A few of the locations where the snipers are being tryed prohibit the death penalty to the younger of the two snipers, because he had been a minor throughout the majority of his crimes.

In Washington DC, there is no death penalty.
In Maryland, the older of the snipers is eligible, but not the younger.
In Virginia, both snipers or elibible, as well as in Alabama.

Do you think the death penalty should be a possibility for this young man? The majority of the shootings were in Maryland and D.C, where executing him is prohibted, but in Alabama, where they duo committed their first crime, he could also be tried for the later shootings, including the ones after he turned 18.

Your thoughts?

YES!!!!!

Nox

They both should.

I disagree with my state's stance on the death penalty.

Besides, 17 isn't really a juvenile.

Common, eleborate. Why?

I think they should send them both to federal prison....Now that my friend is much worst then just dieing....I mean fuck....You drop the soap its all over...

Abso-fucking-lutely!

I you're old enough to snipe innocent people, you are old enough to receive the consequences. However, federal prison might be worse.... He'll get raped real quick.

quote:

---

Originally posted by buttthrax:
He'll get raped real quick.

---

I've heard it said that you can't rape a willing subject. Right now I'm not convinced that the younger is the step-son of the older.

Nox

Yea, step-son is a pretty vague label. Maybe they have some kind of innocent-murder-victim fetish.

(Edit):

BTW, the back seat probably folded down for more than one reason....

[This message has been edited by buttthrax (edited 10-28-2002).]

Precisely what I was thinking.

And to answer the topic question, death sentence sounds good.

quote:

---

Originally posted by VeneFrigus:

Besides, 17 isn't really a juvenile.

---

I disagree. 17 is juvenile. As far as I m concerned, nowadays, anyone up to 25 is still juvenile.

No, I know some physically 17 year olds who are mentally 30. I also know some 25 year olds who are 13, so I will agree with you that some people up to 25 are juveniles.

The question you should be asking is should anyone be elligible for the death penalty. As the answer is obviously NO, then you can infer that the boy shouldnt be killed.

The age is irrelevant. When they started leaving messages like "I've done this before" and demanding money, it threw the idea that they were insane right out the window. It is clear that they were as sane as these snipers could be, and both should recieve the highest penalty available.

I'm against the death penalty in general, but I'm speaking within context of the law.

Maybe they act juvenile, but it's not like they're just developing.

Besides, I'd be for the death penalty for him if he were 13.

No prisons enough.

Peace Renegade,

I think they should either get 5 years or they should be put into a wide, green field and then sniped. So yea, probably death penalty. Altough I'm against lethal injection.

I'm surprised the younger one hasn't played the "He threatened to kill me if I didn't stay with him," routine. Since he appears to have been a willing participant in the murders, I believe he deserves the same penalty. They should be executed in a public place, as their victims were. Shot to the head, guillotine, hanging, whatever. Harvest the organs while you're at it.

Sadly, they'll likely end up in a prison writing books. State pens are usually nastier than federal facilities, by the way.

I heard some report today that said Malvo, the seventeen year old, is the one who sniped the F.B.I. agent.

Give them both the death penalty.

The relationship between the two seems pretty shady.

One of 3 things should happen:
1)The government should announce a time and place where both subjects are to be released and offer immunity to anyone who kills, beats, etc either of the two.
2)They should be put into federal prison for the rest of their lives and the government should offer immunity to anyone who rapes either of the two.
3)BOTH should be strapped to the same electrical chair (the little on the lap of the older) and they should flip the switch halfway so that both die slowly and painfully.

Homer

quote:

---

Originally posted by ThetaReactor:
State pens are usually nastier than federal facilities, by the way.

---

True...except for Marionville.

Nox

All prisons in this country and others are bullshit. We have a serious problem with repeat offenders because NO ONE learns shit from lounging on a couch for ten years!!
Prisons should all be little devil's islands.

Homer

They will both get daeth row. wich in other words means wait like 5 years and then sit on a chair and get a 3 shots( or is it a bed? )

Francly I would give the willing victims Assault rifles and allow them to hunt both of them.

