825 Forum Posts by "Draconias"
At 2/17/06 02:44 PM, metalhead676 wrote: Well, for fusion to take place, the core needs to be at about 15 million degrees, now, this poses a serious problem, and a SERIOUS potential for desaster, it would also demolish natural resources, i think it's a bad idea.
It doesn't have to be anything close to 15 million degrees. More like 8000, tops. And they contain it within a magnetic bottle which keeps it from touching anything.
Here is the most serious possible disaster: magnetic bottle fails, ultra-hot ball of plasma falls on ground, burns through several miles of crust before running out of steam. There can be no collateral damage, the melted materials will resolidify within minutes, and nothing significant is lost.
The most probable "disaster" after the magnetic bottle fails would be an ultra-hot ball of plasma starts falling to the ground, ceases fusion before hitting, makes a small puddle of concrete and cools within seconds, heats up the room by 10 degrees.
At 2/15/06 09:52 AM, D2KVirus wrote: Why is it that last year the Sikh community effectivly shut down a play in Birmingham because one scene featured a rape in a temple without massive amounts of fuss about free speech and all that (or stating this proves their religion doesn't like freedom), yet Islam always get it in the neck?
First of all, the play involved the portrayal of a universally-illegal, known-to-be-risque action in the middle of a universally-defined "sacred place." Anyone has the right to speak out against that play, and there is nothing wrong with that.
Second, the Sikh didn't burn embassies, riot for days, kill people, make international demands for apology, make kidnapping and murder threats, write opposing "Holocaust" cartoons, and burn the flags of another nation.
The Islamics did that, so of course they're going to get it in the neck when they act like such childish idiots on an international scale.
At 2/14/06 02:02 AM, facksfunny wrote: Here's what I mean by NASA not being clear with their accusations. The "c" on one of the rocks.
1) One skeptic on his website assured everyone that it is a camera flaw.
2) I've visited another website, and they said it was a fibre on the lens.
3) One more website said that there is no "c" on the original photos.
1) Camera flaw? Weren't these skeptics saying earlier that NASA had spent years developing top of the line cameras?
Stop here, don't sound any more stupid. The images you view are NOT the originals. The "c" was introduced on a copy. All three are true. While copying the originals, which have no "c," a fibre on the copying lens produced an image flaw. Ever notice how the "c" is two-dimensional, but everything else nearby is three-dimensional?
It's that simple: the entire issue of impossibility comes from your ignorance, not any real issue. While copying the originals, the flaw was introduced. That's why most photos for that particular scene do not show the fibre.
If the cameras were good, then how do you eplain the variations in the shadow direction?
Stark lighting of vacuum. No general diffusion of light, only specific, bright reflection from surfaces.
Absence of stars?
Cameras tuned to high-brightness and close focus can't see extremely distant, tiny stars. You yourself complained that camera focus matters for the "c" but you ignore it for stars.
At 2/16/06 08:55 PM, facksfunny wrote: It is not that hard to take a picture, but taking a good picture is different. All the pictures seem to be perfect.
Taking pictures using a wide-view lense in the crystal clarity of vacuum is amazingly easy. A very simple, smart alignment system would be to set the cameras so anything visible through the astronaut's faceplate shows up in the picture. However, I don't know if that specific idea was employed.
It took them about two hour, according to the video, to complete all their tasks. So they only had half an hour to take 121 pictures from their chests.
Wrong. They took photos while working. They had two hours to take photos and then thirty spare for "publicity shoots" and other random images.
Oh and the module weighed 17 tons, not one. Some sites claim that there is no crator because the dust was all blown away. Well if the dust was blown away, how did the astranauts leave footprints all around the landings site. Also there was one footprint right under the module.
17 tons in 1/6 gravity is only 3 tons. The module was a focused-nozzle engine, which means any dust blasted directly should go up and out, but there should be very little disturbance beyond the direct blast radius. That "footprint" under the module wasn't a footprint.
