No, she didn't.Turquoise wrote:
Even if I was a conservative, I'd recognize how dumb she is.
She thought Africa was a country for fuck sake....
erm.......Sup wrote:
Imagine she gets the keys of USA's nuclear bombs...
Yah 'cuz, the president has the power to launch nukes at any time at his discretion. I saw it on a tv show.usmarine wrote:
erm.......Sup wrote:
Imagine she gets the keys of USA's nuclear bombs...
lol
And VP too.Vax wrote:
Yah 'cuz, the president has the power to launch nukes at any time at his discretion. I saw it on a tv show.usmarine wrote:
erm.......Sup wrote:
Imagine she gets the keys of USA's nuclear bombs...
lol
The Liberty Valance Effect. When the rumor becomes truth, print the rumor.Vax wrote:
No, she didn't.Turquoise wrote:
Even if I was a conservative, I'd recognize how dumb she is.
She thought Africa was a country for fuck sake....
The rumor is false, it was apparently based on a verbal slip. If you buy into that then you must think Obama believes there really are 57 states.
Hallelujah! In fact he was ridiculed by his staffers for not going after the Ayers stuff more. Every time they pushed him in that direction he sank more. What a bunch of losers.Harmor wrote:
I'm a Republican and I blame McCain. He should had focused on Obama's socalistic economic policies. Instead of focus on his 'terrorist ties' he should had shown what would result with his economic policies because he believed in income distribution.
Basically he should had computed a number that would had said, under Obama you will pay $X more in taxes and your employers the equilvalent of $Y more in taxes. Do you think its a good idea to raise taxes on your company after a bad quarter?
I swear this is like 1933 all over again when after the depression they raised taxes from 25% to 50% on the top earners, furthering the depression.
Fair enough, but she still is dumb as a brick.Vax wrote:
No, she didn't.Turquoise wrote:
Even if I was a conservative, I'd recognize how dumb she is.
She thought Africa was a country for fuck sake....
The rumor is false, it was apparently based on a verbal slip. If you buy into that then you must think Obama believes there really are 57 states.
Well, like I said, you should just kill them if rehabilitation has no value to you.Kmarion wrote:
Most of these assholes already have a pattern of repeat behavior. They have an embedded and extremely perverse sense sexuality. What kind of crack do you have to smoke to think that by warning people it will somehow make the rape of your kid more likely? .. I'm the demented one though.Turquoise wrote:
Um... no... you're actually pretty demented if you're ok with taking someone who is a sex offender, imprisoning them, then releasing them while they are on a list that ensures permanent ostracization.Kmarion wrote:
Oh I see, you're worried about the sex offender being placed on the "fringes of society". Not protecting families from known animals...
Here's a clue, you make the decision to commit a sex crime, It's your fault. You made the choice to be on the fringes of society.
Nice logic btw. "Oh shit people know I am raping kids so I can't help but rape again because they are aware of me". What was their excuse the first time? Unreal.
If you suddenly feel the urge to tear off an eight year olds panties do us all a favor and swallow a bullet. Your priorities are jacked. You've got a demented view of who should be protected first.
In all honesty, it would be better to just kill sex offenders than do all this to them, because the current system is a perfect recipe for repeat offenses.
sexual predators cannot be rehabilitated and should never be considered rehabilitated. I'm not talking about some guy busted for statutory rape, i'm talking about people who commit sexual assault.Turquoise wrote:
Well, like I said, you should just kill them if rehabilitation has no value to you.
Last edited by Reciprocity (2008-11-07 19:18:12)
You think every sexual predator is beyond redemption without exception?Reciprocity wrote:
sexual predators cannot be rehabilitated and should never be considered rehabilitated. I'm not talking about some guy busted for statutory rape, i'm talking about people who commit sexual assault.Turquoise wrote:
Well, like I said, you should just kill them if rehabilitation has no value to you.
Not the same logic at all. There are different motives for different murders. If your natural (and irresistible) instinct is to pop wood when little Sally rides her bike in front of your house then you've got a lifelong sickness. I also feel rehabilitation takes a back seat to the safety of the innocent.Turquoise wrote:
You think every sexual predator is beyond redemption without exception?Reciprocity wrote:
sexual predators cannot be rehabilitated and should never be considered rehabilitated. I'm not talking about some guy busted for statutory rape, i'm talking about people who commit sexual assault.Turquoise wrote:
Well, like I said, you should just kill them if rehabilitation has no value to you.
If so, then I suppose the same logic could be used on murderers, right?
Well, all things considered, if you imprison someone and then release them into society with effectively a huge scarlet letter on their forehead, they will turn to crime when they find it hard to get a job or even find a house.Kmarion wrote:
Not the same logic at all. There are different motives for different murders. If your natural (and irresistible) instinct is to pop wood when little Sally rides her bike in front of your house then you've got a lifelong sickness. I also feel rehabilitation takes a back seat to the safety of the innocent.Turquoise wrote:
You think every sexual predator is beyond redemption without exception?Reciprocity wrote:
sexual predators cannot be rehabilitated and should never be considered rehabilitated. I'm not talking about some guy busted for statutory rape, i'm talking about people who commit sexual assault.