What a non barbaric world we live, it sucks

You guys are quick to fucking judge who should live and die. How many people died? Ten. That is a lot and it was a brutal crime. Do you guys realize that the only reason why you feel this way is because it was on the news every night? How many people has our "great" leader killed? Countless thousands. And you fucks cheer for him.

Besides this case did not even become that big until the FBI agent was shot. Make no mistake they watch out for their own. Do you know that in Columbine police officers waited outside the whole time? The reason is because of "officer safety". This should disgust you. The lives of those we pay to protect us is more important than kids.

I agree with syndicalist, I've stated many times that our nation's leaders are international terrorists and war criminals that are much worse then the people they claim they're fighting.

I'm speaking within context though.

quote:

---

Originally posted by syndicalist:
You guys are quick to fucking judge who should live and die. How many people died? Ten. That is a lot and it was a brutal crime. Do you guys realize that the only reason why you feel this way is because it was on the news every night? How many people has our "great" leader killed? Countless thousands. And you fucks cheer for him.

Besides this case did not even become that big until the FBI agent was shot. Make no mistake they watch out for their own. Do you know that in Columbine police officers waited outside the whole time? The reason is because of "officer safety". This should disgust you. The lives of those we pay to protect us is more important than kids.

---

I hate this fucking moronic arguement; it is the same one presented to me whenever I say I am against abortion and for death penalty. They say "How can you be for taking the lives of one and against taking lives of the other?" Simply put, theres a difference dumbass! Fetuses are innocent, killers are not. As far as Bush vs. Murdering snipers, you make it sound like bush is walking up and down the street and killing people in cold blood. He has many reasons for what he is doing, and if you want to argue that, do so in the other post. He is not some punk snipers going around picking off innocents.

Bush has killed thousands of civilians. So have most US presidents in the later 20th century.

"And you fucks cheer for him."

Who here cheers for bush?

Maybe we are to fast to judge these guys, They migth be scapegoats, how can someone fire through a hole in the trunk of the car? wut kind of car Had they? Why didnt we see any pics of that car? Wut kind of gun fits in the trunk and can be fired trough a hole. this isnt james bond u know. but the question of this topic is: should the younger sniper get the same penalty. Anwser here is clear. Yes. bcuz he knew what he was doing and did nohing to prevent it. He Is guilty. But what I hate about this system of media covering the story is the fact that we wanna hear more about it. In other words there will be alot of things surfacing up, and other things that will keep this story alive. And the big finaly will be the death of The " snipers ". this death is part of the story so many of us were captivated by. We Are hungry for deaths of ppl. WE just want more.

Inside of yourself U know how good it feels to be alive and how sometime funny it is how other ppl die. Cmon, everyone must have a lil sadistic side to them.

Syndicalist you idealistic dumb shit, there is a difference between a military related death and some guy taking random pot shots at people.

What the fuck are you talking about, quick to judge. It was a murder spree that lasted almost a month. It isn't like this was a one day event that happened yesterday. There seems to plenty of evidence stacking up against them. Not only in this but, apparenlty, in two other non sniper murders. What do you think they deserve a fucking lolly pop, a slap on the wrist and sent on their way?

The case was already big when the fbi woman was shot. A sniper murdering people at random, the media had collectively jumped on that bandwagon the same day the first two murders were connected. But I think that was when the us government decided to get involved.



[This message has been edited by Sol463 (edited 10-30-2002).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by UnclNastyFingerz:
Bush has killed thousands of civilians. So have most US presidents in the later 20th century.

---

Please elaborate. Are you talking about the prisoners who were executed in Texas while he was governor? If so, than that is a croc of shit. If you are talking about the Afghani innocents that died, such as the ones at the wedding, than you are way off base. First of all Bush did not do it. Secondly, if you are going to use the logic that since Bush is responsible for the military activity and it was a military bomber that killed those innocents that is is his fault, thats crap. Finally, even if you use that logic, Bush had no intention to have innocents killed, at least none that is apprent. He could, but how fuckin' likely is that?

quote:

---

Originally posted by UnclNastyFingerz:
Bush has killed thousands of civilians. So have most US presidents in the later 20th century.