Here's a few more Q's to tickle your mind:
1) When mission control was talking to the astranauts, they(the astranauts) respopnded instanly, radio waves will take about 2 seconds to reach the moon.
The total delay for a message to reach the Moon and his message to return is almost exact 2.40 seconds, not 2 seconds each way. The delay in the talking is approximately 2-3 seconds each time.
2) A camera panned upwards to catch Apollo 16's Lunar Landerlifting off the Moon. Who did the filming?
Remote deployed cameras. Duh. They had a ton of time to plan the mission, so they obviously knew to plan for events like that.
3) One picture is looking up at Neil coming down the ladder of the module as he is about to take his first step. If he was the first man on the moon, then who took that picture?
Remote deployed cameras. Already toldya. It was the same one that saw it lifting off.
4) A balloon in a vacuum will pop instantly, because there is no air to outside to counter the air pressure inside. Same goes for the astranauts on the moon, no air means their suits will swell up alot. They would look like giant balloons, yet you see folds of fabric hanging loose, and they seem to move freely.
The inner layer of an astronaut's suit contains the pressurized air. There are multiple loose layers on top of that layer. The outermost, which you see floating around, is completely unaffected by the pressurized air within the innermost layer. Duh. Just look at a suit design, it's obvious.
5) The pictures are so perfect, each one would have taken a slick advertising agency hours to put them together. But the astronauts managed it repeatedly.
First of all, don't forget the perfect clarity from vacuum. Second, they had a slick advertising agency spend months for planning them. The astronauts were acting out a "play" they practiced hundreds of times before the mission.
6) Text from pictures in the article said that only two men walked on the Moon during the Apollo 12 mission. Yet the astronaut reflected in the visor has no camera. Who took the shot?
Remote deployed cameras. Already told you that. It should be obvious by now.
7) Non of the atranauts recieved any radiation damage, nothing is 100% radiation proof. And if the astronauts were protected by their space suits, why didn't rescue workers use such protective gear at the Chernobyl meltdown, which released only a fraction of the dose astronauts would encounter?
The radiation dosages measured on the moon clocked in at 12 Rems. No noticeable negative effects occur until 50 Rems. The suits were made of lots of material, so the dose was probably down at 10 Rems, and that shouldn't have mattered one bit if it was only a 2 hour exposure.
For comparison, the background radiation which we receive constantly is 3 Rems, and the Chernobyl accident gave doses from 300 to 400 Rems.
At 2/14/06 08:19 PM, anitsirc wrote: Fine I'll do what you guys do. I don't believe you that the flag was waving only when they were moving it. Prove it.
Try shaking something springy. You'll notice that it keeps going for a bit after you shake it. The flag they used should have acted similar.
Prove that there would be no blast crator. Dust is dust, and it doesn't take that much force to move it. The dust wasn't too dense if even the astranauts managed to leave deep footprints.
The dust layer on the moon is thin, and underneath is solid rock. Why do you think the astronaut footprints didn't go further down on any step for something so soft? There is a blast crater under the module, as shown in the pictures, but only to the depth of the dust.
Prove to me that the "c" is just a fibre.
Early copies of the photo do not have the "c" on it. Also, if you simply look at the photos with the "c" on it, the "c" is two-dimensional while everything else in every photo is three-dimensional. Any experienced photographer can recognize an introduced error like that with ease.
Prove to me that the weird shadows were caused by the cameras.
The "weird" shadows are a figment of your imagination. Nothing is weird about them, and there is nothing even odd about them, you just imagine shapes in the clouds.
Prove to me that the space suits were 100% radiation proof.
Why would they be? The lowest radiation dosage that will have any noticeable effect or cause cancer is 50 Rems. The astronauts recorded a radiation level of 12 Rems. That's not a dangerous level.
The legal limit for year-equivalent radiation dosages for nuclear plant workers or uranium miners is 20 Rems. If they can do it safely, why should Astronauts worry about a 2 hour exposure while in thick suits?