If so, then I suppose the same logic could be used on murderers, right?
sexual motivation can never be changed. rehabilitating a sexual predator is like rehabilitating a homosexual, can't be done.Turquoise wrote:
You think every sexual predator is beyond redemption without exception?
If so, then I suppose the same logic could be used on murderers, right?
If that's actually true, then I guess the death penalty really is the most practical move.Reciprocity wrote:
sexual motivation can never be changed. rehabilitating a sexual predator is like rehabilitating a homosexual, can't be done.Turquoise wrote:
You think every sexual predator is beyond redemption without exception?
If so, then I suppose the same logic could be used on murderers, right?
sexual assault isn't a crime of frustration or despatation. It's a crime of desire. you can never change someone's desires.Turquoise wrote:
Well, all things considered, if you imprison someone and then release them into society with effectively a huge scarlet letter on their forehead, they will turn to crime when they find it hard to get a job or even find a house.
I'd have no problem if the state decided to execute sexual predators.As I said, if you don't have any interest in "fixing" them, then you might as well kill them to prevent more rapes from occurring, because they will, and they do.... from the same offenders often.
So you don't think they have any ability to learn from mistakes and exercise more self-control over time?Reciprocity wrote:
sexual assault isn't a crime of frustration or despatation. It's a crime of desire. you can never change someone's desires.Turquoise wrote:
Well, all things considered, if you imprison someone and then release them into society with effectively a huge scarlet letter on their forehead, they will turn to crime when they find it hard to get a job or even find a house.I'd have no problem if the state decided to execute sexual predators.As I said, if you don't have any interest in "fixing" them, then you might as well kill them to prevent more rapes from occurring, because they will, and they do.... from the same offenders often.
How do you know that ?Turquoise wrote:
Fair enough, but she still is dumb as a brick.Vax wrote:
No, she didn't.Turquoise wrote:
Even if I was a conservative, I'd recognize how dumb she is.
She thought Africa was a country for fuck sake....
The rumor is false, it was apparently based on a verbal slip. If you buy into that then you must think Obama believes there really are 57 states.
If she was a Democrat, you'd realize that.
I mentioned the party thing because you seem pretty loyally Republican.Vax wrote:
How do you know that ?
And wtf does democrat/ republican have to do with it?
Maybe if their crime was theft or robbery. We simply aren't talking about that. You don't sexually abuse kids because you cant pay your rent or you are hungry. And yes, if you do then you should never be released. That person is too volatile and society can't afford to have them amongst the general populace.Turquoise wrote:
Well, all things considered, if you imprison someone and then release them into society with effectively a huge scarlet letter on their forehead, they will turn to crime when they find it hard to get a job or even find a house.Kmarion wrote:
Not the same logic at all. There are different motives for different murders. If your natural (and irresistible) instinct is to pop wood when little Sally rides her bike in front of your house then you've got a lifelong sickness. I also feel rehabilitation takes a back seat to the safety of the innocent.Turquoise wrote:
You think every sexual predator is beyond redemption without exception?
If so, then I suppose the same logic could be used on murderers, right?
As I said, if you don't have any interest in "fixing" them, then you might as well kill them to prevent more rapes from occurring, because they will, and they do.... from the same offenders often.
Well, we'd better legalize pot soon, so that we can free up all the prison space for the sex offenders and their life sentences.Kmarion wrote:
Maybe if their crime was theft or robbery. We simply aren't talking about that. You don't sexually abuse kids because you cant pay your rent or you are hungry. And yes, if you do then you should never be released. That person is too volatile and society can't afford to have them amongst the general populace.Turquoise wrote:
Well, all things considered, if you imprison someone and then release them into society with effectively a huge scarlet letter on their forehead, they will turn to crime when they find it hard to get a job or even find a house.Kmarion wrote:
Not the same logic at all. There are different motives for different murders. If your natural (and irresistible) instinct is to pop wood when little Sally rides her bike in front of your house then you've got a lifelong sickness. I also feel rehabilitation takes a back seat to the safety of the innocent.
As I said, if you don't have any interest in "fixing" them, then you might as well kill them to prevent more rapes from occurring, because they will, and they do.... from the same offenders often.
I'm sure thay can understand their mistakes and regret what they've done. But they can't learn to not have the desire to rape people.Turquoise wrote:
So you don't think they have any ability to learn from mistakes and exercise more self-control over time?
Well, I'm operating under the assumption that this mental affliction they have can be controlled via medication and therapy like all other mental maladies can be. I don't see how such desires are that much different from somebody with something like schizophrenia.Reciprocity wrote:
I'm sure thay can understand their mistakes and regret what they've done. But they can't learn to not have the desire to rape people.Turquoise wrote:
So you don't think they have any ability to learn from mistakes and exercise more self-control over time?