---

Really...

Show me some evidence of this claim. Whose civilians would this be.

Lay off the crack.

quote:

---

Originally posted by UnclNastyFingerz:
Bush has killed thousands of civilians. So have most US presidents in the later 20th century.

---

I can't think of what the other presidents did. I'll even go as far back as Eisenhower. I will willingly say I haven't been taught much history from 1970's back, but I don't recall hearing much about countless numbers of civilians being killed. If you are referring to the Vietnam war, where some civilians did die, see my comment on your logic in my last post.

No... I'm talking about the civilians massacred in Vietnam and Cambodia, the 700,000 people killed in a US/Japanese military collaberation in South Korea in 1947, all the people murdered by the US Trained Contras in Nicaragua,all the dissenters slaughtered by Pinochet, who was trained by the CIA, the peole killed by US troops and the fascist guerillas they worked with in Guatamala, the people slaughtered in El Salvidor because of the US backed fascist coup, obviously the people killed by our Atomic Bombs in Japan, the civilians we killed in our invasion of Grenada, and ONE MILLION people killed in the US backed genocide in East Timor, all the dissenters and their families killed by stationed American soldiers and Indonesian secret police throughout Indonesia, the 30,000 people killed by our bombing of the Sudan pill factor, plus another 50,000 starved to death in it's aftermath, the hundred thousand people starved by our embargo in Iraq, the civilians killed by our bombs in the Gulf War, and the civilians killed by our bombs in Afghanistan.

So it's okay for the military to kill millions of people, but if a sniper kills 6 he gets the death penalty?

Well from what I have seen here these numbers either look exaggerated, accidental killings, or things that I am not knowledgeable about.

Vietnam: Irrelevant. Fighting Guerilla warfare isn't easy. You think it would be acceptable for some of those soliders to not get suspicious when they hear stories of civilians running out with bombs strapped to their chests?

700,000 Koreans: Sounds severly exaggerated. They couldn't all be civilians...

Contras: Those were drug raids if I remember correctly. Hard for there to be innocent citizens shooting at the contras. Even if the contras killed innocents, thats not the governments fault. They didn't train the contras to kill innocents.

Pinochet: I don't know what this is, but if he was trained by the CIA, they didn't train him to kill innocents, just like the CIA didn't train Bin laden to kill innocents.

Guatemala: I have no knowledge of this.

Salvador: Same.

Japan: Acknowledged, but the thing about this was that the military structures being targeted were in a hotbed of civilian residencies.

Grenada: Wasn't that a drug raid or something similar as well?

Timor, Indonesia, Sudan: No Knowledge.

Iraq: Hussein did that to his people, not us. Embargo is a perfectly legitimate form of warfare. The germans had it and still fought an efficient war in both world wars.

Gulf War and Afghanies: Accidental.

Like I said, when I took IB history we only got up to 1970...

well hes gonna sit on death row until hes 30 anyways if they do give him the death penalty so he should have the death penalty

i think neither of the killers should serve death penalty because if they get death penalty its just letting them get off easily i say we just let them stay in solitary confinement(i dont know how to spellit) or something even more harsh.

So UncleFingerInAss,

Are you saying that you support the sniper?

Obviously, you are defending his actions. You believe the snipers were justified in their actions because of your outlandish claims of military casualities.

You make the most hypocritical claims. You are sooo againest casulaties in a war, but you are soooo for dead American innocents.

The dead in Iraq from US bombs may have appeared to be civilians. The Iraqis operating the the anti-aircraft stations do not wear military uniforms. So when they die, and rightfully so, Saddam claims "civilian casualties" in hopes of idiots like you believing it.

None of your outlandish claims, might I add, had a damn thing to do with George Bush.

when we killed millions of vietnamese, we weren't killing actual people, so we can't say that they're the civilians killed...and everyone knows those pesky japs were like parasitic lice and needed to be cropped from the picture. and it's hardly our fault savages in Afghanistan like to celebrate a wedding by shooting at our warplanes. SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: shooting at american warplanes is hazardous to your health.

