Wow, I realized something...

[AZhitman]

Is that directed at me?

Not at all. In fact, I never noticed any "regional retardation" in your posts, and just now realized you're in NY. Well-done, sir!

[themadscientist]

After reading many threads in this forum, I have come to one realization. No matter how hard one side argues their point, the other side will never agree.

This is no different than having a discussion about religion, and which religion is closest to God.

Discuss?

I disagree with you! [insert personal attack] This clearly shows you are wrong [insert slanted link that says exactly what I need to prove my point while dismissing any that are counter or suggest any middle ground]

You are a [insert political or idealogical slur] which means you are wrong because you think differently than me and I have clearly established I am right.

[Beancooker]

Seriously Beanor, allowing people to pick and choose which laws they like and therefore will obey is a little far fetched. You can't be serious about that.

I should have been a little clearer. Lemme get out the Crayola.

I used test pipes as an example.

Some people (like you) get just as ruffled about someone breaking the law, as say the environmental impact that using a test pipe could have.

Really, I don't give a damn about some law that says I have to be good to the trees. Personally I don't run test pipes, because it's not worth the 5hp gain to have a CEL.

I would feel worse about potentially hurting the environment, than some petty law that is suppose to protect it.

Now once again, I used the test pipes as an analogy. I was trying to point out how strong some people's political faith is. Since I don't know a lot about politics, I tend to make analogies about the things I do know about.

I disagree with you! [insert personal attack] This clearly shows you are wrong [insert slanted link that says exactly what I need to prove my point while dismissing any that are counter or suggest any middle ground]

You are a [insert political or idealogical slur] which means you are wrong because you think differently than me and I have clearly established I am right.

[Beancooker]

I wouldn't call it multi-faceted. They are tied together, but the underlying reason for the law to exist is BECAUSE of the environmental impact. His point as I interpret it is that there are those who will be critical of someone as a matter of law and not the intent of the law. The former being of no relevance without the latter. Its a kind of cart before the horse issue...

Exactly.

When a child is kidnaped, raped and killed by a grown man, and the father of the child seeks vengence, and executes the person who destroyed his child's life, then there are the people who say that the father should be tried for murder.

The point I was trying to make was that there are people who are worried more about the law, only because it is a law. No matter how irrational it is.

But this thread has been spun so far off course at this point, it's pretty much a wasted conversation.

[audtatious]

But this thread has been spun so far off course at this point, it's pretty much a wasted conversation.

Without looking I assume Bob and Telco have posted in it.....

[OriginalWheelman]

Not at all. In fact, I never noticed any "regional retardation" in your posts, and just now realized you're in NY. Well-done, sir!

Don't worry I hate New Yorkers too.

[telcoman]

Is that directed at me?

No John he had you confused with me

Gregg and Bud are having a rough time dealing with the truth especially to those that make them aware of it.

Telcoman

[Marenta]

For the vast majority of the time, I just read the politics forum now. I can no longer post in it, at least with the frequency I was doing. I suppose it was because I just got so tired of everything being liberal or conservative, nazi or communist, republican or democrat; kinda made me sick to my stomach.

I have, however gained quite a few insights and invested much time into research about different things because of what other people have expressed their opinions about. I suppose it's because I may only be able to see 3 sides of the dice, but my curiosity will always want to know what's on the other side and if their opinion doesn't offer me that insight that I am seeking.

What I have been wondering about now for the last few months, though, is.. what events in your life made you choose the party or stance that you go with now?For me, it was the way my parents doled out punishment. All of the responsibility of being an adult was there, but the pitfalls of being a child were also still present. So, for me, I took on a "If you want something done right, do it yourself!" attitude, leading me towards the conservative path. And, because I busted my *** to get what I had, I didn't want anybody to take it from me, I wanted the right to protect me and mine from anything that I saw fit; that steered me towards the Republican path.There are a few issues that I can say I am Liberal and Democrat on, but, I can't say that I've ever met somebody that's 100% anything in my entire life, and I doubt I ever will.

[szh]

Gregg and Bud are having a rough time dealing with the truth especially to those that make them aware of it.

Rough time? Not at all ... they simply dislike trolls as much as I do.

Z

[OriginalWheelman]

what events in your life made you choose the party or stance that you go with now?