Prove to me that astranauts were able to take over 100 profesional photos with the cameras attached to their CHESTS.
What makes a photo "professional"? Clarity and crispness. When there is no air, there is no blurring, and every photo with a super-expensive camera will be "professional."
All I've seen so far are plausable eplanations with no evidence.
All I've seen so far are implausible claims with no solid evidence.
At 2/16/06 09:59 PM, blizace wrote:At 2/16/06 01:48 PM, Pandaman64 wrote: America is a country based on business decisions.can you name any country that america can buy that isnt a bad investment?
Mexico, in business terms, is a bad investment.
Canada, which has awesome natural resources.
Japan, which rocks and we half-own already.
Britain, which is powerful and would be ironic.
Basically, any place that isn't a craphole. Which especially doesn't include: Mexico, South America, Africa, Middle East, China, Russia, Eastern Europe.
Do you know what would happen?
The entire world of mature countires would rejoice.
If we can get rid of our dependence on Oil, suddenly the idiots in the Middle East will matter just as much as Haitai or the Congo. The West and East won't give a dman what happens to the crazy tribes in the Middle East anymore, and that will be the end of that.
At 2/15/06 06:51 PM, Empanado wrote: "Any other color"? What the crap. Hispanic, black and white are the only colors in the human race.
Eskimo, Arabic, Asian, and true Black (not the Mulattoes in the US) are all other possibilities. Your response to someone else who suggested "chinaman" makes me think you could just be acting like an idiot, though.
It's an obvious fake for one simple reason: gravity can pull it down, but it takes the same energy to pull it up again. Gravity is simply potential energy, not an actual energy source, so it is simply impossible to have a cyclic motor for energy production (which is necessary in both cars and power plants).
Put simply, for any energy you would gain from gravity, you would expend it again raising the thing which fell. It must be a hoax through impossibility.
Did you hear what the camera man said?
"You little ____, shoot at us? You're gonna die!"
Shoot? Does this set off any alarms for anyone? The kids could have been throwing rocks, but I distinctly heard a gunshot early in the video. If those kids shot at the soldiers, beating the hell out of them is completely justified. If they were adults, they would have been killed instead.
At 2/10/06 09:55 PM, Mighty_Genghis wrote: Global warming in the past century has been greater than any other shift in the world's climate over the past 1200 years, researchers have reported.
Averaged across the globe, the increase in temperatures is numerically small - about one degree above normal, and about two degrees warmer than during the late 1800s.
That information is incomplete. The change has been approximately one degree (C) change after our recovery from a particular cool period. This period, generally spanning from 1550 to 1900 is called the "Little Ice Age" for the major temperate drops over the period.
The claim of two degrees increase is incorrect according to all known reconstructions of past temperatures. No major reconstruction estimates a temperate difference of more than 1.4 degrees (C).
At one of the lowest points, the 1600s, the average temperature was 0.9 degrees (C) below the average temperature of the 1900-2000 century. In the 1800s, the average temperature was still 0.7 degrees (C) below the average. In 2005, the average temperature was 0.4 degrees (C) above the average.
Much of the actual "warming" was in fact a recovery from a low point, and thus the effect is often over exaggerated.
Here's a quick link, but the information is extremely numerous and easy to ifnd with the key words I provided:
Temperature Variations
At 2/4/06 06:09 PM, Mighty_Genghis wrote: This explains why we hardly ever see dead and wounded Iraqi civilians and American soldiers. We constantly view guns and canons firing, but do we ever get to see the people who are maimed and killed by them? Why not?
The Journalists have been specifically asked not to record anything of the sort by the soldiers themselves and the military. It is considered very, very bad etiquette and extremely insulting to the people recorded, and the American government/military actually have the right to ban such videos from public broadcast unless all faces are censored or all the people recorded have signed their consent, which is actually true for almost all Journalistic video recording.