Vox, you have no clue.

Uncl, thank you, always a voice of reason.

What he is saying is not that the snipers actions were innocent, but rather if you are so concerned about civilians look at your US military.

Khaki, you admittedly have no knowledge of half of the events that Uncl described, yet you still hold firm your belief that you are right.

Idealistic, maybe. But telling me military deaths are different from civilian deaths is ignorant. If the military kills an innocent civilian, are you saying it does not count?

What the fuck are you guys being taught in school?

I won't say that military related deaths are no less a tragedy than a civilian related death, but there is a difference. The military is a neccessary evil on this planet and when you have the kind of weapons that exist today, civilian casualties can and will happen.

But answer the question what do you think the snipers deserve?

No, no, nevermind just spout your dogma, dont even come close to the topic, I mean, everyone must hear how right your view is on the world.

quote:

---

Originally posted by syndicalist:

Khaki, you admittedly have no knowledge of half of the events that Uncl described, yet you still hold firm your belief that you are right.

---

No, you seem to not be able to read.

I said that Bush is not direcly responsible for any of them, and he clearly did not cause any civilian deaths intentionally. Show me where Bush, or any other president, ever said "Let's go kill us some innocents"...

quote:

---

Originally posted by syndicalist:

Uncl, thank you, always a voice of reason.

---

Hardly...

Khaki, Bush wants to get a regime change in Iraq. This will involve hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths. So, he is directly responsible for their deaths. If Bush would not invade Iraq, those civilians would stay alive. Are you a sophomore in high school? Not that it matters, but you do not seem to be following the logic.

I think the snipers should be put in prison for the rest of their life. I think that execution is letting them off easy. When you die the pain and suffering is over. Besides they will probably get killed in prison.

Pinochet was a dictator of Chile who we set up. His policies on the reform of civil structure led to enormous economic growth. The cost was some deaths. But they were hardly innocents.

quote:

---

Originally posted by syndicalist:
Khaki, Bush wants to get a regime change in Iraq. This will involve hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths. So, he is directly responsible for their deaths. If Bush would not invade Iraq, those civilians would stay alive. Are you a sophomore in high school? Not that it matters, but you do not seem to be following the logic.

---

Again, no I'm not a sophomore in high school. He doesn't want a regime change. You make it sound like he wants to assume power himself as a monarch and kill all the Iraqies that live there. All he wants to do, is to remove Saddam, and then most likely set up a democracy of some sorts. That might be a little imposing, but a fuck of a lot better than what is in Iraq now.


[This message has been edited by YouAreNotYourKhakis (edited 11-01-2002).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by syndicalist:
Uncl, thank you, always a voice of reason.

---

This statement reminds me of the movie titled, "Dumb and Dumber".

Nox

I don't support the snipers, I'm just saying killing him can't be justified because our own government has killed so many innocents.

Khaki, how in the living fuck do you know what it is like in Iraq? You ignorant slut. Just kidding, I should not use personal attacks. Seriously, you are fed govt controlled media to decide what life is like in Iraq. If you get idependent information about the Middle East then you can make a rational decision.

I agree with Uncl's statement that the government should not kill it's own citizens.

You have no knowledge of one of the biggest genocides since the Holocaust (East Timor)? That shows how well the corperate media holds back information.

Pinochet and the Contras WERE trained to kill civilians? Have you ever heard of the School of the Americas? Look it up, it's the CIA school where guerrilas were trained specifically to kill innocents and supress dissent. The School of the Americas was even tried for teaching murder, extortion, and other terror tactics. Bin Laden wasn't trained to kill civilians, but Pinochet certainly was.

By the way, the Contras killed civilians to repress political dissent. Whenever civilians got together and formed some sort of militia to stop them and restore democracy to Nicaragua, the US Army came in and shut them down. Funding and suppporting terrorism falls under Bush's definition of terrorism, doesn't it?

