Wow. So little support showed up today after Don called for massive protests that he claimed the police had closed the streets around the courthouse, but they had not, the street was open, there was ONE pro trump protester there. That’s it, all that showed up to support the disgraced ex president…no fans, no supporters, no family. Even Jeffry Dahmer’s parents showed up for him in court! No one is there for poor little DJ that he isn’t paying to be there.
Bonus- After their disastrous performance at the contempt hearing where their arguments were laughable (like claiming that if Trump adds “maga” to any post it becomes a political statement and that magically invalidates the gag order, or that retweeting statements doesn’t violate the gag order even when he edits them, the judge has said he, Trump’s only real attorney, has lost all credibility in this court…Trump already had none, now his lawyers won’t be believed and the judge will instruct the jury to that effect. The keystone cops of lawyers! You get what you deserve sometimes. 😂

Today’s testimony….

“PECKER SCREWS TRUMP”

“[Pecker] Outlines Trump election conspiracy and reveals Trump’s constant cheating on wife Melania in damning testimony” Hilariously describing the then long time married Trump as “well known as the most eligible bachelor”.
Walt Nada has said under oath that he was promised a pardon when Trump wins if he lied to the FBI. 😂
Interviews from person 16 with corroborating evidence show Trump and his family were warned repeatedly that stealing documents from the whitehouse was a crime and they needed to return every page. They also reported under oath that there was never a standing “declassification order”, and could not be because it would be highly illegal. (Handling whitehouse records and preserving them was part of their job). Just more evidence that the treason wasn’t an accident, he stole those highly sensitive classified documents intentionally knowing full well it was criminal when he did it, and criminal to retain them. We still have no idea who he may have shown them to, but we know at the least that both Chinese and Russian agents have been free to roam Mar a Lago while they were there unguarded. You can’t say the same about the personal notes Biden accidentally retained and returned when they were discovered.

Why do you people need to keep reminding me such horrors exist? Can't we just stick to happier things like Chernobyl or Jeffrey Dahmer?

... and that was what the vision looked like that inspired young Jeffrey Dahmer to find true love.

Also, the voice in my head when I'm constipated.

Well, thank you for the compliment, fellow masterdebater.
Or did you mean "masturbator"? Then I'd have to disagree, I'm certainly not bad at that.

Yeah, my post was super hyperbolic but it was just a continuation of the thinking going on here. I took it to the next level. The basic message I took from this thread was "Fuck that guy, he's an insurance scammer and got what he deserved!"
I disagree.
First of all, his crime (scamming people out of money) makes him a huge asshole and definately someone I wish not much well being in general. However, he was slowly run over by a car! You have to do some really awful shit to deserve that kind of punishment. If that man was the pope, I'd have applauded the lady and asked her for a re-run because the pope supports child rapists. If that man was Jeffrey Dahmer, I'd ask if I could have a go. But he's, as far as we know, neither a rapist or murderer or anything else as horrible. He could be dead. He could be a vegetable. He could be disabled. None of that is a punishment fitting his crime. Not even a Bernie Madoff deserves that.
The second thing is this whole "he did something stupid and now he got what he deserves" debate. Look, I'm a person of schadenfreude. I have sadistic personality traits that fill my shrivelled, black heart with gleeful joy everytime somebody gets hurt. But there are limits.
My examples are horrible and gross but what sets them apart from what this guy did is mainly they're not criminal activities. Sure, if you shoot at cops and get shot, you deserve that. You committed and act of agression and got pwned. That man was not agressive towards anyone.
He didn't lay under a moving car, he lay beside a standing car that then rolled over him while making a turn because the driver didn't notice him. Misjudgement on his part? Sure. The same as playing russian roulette or shooting at cops? Nope. That's because his activity, running into a standing or slowly moving car and pretending to be hit, doesn't include certain death as certain possibility.
The only reason people here are so comfortable with this man getting run over is because he's an asshole criminal. If that would've happened to him while he was pulling an internet prank, everyone would be horrified. Imagine that guy wearing a ridiculous costume and talking into the camera at the beginning of the video how he'll make that woman think she hit him with the car and what a great prank that'll be. Is he still getting what he deserves?
People give a shit about the man in the terrible accident because they made a judgement that he is a criminal and not worth it.
See, John Oliver has a point when talking about prisons.
I saw a video of a man getting run over. It didn't upset me but the reactions to it did.

>> ^Yogi:

That said, I would have no problem with someone like Jeffrey Dahmer being put to death. Caught red-handed and guilty of unspeakable horror and cruelty... fry him up.

Oh yeah I'm not against the death penalty...there's people out there that do unspeakable things and deserve to die absolutely. However this blanket idea of capitol punishment I don't want my name to. Kill someone like the asshole that attacked our Army Base or a serial killer or something than yeah I'll pull the trigger myself.
But all this killing people because we have some evidence they may have killed someone obviously isn't fucking working. And I say that as the son of a murdered woman who's killer was never caught.


