinder" than life imprisonment (which some would say is a good argument for prison, though "rape" and "torture" sound like good arguments for prison reform), but to me, it's not what it says about the matter of kindness. Reasonable people can disagree as to whether kindness is a foundational value (I think it is, but that's a Buddhist argument; as an ontological nihilist and a firm believer that law and other government functions should stick to empirically demonstrable utility, rather than moral assertion, I don't see any more use in legal or political debate for my Buddhist beliefs than I do for the beliefs of the anthropomorphic monotheists of one's choice), but there is no such wiggle room in the matter of life. Value does not occur in nature; quantity occurs/exists, and organisms place value upon it. Thus no value assignment is possible without first valuing life; in turn, no social contract is possible without value assignment. Values can differ from organism to organism, or from society to society, but the reason no society fails to value life (at least in the abstract) is that the simple act of contracting with another organism relies upon precisely this valuation.

Now, this valuation does not necessarily preclude the death penalty; after all, if all societies value life, and all societies (more or less) have practiced the death penalty at one time or another, clearly many have seen fit to enforce that value by taking the life of those who violated that principle. For me, though, this is dangerous transactional reasoning--to collectively take life in enforcement of the principle that life has value suggests that the collective that makes this decision is somehow more reliable in its reasoning than the individual who made, essentially, the same decision in taking a life. In many ways, I'm MORE inclined to trust the individual to make such decisions than the collective, as the individual is often called to make decisions regarding self-defense, whether or not to let (or even help) an ailing loved one die, whether to abort an embryo or fetus, and so on. Distinguishing between these and criminal homicide requires some collective analysis, but any group can be collectively wrong as well as collectively right, and I, for one, would rather not see so fundamentally fallible a body have say over so foundational a matter as life.
Put up or shut up, Seattleblues. The basis on which you might reasonably be called a bigot has been illustrated at @74. Refute it, or admit (if only through silence) that one could reasonably apply the label to you (even if you could reasonably disagree).
Kitten Koder, coercion was alleged by several of the recanting witnesses. It would be hard as hell to prove it now.

But just to be clear--you want perjury and/or suborning perjury, to be a capital offense?

Just how bloodthirsty are you?

And once again, don't smiley wink at me. We're not friends and I don't want to see what you think passes for humor.
@82 I'll use emoticons where I want. ;) Okay? However, lying to me is the greatest sin anyone can commit, so I would agree to making them a capital offense, it follows my personal ideology, just like many people think murder is. As for how bloodthirsty I am, I admit I'd love killing humans to be 100% legal here, it isn't so I don't do it, but it would be nice if it was. Alleged is different than proven, I'm saying innocent people should not be punished for a crime, proving it is the only way others can know for sure, otherwise you would be advocating punishing innocent people since there is no way to know who lied initially. We know some lied for sure, and reason for the lie doesn't play into my morals. Lies are wrong, no matter the reason.
@83, there's not much logic in your post. You want killing humans to be 100% legal? I am going to take this as hyperbole. You have stated that you are physically disabled to some degree (forgive me if I mis-state this). If killing people were fully legal, you do realize that someone with physical disabilities would be an easy target, no?

As for the reason for the lie making no difference, how about a hypothetical: I pull a gun on you and tell you to lie to the person at the door. Do you do it? Or is honesty *that* important to you? Of course, the stakes are rarely that high. How about: A cop says, we've got you for possession of narcotics, it's your second bust--tell me all about how that guy there shot that cop or you're going to jail for three years. Don't worry, he did it, we know he did it, but we need an eyewitness to ice it cold for the jury.

How would your morals judge that person?
@84 You asked how bloodthirsty I am, I am bloodthirsty and will not pretend otherwise. However, I do not lie for the reason you stated, nope. I would tell the person with the gun they'd have to shoot me because I cannot do as they say, and I have done something to that effect when in a dire situation. I didn't have this strong conviction when I was younger, but gained it later in life. As for your hypothetical, the criminal who lied shouldn't have broken the law to begin with and should have just taken his punishment for doing so instead of lying. I also have a strong conviction that no one should break the law, any cop doing that should also be prosecuted. I have not broken a law in more than 10 years, I'm proud to say, not any law no matter how small or even stupid they are.
@83: "lying to me is the greatest sin anyone can commit"

So the extreme amount of bullshit you spew daily here means you're going to off yourself?

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.