You're slightly missing the whole point. Some of these countries weren't specifically trained by the US to kill innocents, but we knew they did and still funded them and gave them military support. Bush proudly declared in his speech that funding terrorism makes you as much of a terrorist as the bombers themselves. The United States government falls under it's own official definition of etrrorism, which I must say is ironic.

They were hardly innocents.

And if they're revolting they're taking arms against the government they're no longer civilians.

Heh.

I'm going to make a shirt with Pinochet on it, that says "pinoChet Lives."

Pinochet's government was an illegitimate fascist dictatorship. The civilian revolutionaries/dissenters represented democracy in Chili. Salvidor Allende was democratically elected, and fascist's held a US backed coup and overthrew the rightful government.

And the family members of anti-Pinochet newspaper editors that had their testicles severed or were sodomized to death by an iron rod were very much civilians.

And Democracy is so great why?

Especially in underdeveloped and uneducated nations.

You don't train people to sever testicles, if that ever happened.

On the whole, Pinochet was good for Chile. It's economy expanded rapidly with his reforms of civil structure.

The economy expanded, but most of the many went to wealthy aristocrats. The gap between the rich and poor grw tremendously, because alot of taxes went to benefit companies like United Fruit. Salvidor Allende, who was the democratically elected ruler of Chile, was much better for the people, since he almost stopped all hunger in the country redistributed land from aristocrats.

Democracy can be good, if it's a fair democracy that really gives power to the people. Hell, if you think a bunch of deceitful gangsters that have their cronies spy on and kill anyone that disagrees with them in order to maintain power is good for a country, Sadam Hussein is your man. I strongly suggest moving to Iraq, since going back in time to Pinochet's Chile isn't possible.

It's not good forever, but it's a neccessary transitory system.

The Nazis were brilliant at running the economy and as Communists and Jews opposed the government they were "hardly innocent".

quote:

---

Originally posted by syndicalist:
Khaki, how in the living fuck do you know what it is like in Iraq? You ignorant slut. Just kidding, I should not use personal attacks. Seriously, you are fed govt controlled media to decide what life is like in Iraq. If you get idependent information about the Middle East then you can make a rational decision.

---

Son, I'm a conservative. You think the conservatives have a large hand in the influence on the media? Media is what invented political correctness. Clearly though life in Iraqi is not "nice". Now if you are going to say that every word ever said about Iraq in the media is fabricated than you are retarded. If that were the case, than maybe China isn't communist. Maybe Isreal and Palastine are friends. And maybe France isn't full of stinkfinger (not a reference to UnclFinger... not yet anyway jk) perverts...

quote:

---

I agree with Uncl's statement that the government should not kill it's own citizens

---

He wasn't the only one to say that... In fact that was the pro-death penalty/Iraq relative people were arguing, like me.

[This message has been edited by YouAreNotYourKhakis (edited 11-04-2002).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by FuckOffandDie:
The Nazis were brilliant at running the economy and as Communists and Jews opposed the government they were "hardly innocent".

---

The Jews weren't stopping them from helping the economy. They should not have been killed.

The Communists I'm split on. The leaders were the non-innocents, but most of the followers were innocent.

1. The Communist leaders didn't do anything more then believe in ideals. If you consider that a crime, I bid you to move to Iraq.

2. Pinochet did NOT help the economy. He widened the gap between the rich and the poor and took most of the taxes that went towards education and gave it to United Fruit and other corperations. Driving your people below the poverty line is not helping the economy.

It's okay to be a conservative, but don't talk out of your ass about other cultures. You have your stereotypes wrong anyway, it's Americans that are perverted (for the record, I'm French).

GDP was raised. Thus the economy was better.

And the steps he took were neccessary transitory actions.

quote:

---

For the record, I'm French.

---

Doesn't surprise me...

quote:

---

The Jews weren't stopping them from helping the economy. They should not have been killed.

---

Neither were many of Pinochet's opponents and opponents' families.

Yes they were. And when they weren't it was because they didn't have the resources.

The GDP doesn't indicate the state of the economy as much as where the money goes does.