Exactly. The thing that is so frightening about this guy is that he does not acknowledge that the system CAN fail and that an error can cause an innocent person their life. The arrogance he displays by trying to imply that Texas doesn't make mistakes because they are so "thoughtful" about the process... please. In a state which is constantly trying to teach creationism, ban books, and prides itself on being uneducated... yeah, I want nothing of that "thoughtfulness" when a life is at stake.

That said, I would have no problem with someone like Jeffrey Dahmer being put to death. Caught red-handed and guilty of unspeakable horror and cruelty... fry him up.



Oh yeah I'm not against the death penalty...there's people out there that do unspeakable things and deserve to die absolutely. However this blanket idea of capitol punishment I don't want my name to. Kill someone like the asshole that attacked our Army Base or a serial killer or something than yeah I'll pull the trigger myself.

But all this killing people because we have some evidence they may have killed someone obviously isn't fucking working. And I say that as the son of a murdered woman who's killer was never caught.

Oh, I think he understood damned well. He just doesn't have a problem if one of the innocent darkies gets executed on his watch. I'm actually not against the death penalty in theory. Even the way he (quite panderingly so) states it is fairly simple: I don't have a problem with a bat-shit crazy serial killer rapist being put to death.

The problem is that the actual enforcement of the death penalty is just racist. White criminals and black criminals don't get the same sentences for the same crimes.


Of course, there is the issue of innocent people being put to death too and I definitely have a problem with a death-penalty case which is nebulous. Say something there they don't have direct evidence and the links to the criminal are circumstantial.

That said, I would have no problem with someone like Jeffrey Dahmer being put to death. Caught red-handed and guilty of unspeakable horror and cruelty... fry him up.

Edit: just one source for the whole racist aspects of the way that the death penalty is handled http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/death-penalty-black-and-white-who-lives-who-dies-who-decides

>> ^Yogi:

Education is all I can think of when I see stuff like this. People who cheer things like that simply aren't educated.
EDIT: Also you have to be concerned with the education of Parry because he clearly didn't understand the question. The question was essentially do you lose any sleep over possibly executing innocent people? To which he replied that if you commit a heinous crime you should be put to death. I understand in this country with our sound-bite media that a candidate cannot be heard to utter something that could be perceived to go against their supporters wishes. However I really wish in a public debate we had instead of Brian Williams a man who knows exactly what's going on and allows it we had someone like David Mitchell because there is no way he would let that go. He would've kept pressing him until he made him look like the utter retard he is.

A sufficient difference between Dahmer and gay people is that Dahmer forcibly murdered people, gay people do not force others to be gay with them.

Regarding alcoholism, forcing someone to not drink simply does not work. They themselves have to want to stop drinking or such endeavours are doomed. It's a false comparison anyway, alcoholism prevents a person from having a functional life whereas homosexuality does not.

To your point at the end I ask you: what are morals? In a society where religion is free then morals surely can't be defined by the holy text of any one religion. Specifically with respect to the present case homosexuality is accepted in a lot of eastern religions and sometimes even encouraged.>> ^bobknight33:

Only in the last 4 decades the country has been swayed by gay groups and media that this sort of behavior is acceptable and it is not.
There is not one evolution or biblical reason for being gay. GOD does not hate gay people no more than he hates those who steal, divorce or murder. He allows each of us to have a free will to choose him or not.
And what you want to say that some were born gay? What about those who say they were born to be x,y or z.
What if the person comes from a family line of alcoholics? Should that force society to condone the person becoming an alcoholic? Do we let their actions a pass in society and just say he was born with the “gean”
The serial killer, Jeffrey Dahmer from an early age had a fascination to kill things. So do we say he was “born” that way? Even so that does not make it right. Should we stand up to all serial killers and say you were born that way and that’s ok?
What about an individual that is born one sex and has the “gean” to be the opposite?
Just because being gay does not have a negative societal impact as those exampled above ( granted those are extreme examples to illustrate the point) how does that translate as being an acceptable behavior?

Children only learn what is right and wrong from the society that surrounds them and to indicate to them that this behavior is ok is morally failing these children.

Your argument regarding alcohol does not hold any weight for me. Alcoholism is an addictive disorder that harms the victim and the victim's friends and relatives. It is medically defined as a treatable disease. Homosexuality is not a disorder. Homosexual people, and their families and friends, are not harmed by their sexuality but only suffer the mental and sometimes physical abuse of their peers. Your serial killer argument is also very weak since it is also about a behavior that is extremely harmful to other people.

I have just noticed that you even acknowledge this in your post, "just because being gay does not have a negative societal impact as those exampled above ... how does that translate as being an acceptable behavior?" The answer lies within your own question. It is not harmful, to anyone, therefore it is acceptable. Everyone should have the right to love and be loved and if this happens to be with someone of the same gender there's nothing wrong with that! It seems to me that you are categorizing alcoholism, murder, and homosexuality into one pile and that pile is the "SIN" pile. Those three things are only the same from a conservative religious stand point. Since you seem to be a conservative religious person this is probably why you are having trouble viewing homosexuality as something that is not evil.