I don;t consider myself part of a party. I'm a registered Republican, but only so I can vote in their primary. I'm Republican in an economic sense, but I tend to side with the dems on a lot of social things, or rather, what the dems preach. The reason I am so anti-democrat is because almost every democrat I've met is a self serving hypocrite that preaches the message of "tolerance and fairness" only so they can think that they are superior to those who "follow an antiquated religion". I'll tell you what, if you read the bible, whether you believe it as a religious text or not, it is a damned good set of rules to live by. I should know, I've read it cover to cover. Most "Christians" I know can't say that. Before I go off about Christians... The republican party is often labeled as stagnant and trying to keep the status quo. If you really look at it though, the republicans have most of what they want, and they are trying to keep it that way. Can you blame them? If it were the republicans trying to get things their way, the roles would be reversed and the dems would be the "stagnant" ones resisting change. I love how some people always assume change is for the better. Just because the Republicans want things to stay the same doesn't make them wrong.

[HashiriyaS14]

I'll tell you what, if you read the bible, whether you believe it as a religious text or not, it is a damned good set of rules to live by. I should know, I've read it cover to cover. Most "Christians" I know can't say that.

You know, we probably have more in common than either one of us think.

[OriginalWheelman]

You know, we probably have more in common than either one of us think.

Probably. I don't have a problem with your beliefs, more the way you insist your position is absolute.

[AZhitman]

Gregg and Bud are having a rough time dealing with the truth especially to those that make them aware of it.

You just keep thinking that, if it makes you feel better.

It'd take you a month to go back and respond intelligently to every thread you've been owned in (the ones where you never return).

We all know the NYT tells you what to think, and for that, I feel pity.

[ishkabibble]

The reason I am so anti-democrat is because almost every democrat I've met is a self serving hypocrite that preaches the message of "tolerance and fairness" only so they can think that they are superior to those who "follow an antiquated religion". I'll tell you what, if you read the bible, whether you believe it as a religious text or not, it is a damned good set of rules to live by.

Funny, I feel that most of the Republican politicians are self-serving hypocrites. Christian in their so-called beliefs, pretty much the opposite in their actions.

Agreed on the set of rules statement.

[szh]

Whoops!

Please try to leave the religion aspect out of this discussion as much as possible, guys!!

These last one (and the quoted item) had less to do with the original post than we would like.

Z

[Beancooker]

[rn79870]

I should have been a little clearer. Lemme get out the Crayola.

Sure, let's throw a little insult in now and again.

I used test pipes as an example.

Some people (like you) get just as ruffled about someone breaking the law, as say the environmental impact that using a test pipe could have.

I could care less if anyone break the law, but that doesn't mean I don't applaud when they get caught. It also doesn't mean I don't try and make them aware of the consquences.

I do however, believe I have a responsibility to the environment. I believe that I need to do my part to leave it a better place for future generations than I found it. Obeying current laws and regulations is one way to do that.

Really, I don't give a damn about some law that says I have to be good to the trees. Personally I don't run test pipes, because it's not worth the 5hp gain to have a CEL.

I would feel worse about potentially hurting the environment, than some petty law that is suppose to protect it.

That's false circular logic. You can't protect the environment by breaking laws designed to protect it.

If I understand what you're saying, you believe it's reasonable to protect the environment, but not unreasonable to break any laws a person doesn't like that are designed to protect it.

The point I was trying to make was that there are people who are worried more about the law, only because it is a law. No matter how irrational it is.

A civilized society requires that citizens follow a prescribed set of rules that are designed for the greater good of all. There are means available to change laws that someone disagree with, other than simply disobeying them. So yes, we all have an obligation to follow "unreasonable" laws at the expense of allowing each person to pick and choose what he feels are the "reasonable" ones.

[Beancooker]

That's false circular logic. You can't protect the environment by breaking laws designed to protect it.

If it were 20 HP we were talking about, I would have a set of test pipes.

If I understand what you're saying, you believe it's reasonable to protect the environment, but not unreasonable to break any laws a person doesn't like that are designed to protect it.

You pretty much understand my effed up logic. Protect the environment all you want, as long as it doesn't interfere with my RWHP.

I realize that sounds horribly ignorant. Look at the source.

^ See Bob, I an an equal opportunity insulter.

[rn79870]

And, even though this isn't a car sub forum, I'd suggest that the correct answer would be to invest in a supercharger (which is legal, friendly to the environment and adds 75 to 100 HP) and you'll feel good about your car and your contribution to the economy. Plus, you don't have to worry about a nasty ticket.

[Beancooker]

Way to avoid the the debate Bob.

The point I was trying to make with the test pipe analogy, I stated eariler...

Exactly.

When a child is kidnaped, raped and killed by a grown man, and the father of the child seeks vengence, and executes the person who destroyed his child's life, then there are the people who say that the father should be tried for murder.

The point I was trying to make was that there are people who are worried more about the law, only because it is a law. No matter how irrational it is.

But this thread has been spun so far off course at this point, it's pretty much a wasted conversation.

[audtatious]

Beaner, you got it all wrong

[rn79870]

When a child is kidnaped, raped and killed by a grown man, and the father of the child seeks vengence, and executes the person who destroyed his child's life, then there are the people who say that the father should be tried for murder.