People weren't starving before Pinochet. People were starving under Pinochet. Pinochet destroyed thousands of jobs, cut the amount if food imported in half, and cut public services in half. He shut down the majority of libraries in Chili because he couldn't afford it with all the corperate investment.

Pinochet didn't help the economy. I do agree that his oppenents would've been able to overthrow him if the US army didn't move in whenever they were needed. Literally everyone in the country despised Pinochet, so anti-government groups would've had all the support they needed.

The state of the economy is not where the money goes.

And you ignore my statements regarding transitory phases.

Most libraries and such were shut down because they were full of communists.

And people were always starving, when they weren't it was because of communist aid.

People weren't starving under Allende, because he redistributed tax money equally among citizens.

So why is Communist presence so horrible? Ever thought that Communism could've been good for Chili, especially since it's people elected a Communist?

You're saying it was good for Pinochet to overthrow a democratically elected government and kill all it's supporters, and channel wealth ro corperations? I bid you to move to Iraq for the third time. Transitory phazes is bullshit. In general, the transition is between a democratic government and a totalitarian dictatorship.

The Jews would have stopped Hitler's policies if they had resources.

The jews would have stopped his policies of killing jews, not his economic policies.

People managed to do okay under Allende through raid and seizure policeies. Such methods are unsustainable. Under Allende, domestic food production went down and importation went up.

Khaki, wtf are you rambling about? I never said that everything you hear about Iraq is false, just a lot of it. And a lot is left out.

And, for the record, the media is not controlled by liberals. Most radio hosts (Rush Limbaugh Dr. Laura) are conservative. So is Bill O'Reilly and a number of other media figureheads. Please do not give me this "liberal controlled media" shit anymore.

Vene, economics is not all that there is. How different is your life now compared to 1999? The economy was much better then. Are you also going to say that Stalin's economic plan was good for Russia? I hardly think so. Millions of people killed by their government. You are spouting horseshit.

If you think that all the of people Pinochet killed were trying to stop his economic policy then you're very, very naive.

Hitler perceived Jews as Communists opposed to many of his economic policies and political power. Pinochet perceived dissenters and their families as a threat to his economic policies and political power. Other than scale, and rhetoric, there isn't a whole lot of difference

quote:

---

Originally posted by syndicalist:
Khaki, wtf are you rambling about? I never said that everything you hear about Iraq is false, just a lot of it. And a lot is left out.

---

You certainly implied it! You said that the federal government controls the media, hence wouldn't they try to alter our views. That is what you expressed. And how would you know a lot of it is false or left out? Do you live in Iraq?

And, for the record, the media is not controlled by liberals. Most radio hosts (Rush Limbaugh Dr. Laura) are conservative. So is Bill O'Reilly and a number of other media figureheads. Please do not give me this "liberal controlled media" shit anymore. [/B][/QUOTE]

Perhaps radio is, but just how many people in the 18-34 age bracket listen to the radio avidly? They get all of their misinformation from MTV and other ludicrous sources. Bill O'Reilly is not a conservative, I've heard him say that on several occasions. How many news anchors do you see that are obvious conservatives? How many inputs on MTV are conservative?

quote:

---

Vene, economics is not all that there is. How different is your life now compared to 1999? The economy was much better then. Are you also going to say that Stalin's economic plan was good for Russia? I hardly think so. Millions of people killed by their government. You are spouting horseshit.

---

No you are spouting horseshit. Communism and Capitalism are totally different things, if you don't grasp that than you shouldn't even consider commenting on economics. If the GDP goes up, the economy is better as a whole, but GDP per capita is what can almost somewhat determine the conditions of the people. However, the whole deal with Pinochet was that it supposedly true that an American president at the time was responsible for Chilean's dying. I'm not seeing the connection.

quote:

---

Originally posted by VeneFrigus:Doesn't surprise me... (regarding Uncl being French)

---

Me neither. Every frenchman I have ever met is a pervert queer or queer wanabe or just conceited for no reason. I don't know about Uncl, but I have heard some nasty shit they allow in France. I doubt the US is worse than France... severly doubt it.