It's mostly a matter of respecting the soldiers injured and slain.
Red Skunk, you have made a FALSE ANALOGY!
FALSE ANALOGY:
Annual billions of dollars that lasts for decades is not equivalent to handing a homeless man some change a single time.
FALSE ANALOGY:
Medical treatment to car crash victims (who still pay for service) for a single issue is not equivalent to dropping thousands of tons of medical aid that rarely reaches the right people.
FALSE ANALOGY:
Feeding a newborn baby or your own child is not equivalent to providing decades of food supply to an entire continent that is almost entirely civilizations and cultures older than the ones providing food.
FALSE ANALOGY:
Crossing guards who act as a beacon to prevent accidents are not equivalent to peacekeeping work preventing idiots from slaughtering one another intentionally based on pointless, century-old feuds.
Correct Analogy:
Sending aid to Africa is like providing Welfare to an unmarried mother of 19 children, even though she continues to have children, continues to fail in her duties, and shows no signs of improving in any way.
At 2/7/06 02:59 PM, JoS wrote: Im not sure how you could claim that they werent offensive. the bomb on the head was just one of many. Others included Mohammed being raped by a dog and Mohammed as a pedifile. Could you say those are offensive without seeing them?
According to the link posted by Lapis, you're a damn liar. None of the cartoons even suggested anything like rape by a dog or pediphiles. Except for the bomb one, all of them were quite harmless and only poking fun. Either you're reporting false information with the intention of inflaming the topic and producing fake defense for the Muslim reaction, or you need to post the link to the actually "offensive" cartoons your mentioned.
Lapis' link had all 12 cartoons, so I think you simply lied to make a case that never existed.
The Iranians are forgeting one critical thing: scale.
Mohammed is one man. Sure, he's their favorite guy, but he's one man, and the cartoons were simply insults.
The Holocaust was the genocidal slaughtering of 11 million people. Attacking the victims of that event isn't an insult, it's kicking a man while he's down.
That's an immature thing to do, especially as a "retaliation." If anything, the original cartoon showed the rest of the world just how immature and childish the Middle Eastern countries remain, even to this day. Someone publishes an offensive cartoon, so they riot, burn down embassies, boycott an entire nation, demand censuring and apologies, burn flags, and murder people.
How can anyone be farther from being a mature culture? There's a reason the Middle East is in such a messy state right now, and that's the self-destruction, immature culture, and poor self-control of the countries. Most other cultures learn their lesson after the first few centuries.
At 2/6/06 03:39 PM, Dark_Dennis92 wrote: Yes, Korea is a country in Asia, but it is also the name of the Islam ''bible''
KORAN. No 'e' in the name. Quran is an acceptable alternate spelling.
It is not the country. Too many people failed to pick up on that fact.
At 2/4/06 10:11 PM, LettuceClock wrote: Females are simply better at taking care of thier babies then men, and have natural, god given abilities to fit that role that men just don't have.
Bullshit.
Your statement is based solely on sexism. Men are just as good at raising children as women. The only factors that really influences how well you can raise children are mental health (insane?) and whether or not you have a full-time job. It may seem like men don't do as much of the child rearing, but that's because they have a job.
Men are no worse than women at child rearing. I personally know many stay-at-home Dads and widowers, and I'd say most of them are better fathers than your average woman. It's not a matter of "god given ability," it's who has the time to raise kids.
I'm disgusted by sexists like you, LettuceClock. Bigotry cuts both ways and only hurts people.
...
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
To put it bluntly, that's total BS. Everyone in the US knows that the Media is quite the opposite. They are not "cheerleaders" for the war. The Media has done everything it can to bias and slant information against the war and, in particular, Bush. The media is at an all-time low, but that's because they all are full of sensationalist crap broadcasting.
The media is as far from a war "cheerleader" as anyone can get.
