disneydude
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2006
- Messages
- 25,528
- Reaction score
- 8,470
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
You mean that one term president who will lose one judge to ovarian cancer next year and Douglas will be 90 and retire and then butchering in the womb will stop........As far as gay marriage goes, I don't even worry about that, you are losing every day on that one......The people have spoke DD.....Live with it.......
Again a serial killer is someone whose victims all have something in common with each other.For example someone who only kills cops,someone who only kills Mormons, someone who kills only anti-war protesters someone who only kills veterinarian and etc. IT doesn't matter if it was legal or not.Ok, so what you are saying has nothing to do with legality. If this is the case, then again, your hypothetical makes no sense. You said "if it was legal to do those things". Therefore, you are bringing legality into it. You can't have it both ways, james.
And I reject your definition of "serial killer". A serial killer is one who murders at least three people.
Murder is a legal term... serial killers are murderers.
What Dr. Tiller did was legal. Your usage of the term "serial killer" to describe him is inaccurate and used only for dramatic effect.
James... your hypothetical makes NO SENSE. If it was legal to kill people for anti-military protests, someone who killed the person who did that would be a criminal. What Tiller did was legal. What Roeder did was not. I condemn Roeder. He murdered. Tiller did not.
You mean that one term president who will lose one judge to ovarian cancer next year and Douglas will be 90 and retire and then butchering in the womb will stop........
As far as gay marriage goes, I don't even worry about that, you are losing every day on that one......The people have spoke DD.....Live with it.......
As I thought.If only the other hypocrites admit that too.That's the question? Okay. I'd say it would be okay to kill someone who killed other people (any people, not just the groups you chose) even though it was legal. The difference is that nobody disagrees that those people are people, because they've been born.
WOw Navy...you really do live in a dream world. Who do you think is going to beat Obama, Palin? :doh
Obama will win a second term....but even if not, his election in 2008 protected the Supreme Court from extremism at least for the next couple of decades. Whatever hope the right-wing had of stacking the Supreme Court with activist judges died that November evening. Obama will have at least one more appointment, possibly more. I thank GOD every day that people like you didn't get the chance to destroy the Court, at least in my lifetime.
As for gay marriage, Navy....you are losing the war. Open your eyes and look around you. The world is changing and it will take you along with it, whether you like it or not.
IF the idiots at Fox try to prop up Palin or the republicans try to prop up Romney,McCain, Giuliani or some other Rino then Obama will have another term. I am not sure if Palin is a Rino, but I do know that she is a flip flopper and a quitter and all her opponents will use that against her.
Calling it something different and legalizing marriage under another term hardly sounds like a loss.Four states with "civil union"s and six states with "domestic partnerships" and I am sure more are doing the same thing. If I called a pile of cow **** a T-Bone steak or filet mignon would you eat it?
If the Republicans can win in Mass. anything can happen........I heard that they had not won that seat sincee 1952....If that happens in the most liberal state in the union Obama is toast.........
You say your winning on the gay marriage issue as you continue to lose state after state.....You have won nothing when ta vote of the people took place......The people will never let you jam gay marriage down thir throat...Your losing and you will continue to lose....That would even happen in Mass. if the people got to vote on the issue and not allow activist judges to make law instead of interpret it.......
Dream on DD, you are losing big time and you will continue to do so...You can't even name one state where you have won.........
Again a serial killer is someone whose victims all have something in common with each other.For example someone who only kills cops,someone who only kills Mormons, someone who kills only anti-war protesters someone who only kills veterinarian and etc. IT doesn't matter if it was legal or not.
Again you are confusing serial killer with mass murderer.
Then why are they not called serial murderers if serial killer is a purely a legal term?
Tiller is a serial killer, all his victims have something in common they are babies who have yet to be born and Tiller has killed lots of them.
You are just a hypocrite condemning Scott Roeder.Had Tiller's victims been adults I do not think you would be condemning Roeder regardless if it was legal or illegal.You just like all the other abortionist equate a unborn child to that of a toenail or some other expendable organ or body part. That is why your ilk condemn Scott Roeder.
As I thought.If only the other hypocrites admit that too.
What the **** are you talking about>
I did not even mention Palin....... I will say Palin is no rino.....She is a conservative.
.....That is why the left hate her so much........
You saw the definition I quoted. you are using the definition wrong... to fit your agenda. Use the definition correctly and then we can talk.
No, you are using the term serial killer incorrectly because the correct terminology demonstrates that your hypothetical was inaccurate and stupid. Use the term correctly, and then we can discuss this.
You read the definition, correct? You are altering the definition to fit your agenda because the correct definition proves you wrong. Very dishonest debating.
[\QUOTE]
Again a serial Killer is generally someone whose victims all have something in common with each other. For example blond prostitutes, one legged men,veterinarian and etc.
All you are doing is debating dishonestly, altering terminology to fit your inaccurate agenda.
Abortionist change the definitions all the time to justify what they do or support.They dehumanize an unborn child to justify killing it.
There is no hypocrisy on my part. But there is complete dishonesty on yours.
The only dishonesty on your part and that of other abortionist.
Abortionist change the definitions all the time to justify what they do or support.
Again a serial Killer is generally someone whose victims all have something in common with each other. For example blond prostitutes, one legged men,veterinarian and etc.
Abortionist change the definitions all the time to justify what they do or support.They dehumanize an unborn child to justify killing it.
The only dishonesty on your part and that of other abortionist.
Or, the jury might just make an example out of him.Depending on the verdict of this trail this could start a disturbing trend.
Or, the jury might just make an example out of him.
Its a Bible Belt state so it can go either way.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?