Absolutely. He should be tried, and convicted of murder. If there is any justice he will receive some leniency in sentencing. The legal system has been very effective at putting murderers behind bars, even executing them. We don't need a nation of vigilantes running off half cocked in the name of justice. I agree with the emotion behind your thought, but not the practical application of it.

[rn79870]

Beaner, you got it all wrong

That is the best diagram of the kind of Change we need I've ever seen. Good find Matt.

[Beancooker]

When a child is kidnaped, raped and killed by a grown man, and the father of the child seeks vengence, and executes the person who destroyed his child's life, then there are the people who say that the father should be tried for murder.

Absolutely. He should be tried, and convicted of murder. If there is any justice he will receive some leniency in sentencing. The legal system has been very effective at putting murderers behind bars, even executing them. We don't need a nation of vigilantes running off half cocked in the name of justice. I agree with the emotion behind your thought, but not the practical application of it.

WHAT????????

You have to be joking. You really believe that he should be tried for murder considering the circumstances?

Although, I assume you think that the rapist should be tried for his crimes, and "rehabilitated", instead of dropped from a plane at 15k feet without a parachute, while being told to think of his wrong doings before he goes splat.

That's the problem with our judicial system. We aren't hard enough on criminals. If people knew they would suffer a terrible death, instead of a few years of incarceration/rehabilitation, crime would drop.

Why do you think countries like Saudi Arabia have such a low crime rate. Because the consequences of commiting the crime are horrific.

Steal, lose a hand.

Rape/molest, be buried to your waist in the town square and be stoned to death.

Murder, lose your head in a public execution.

That is the kind of punishment that would cut back on all the sickos we have here in the US.

[Qwerty1942]

I've done a TON of reading in response to posts from Bob and Howie and ish that made me think, "Wait a minute - Let me read up on that."

LOL, please give us an example of this because this seems pretty far fetched.

[rn79870]

Yes Beanor that's what I was saying. I said it because I believe in this thing called a constitution. It requires that people, however bad, receive an opportunity to present a defense to any charges against them. It separates us from some countries like Iran, where vigilante justice is normal. I fully support the legal systemand those who work in it to make our world a better and safer place. Vigilante justice is not something that belongs ina modern society.

Two wrongs make a right?

[szh]

That's the problem with our judicial system. We aren't hard enough on criminals. If people knew they would suffer a terrible death, instead of a few years of incarceration/rehabilitation, crime would drop.

That is exactly right!

Why do you think countries like Saudi Arabia have such a low crime rate. Because the consequences of committing the crime are horrific.

Plus, in case the reaction will be "Oh, that is just another backward Middle Eastern country", look at the prison system in France for another example. Yeah, they do not have capital punishment, but prison there is not considered a place for people to be molly-coddled - like we do here! You get convicted, you go to jail and stay in there for your term (usually never leaving your cell for years) - without gyms, yard time, etc., etc. - even for relatively minor crimes. I'd almost rather take the capital punishment.

Z

[Beancooker]

That is exactly right!

Plus, in case the reaction will be "Oh, that is just another backward Middle Eastern country", look at the prison system in France for another example. Yeah, they do not have capital punishment, but prison there is not considered a place for people to be molly-coddled - like we do here! You get convicted, you go to jail and stay in there for your term (usually never leaving your cell for years) - without gyms, yard time, etc., etc. - even for relatively minor crimes. I'd almost rather take the capital punishment.

Z

If we had an applause smiley, I would be using it right now.

Bob, I'm not saying two wrongs make a right, however, under extenuating circumstances, such as the hypothetical one I posted up, yes, in that case, it does make a right.

So according to your view, and saying you stand behind the Constitution, we should try the accused of murder/rape of a child, and then people like you and I can dole out the $50+k a year to keep him incarcerated for the next 20-60 years. I don't think that the authors of the Constitution could have ever dreamed of the sociopathic behavior that we have these days.

Now I'm not saying in every instance, because we want to rule out false executions. However in the case of the nutter on the Greyhound in Canada, who decapitated his seatmate's head, why waste the time/money to try to rehabilitate someone who has done something so awful. He was witnessed committing the crime by many people. There is no room to say he didn't do it, so give him his 10¢ solution.

Sorry bub, not how I like to see my tax money wasted. I'd rather we take on a punishment system that is much harsher, and spend my tax monies on health care for the less fortunate.

Rapists/murders can be dealt with 10¢ at a time. 9MM bullets are a dime a piece when you buy them in bulk.

[wingFeather]

rn79870 has changed my mind about Obama worshippers from bad to 100% TERRIBLE.

[rn79870]

I'm glad it worked when you tried to change it.