The claims about this "N Machine" are false. First of all, the "wafts" in a vacuum described by the article do not exist. Second, the "historical" support is falsely presented and incorrect. Third, the constructed "N Machine" does not do anything beyond what you would expect: a magnet spinning around from a motor produces less energy than it consumes.
As with any fake, non-existant "Invention," the best way to pretend it exists is to claim that the government is suppressing it. The Government has no way and no reason to stop the construction and distribution of something such as this, if it worked. If you build one in your basement, the Govt. won't even know, so how can they "confiscate" it? Also, what's stopping you from publishing the designs on the Internet?
The claims about an "N Machine" are thoroughly and completely fake. The article is a hoax or an intentional scam. The information provided in the article is, on all accounts, false.
No, DeadEye, don't be an idiot. It was a specific, formal political function, and she was explicitly warned that she would not be allowed to wear that shirt. There are rules and limits during that formal event.
No First Amendment rights were violated. Why? You can say whatever you want, but you can't say it wherever you want. Get the hell over it. Just as you can't walk into a church full of Blacks in a KKK uniform and expect to stay, you can't walk into the State of the Union with a shirt like that and expect to stay. They didn't make her remove the shirt, but they arrested her to keep her away.
The issue is fairly simple: shoot him.
It's up to the parties involved to ensure a fair trial, but Saddam's not getting out of that trial alive, period. There are no alternatives. If he is acquitted (won't happen), you can be completely assured that thousands of Iraqis and probably even Americans would gladly shoot him in the head without the slightest hesitation.
His trial should be fair, but you're complaining about something that simply doesn't matter. The only reason you could be posting this and pursuing it so far is because you just want the US + Iraq to look bad. There's nothing more to it.
What you miss is that the "insurgents" (terrorists) are not Iraqis. Roughly 87% of the bombers and all of the major anti-American terrorist organizations in Iraq right now are not from Iraq. Nearly all of them are from the neighboring countries, and essentially every terrorist in the Middle East is going to the big fight.
A more accurate version of your story:
Aliens invade, displace US government
Taxes abolished, all borders closed to immigration, Americans happy
Mexicans come and try to blow the hell out of the aliens
Why? The Mexicans benefit from a non-alien US!
The situation is no different in Iraq. The terrorists benefit from anarchy, dictatorships, squallor, pain, and suffering. When we implement a Democracy and Educate the people of Iraq, they become happy and content.
Happy people aren't very eager to blow themselves up.
JoS, you're obviously biased against the Americans.
The only thing I see wrong was the aim of the soldiers.
A car is trailing a military convoy. It begins to close the rear of the convoy and the soldiers try to warn it off with signals. Either the driver doesn't see the signals, or refuses to stop. So, to make sure they get the point, you fire warning shots.
The American soldiers fired warning shots. The shots were entirely effective, and the Canadians stopped the car immediately. As soon as the car stopped and surrendered, the Americans checked to see if they were okay. Only one thing went wrong: the soldiers aimed badly, and the bullets hit too close to the passengers.
That's it. The Diplomats weren't driving, they were passengers. Regardless, the entire point of a warning shot is to warn people. The Canadians claim they didn't see visual warnings. That is why you do warning shots.
Everything went perfectly right and deaths were avoided, even though the soldiers cut things a bit close and scared some civvies.
JoS, you appear highly biased against Americans. You've refused to tell the full story, put it in context, or acknowledge any reasonable explanation, thus you seem to be making judgements based on prejudice, not the information at hand. We have no evidence to suggest that the men were trigger happy; you kill people when you're trigger happy, you don't fire warning shots. The Diplomats aren't in a position to claim that no visual signals occurred because the soldiers resorted to warning shots because the Diplomats obviously did not see the visual warnings.
At 1/29/06 12:40 AM, Mighty_Genghis wrote: http://www.nazi.org/nazi/policy/race/
I don't see how no one else really seemed to focus on this:
If it's about ethnicity and Nazis posted it, there's a good (99%) chance that it's destructive, dangerous, counterproductive lies.