Elaborate. What do they allow in France?

Have you ever lived in France? If I haven't lived here as long as I have, I'd probably be able to say every American I've met is ignorant, bigoted, greedy, and juvinile (traits that certainly apply to more then 50%).

quote:

---

Originally posted by UnclNastyFingerz:
Elaborate. What do they allow in France?

Have you ever lived in France? If I haven't lived here as long as I have, I'd probably be able to say every American I've met is ignorant, bigoted, greedy, and juvinile (traits that certainly apply to more then 50%).

---

No, thats why I said this is what I heard. I've heard that its acceptable to fuck in the streets, and prostitution is encouraged. About the typical American, I would admit to being greedy in a second. Bigoted probably as well. But thats not the case for all Americans... most are ignorant, but thats a global curse.

First off, the whole french thing is stupid. What are you, German? It's all relative. What is wrong with prostitution or fucking in the streets? Just your prudish attitude toward sex. Fuck it, live and let live. You said you were conservative. All I have heard is that they hate the fact that liberals try to get into their lives and affect it in some way. This is exactly what you are saying now. I also love the homophobia that most knee-jerk reactionary conservatives manifest.

Sorry that people ages 18 to 34 do not listen to the radio for news. This age group is primarily liberal. Ages 35 to 55 are primarily conservative. Do you hear me whining that the older generation does not watch enough MTV?

Yes, you are fed disinformation about Iraq. If you do not believe that your government lies to you, tell me exactly why are you at this site?

Americans are more openly sexual then the French. According the records, we have much worse prostitution. Prostitution in France is not encouraged, but it's not looked up as one of the 7 deadly sins the way it is here. Pretty much all European countries have cultural indifference toward prostitution.

The GDP change in the US was insignifigant.

First off, the thread is about the snipers, but that is what is great about totse. The GDP does have some significance in your life. Not nearly as much as you might think, though. The richest one percent in this world own 99 percent of all the wealth. That leaves about 6 billion people to scatter and search for the remaining one percent. Economists always seem to amuse me. They never see the big picture. Why is it 50 years ago a man could finish the ninth grade and raise a family of seven comfortably? And now even with a married couple both haveing bachelor's degrees raising one child is a chore?

It's more like 5% own 85% of the wealth, but you're on the right track.

We're the exploiters and I'm proud of it.

quote:

---

Why is it 50 years ago a man could finish the ninth grade and raise a family of seven comfortably?

---

Depends how you define "comfortably". The seven kids wouldn't have objected to not having TVs, computers, console games and clothes that hadn't belonged to their elder siblings.

Fuckoff, you have made a good point. What I was trying to say is that now to raise five kids and no high school education would require tax money (welfare).

Vene, you are an exploiter. I disagree. So you live in the Hamptons and don't work?

I reside in Britain I don't agree with America stance on the death penalty. I believe that the death penalty is a mark of an undeveloped and archaic nation that is obsessed with violence on every level. Quite obviously it does not work, your prisons are full, you have more people in prison per capita than any other nation and your streets are full of crime. Death is quite simply not an option.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rudie J 1st:
I reside in Britain I don't agree with America stance on the death penalty. I believe that the death penalty is a mark of an undeveloped and archaic nation

---

The US tried to do without it for awhile, but then decided to bring it back. That's the logical progression of social evolution, not pacification; the evolutionary branch which your society seems to have crawled out on.

quote:

---

Quite obviously it does not work

---

The only thing that doesn't work about it, is the cost. The state says, that the cost of paying it's attorneys and judges to settle numerous appeals, actually exceeds the cost of a life term. The obvious salary disparity between jailers and lawyering scum notwithstanding, everything else about it works great; a zero level of repeat offenders, and the collateral victims aren't denied their vengeance.

quote:

---

Death is quite simply not an option.

---

An option for who? Convicted murderers; their victims; the voters; or all mortals?

The main story in the UK this week apart from the firefighters' strike was the release of a man who spent 25 years in prison for a murder he probably didn't commit.

I doubt that he'd have lived to see his release if he'd been on Death Row.