Anyways, I will close with this video:

>> ^bobknight33:

Only in the last 4 decades the country has been swayed by gay groups and media that this sort of behavior is acceptable and it is not.
There is not one evolution or biblical reason for being gay. GOD does not hate gay people no more than he hates those who steal, divorce or murder. He allows each of us to have a free will to choose him or not.
And what you want to say that some were born gay? What about those who say they were born to be x,y or z.
What if the person comes from a family line of alcoholics? Should that force society to condone the person becoming an alcoholic? Do we let their actions a pass in society and just say he was born with the “gean”
The serial killer, Jeffrey Dahmer from an early age had a fascination to kill things. So do we say he was “born” that way? Even so that does not make it right. Should we stand up to all serial killers and say you were born that way and that’s ok?
What about an individual that is born one sex and has the “gean” to be the opposite?
Just because being gay does not have a negative societal impact as those exampled above ( granted those are extreme examples to illustrate the point) how does that translate as being an acceptable behavior?

Children only learn what is right and wrong from the society that surrounds them and to indicate to them that this behavior is ok is morally failing these children.


I was in the middle of writing a long angry reply to this, but then I thought, fuck it, you're not worth it. If you're old enough to make comments about the last 4 decades of your country, and intolerant enough to have the opinions of homosexuality that you appear to have, then I shouldn't even give you the time of fucking day.

>> ^bobknight33:

Only in the last 4 decades the country has been swayed by gay groups and media that this sort of behavior is acceptable and it is not.
There is not one evolution or biblical reason for being gay. GOD does not hate gay people no more than he hates those who steal, divorce or murder. He allows each of us to have a free will to choose him or not.
And what you want to say that some were born gay? What about those who say they were born to be x,y or z.
What if the person comes from a family line of alcoholics? Should that force society to condone the person becoming an alcoholic? Do we let their actions a pass in society and just say he was born with the “gean”
The serial killer, Jeffrey Dahmer from an early age had a fascination to kill things. So do we say he was “born” that way? Even so that does not make it right. Should we stand up to all serial killers and say you were born that way and that’s ok?
What about an individual that is born one sex and has the “gean” to be the opposite?
Just because being gay does not have a negative societal impact as those exampled above ( granted those are extreme examples to illustrate the point) how does that translate as being an acceptable behavior?

Children only learn what is right and wrong from the society that surrounds them and to indicate to them that this behavior is ok is morally failing these children.


I think you're ignorant. Might you be?

It is a moral failure to tell a child that they must deny who they are.

You are historical toast, my friend, and the faster the better.


>> ^bobknight33:

Only in the last 4 decades the country has been swayed by gay groups and media that this sort of behavior is acceptable and it is not.
There is not one evolution or biblical reason for being gay. GOD does not hate gay people no more than he hates those who steal, divorce or murder. He allows each of us to have a free will to choose him or not.
And what you want to say that some were born gay? What about those who say they were born to be x,y or z.
What if the person comes from a family line of alcoholics? Should that force society to condone the person becoming an alcoholic? Do we let their actions a pass in society and just say he was born with the “gean”
The serial killer, Jeffrey Dahmer from an early age had a fascination to kill things. So do we say he was “born” that way? Even so that does not make it right. Should we stand up to all serial killers and say you were born that way and that’s ok?
What about an individual that is born one sex and has the “gean” to be the opposite?
Just because being gay does not have a negative societal impact as those exampled above ( granted those are extreme examples to illustrate the point) how does that translate as being an acceptable behavior?

Children only learn what is right and wrong from the society that surrounds them and to indicate to them that this behavior is ok is morally failing these children.

Only in the last 4 decades the country has been swayed by gay groups and media that this sort of behavior is acceptable and it is not.

There is not one evolution or biblical reason for being gay. GOD does not hate gay people no more than he hates those who steal, divorce or murder. He allows each of us to have a free will to choose him or not.

And what you want to say that some were born gay? What about those who say they were born to be x,y or z.

What if the person comes from a family line of alcoholics? Should that force society to condone the person becoming an alcoholic? Do we let their actions a pass in society and just say he was born with the “gean”

The serial killer, Jeffrey Dahmer from an early age had a fascination to kill things. So do we say he was “born” that way? Even so that does not make it right. Should we stand up to all serial killers and say you were born that way and that’s ok?

What about an individual that is born one sex and has the “gean” to be the opposite?

Just because being gay does not have a negative societal impact as those exampled above ( granted those are extreme examples to illustrate the point) how does that translate as being an acceptable behavior?


Children only learn what is right and wrong from the society that surrounds them and to indicate to them that this behavior is ok is morally failing these children.