Those 10 reasons are what caused 11 million deaths in Germany. By proof of implementation, those ideas are bad. Case closed.
The word "Homophobia" is one of the greatest acts of propagandic bullshittery I've ever witnessed.
Anti-Homosexuals or even not being Pro-Homosexual does not count as "Homophobic" or anything even close
Homophobia means a fear of Homosexuals. That is miles away from the truth, and the entire point of the word is a slander to call people who don't support the active expansion of Homosexuality "weak people who are frightened by the sight of a Homosexual." It's nothing even close to reality.
Put simply: There is no Homophobia on NG, as far as I've seen. Sure, we all use logic and clear thinking to argue that Homosexuals don't deserve more than Heterosexuals under the law, but that doesn't make us Homophobic.
I really hate when ignorant people use such slanderous words against other users. It's aggravating and pathetic to see.
*smacks forehead*
I forgot to mention under "worst attack" that Pearl Harbor dwarfed 9/11 by many orders of magnitude. Killing less than 2000 civilians in an economic icon means nothing in comparison to wiping out our entire Pacific fleet, minus a small number on patrols.
At 1/17/06 10:27 PM, SoldAsFreedom wrote: Whereas: President Bush has intentionally misled America to war with Iraq and deceived American to the costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars; and
You must prove the following: "intentionally misled" and "deceived"
To put it honestly, it's bullshit to claim he misled us intentionally, and you've no way to prove it. If there was any way to prove it, we'd have found it by now. Additionally, you can not ignore that Congress was privvy to identical information and unanimously voted in favor of war. There is no evidence of any information concealment.
The costs can, very obviously, be attributed to a mistake in planning. A cursory examination of our military strategem would reveal that we expected a different war than we got.
Whereas: President Bush has allowed the United States to suffer the worst attack on its soil in over a century then officially opposed an investigation into the matter; and
You must prove the following: "allowed" and "worst attack"
You must specify: "an investigation into the matter"
He didn't allow anything. He was in office for only a short few months, and this attack had been planned years ahead of time. Additionally, he had no control over the areas attacked or any reasonable indication that four planes would be hijacked on that date.
There was no reasonable precaution or pre-emptive action that any objective observer could possibly demand from him, even in retrospect.
Also, unless you are very specific about "an investigation into the matter," it has no meaning and is only an indication of bias. The specific details of what was going to be investigated, why, by whom, and how he opposed it are all of critical importance. You can't reasonably omit them in any complete statement.
Whereas: President Bush has failed to save thousands of lives from the deadly hurricanes of Katrina and Rita by appointing a personal friend as FEMA director; and
You make impossible demands: "failed to save"
It was failures of the FEMA that are an issue. Your claim that Bush is responsible for the "failure" of an entire organization is highly suspect and tenuous. Additionally, thousands did not die where FEMA could have provided any assistance. Also, more at issue was communications between organizations, which has no connection at all to Bush.
By the way, "thousands" didn't die in areas FEMA could have possibly saved. The estimated death count for their time and areas of responsibility was far less than 1000.
Whereas: President Bush has allowed both North Korea and Iran to develop nuclear weapon programs under his watch; and
Iran does not have a Nuclear Weapons program.
That is the official view of the United Nations, the United States, and the entire world at the moment. Sorry, but impeaching Bush for something that never happened is completely unacceptable.
North Korea is not our responsibility, and especially not Bush's.
The NK Nuclear Program is nearly two decades old. Bush has not been in office for two decades. It is foolish and stupid to pin sole blame on him for something out of his control.
Additionally, we have no jurisdiction in North Korea. We have no right to dictate their policy, and the only country who actually has influence on them is China. Unless you can prove that we could have stopped them, any claims of liability on Bush's part of ignorant.
Whereas: President Bush has given the National Security Agency the ability to tap private phone lines without a judge’s warrant; and
Bush gave them the ability? No, that's entirely wrong. Bush can't give anyone abilities. Only the Legislative branch has given wire tapping permission.
Additionally, the only non-warrant tapping Bush has directly allowed was for international calls only and based on a precident firmly set and used by Clinton. Clinton's Secretary General testified to this under oath.
Whereas: President Bush’s “Patriot Act” has stripped Americans of their individual unalienable civil liberties; and
The same "Patriot Act" voted into existance by our Legislative branch.
You're a fool to stick Bush with singular blame. It's like blaming Bush for Hurricane Katrina hitting New Orleans! It's stupid and ignorant because he obviously wasn't the cause. He suggested and supported the Patriot Act, but our Legislative branch made it happen.
By the way, they decided not to renew it this year, if I remember correctly.
Whereas: President Bush has supported the use of torture on prisoners of war and detainees, defying the Geneva Convention; and
How is this an impeachable offense? He supported it, but he is not the one in actual control of its execution. He also only supported it under very specific limitations.
Whereas: President Bush’s "No Child Left Behind" act has secretly allowed military recruiters access to our nation’s schools; and
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
*cough*Paranoia*cough*
Comments: I'm sorry, but I honeslty believe your complaints sound ignorant. You ignore critical facts to make your claims appear stronger, and you assign blame for things completely out of his control. You should be impeaching all of the politicians for things like the Patriot Act, yet you blame Bush alone.
It also appears that much of your information is based on the publicly-admitted, extremely biased popular media and nothing more. Look into the topics deeper and include concessions or confirmations of that knowledge within your claims, or else it seems ignorant and naive.
Look, let's put it this way, very simply:
Every soldier is our army is potentially facing a "death penalty."
Every male adult can be drafted into the military.
Some criminals can do horrible, completely horrid things.
If we're willing to throw innocent, honest young men into bullets and grenades, we sure as hell should be willing to execute the sickest bastards in the scum of the bucket at home.
For example, take the BTK killing: the man raped a mother and daughter, over and over again, for hours, during prolonged strangulation, loosening the ropes every so often so that they didn't die, just so he could rape them longer.
Execute the sick fuck. People like that can not live, period.
As another example, people are still dangerous behind bars. A man was recently executed because he murdered one man. Then, behind bars, he ordered the murder of three more people. You can't lock up these people as if they're no longer a danger. If Prison will ever rehabilitate people, you need to, put simply, execute the true scum of the scummiest scum. They're dangerous anywhere.
You can say, "Oh, the death penalty is terrible!" But you aren't looking at some of the sick, terrible, horribly disgusting actions some of these prisoners commit.
At 1/17/06 08:45 PM, K-Pingu wrote:At 1/17/06 03:44 PM, Proteas wrote:*shudder. I'd rather not think about that. Minus the fact they wouldnt be catholic, seeing as its Islam...
Don't forget, they're everlasting Virgins. They're supposed to become Virgins again after every time.
Yeah, what a civilized, sophisticated heaven... just a bunch of old brutish men fucking virgins for eternity. That's sure respectable.... not.
By the way, what is their heaven for Women? 72 Virgin women? That would suck for heterosexuals.
It is worthwhile to note that over 80% of firearms used in crime are obtained illegally. It's extremely obvious that attacking legal gun owners will achieve almost nothing.
I hope the Democratic party does improve some of their foolish policies recently, this being one of them. I am, personally, a conservative, and I absolutely don't support the Democratic party at this point. However, that doesn't mean that it wouldn't be better for all politicians to stop making these aggravating infringements on our Rights.
Put simply, if you try to attack our Rights, you're going to get a severe backlash. I don't support the Democrats because, far too often, they are supporting attacking our Rights, or ignoring those attacks because they are "justified." Politicians should realize this and stop damaging our country.
Wake up and smell the coffee, Democratic Politicians!
