Rybo

bump :oops:

The Usual Suspects

All I get is "this image hosted by tripod."Having seen your taste in pictures, this is sure to be great.Hmmmm, it was working fine before, oh well here is another one

Halley Joel Osmett

Great picture, thought I would share

nipples

Guy from SawFunny, but I don't think that counts

Always here to help. :lol:Anyways. My best time was actually a one-timer. Go figure, i have the best sex ever and I never try for it again.Well, I invited these three girls to a party because my friend wanted more girls than guys there, as it should be. Well, I drive all 3 of them there and all these guy start to hit on them and everything, well they start to use me as a defense against the other guys. You know, stuff like, "that's my boyfriend over there" or "I rode with him so I can't go home with you" kind of thing. After I take them home (they are all roommates) they ask if I want to

of

I have one of Jessica alba that I can't post on here because of 'nudity' reasons, but in google if you look up something to the effect of 'jessica alba mtv awards pics' you will see them. First link, scroll down

and

on

mice

Thus saith the lord (alpha and omega... get it?)

I am sooooooooo sorry. I should have posted a picture of the smartest, hottest, and most talented woman in the world. Enjoy

Saw II

OMG so not true. I agree that Paul is better but this was Thomas Hayden Church after an extend semi retirement from acting. Perfect for him. Sometimes working actor dealing with life. Just perfect. I guess it depends on how you look at the film

OMG. I know people say this all the time on this forum, but I seriously just threw up in my mouth a bit.

I kinda understand your argument, but:1) It's impossible to uncouple the death penalty itself from "the method in which it is given." We can't look at the latter and say it is wholly separate from the former. There's very little difference pragmatically. 2) I suppose, for me, the question is, "Do the benefits outweigh the harms?" I find it analgous to free speech. We protect free-speech, even (especially harfmul free-speach, to a point, because it is necessary. I can say, "I hate (insert racial epithet here)," and you can't say boo. This can cause a very real harm. I can even propagand

Everything below "ALSO." Here's the gist:When the state says, "You have committed an atrocity by taking life. Now, I shall take your life." it seems hypocritical. We should strive to better than that, to more as a PEOPLE than that. We lose a bit of our moral authority when we subject a man to the same to which he subjected another, just because it feels good. Something should separate us from the animals that commit these heinous crimes.Or something like that. Blah blah, I could go on and on.Nothing personal. What's a little good-natured ribbing among friends?IceOk now I see (although that w

Numbers and specifics are readily available. I'm glad you asked!Here's the quote that most disturbs me."In 82% of the studies [reviewed], race of the victim was found to influence the likelihood of being charged with capital murder or receiving the death penalty, i.e., those who murdered whites were found more likely to be sentenced to death than those who murdered blacks."- United States General Accounting Office, Death Penalty Sentencing, February 1990The numbers to go along with it:Since 1976 (the year the moratorium was lifted), there have been 220 interracial murderers put to death.In 12

This is a well worded argument. But I disagree. You say 'if you want to kill someone' but leave out the fact that that someone is a murderer and deserves some sort of punishment. Obviously there is a right and a wrong answer to this question (DP), so no, I don't think the onus is on the pro DP side. Think for a second if DP was illegal, would it be on the con DP to defend the law? Also, it is like abortion (no I don't want to start in on abortion and no I am not comparing the two as being one in the same) there is debate both ways, but each side has to come up with a reason why they are r

I agree with the first bolded part if those numbers you stated are true, but that is not what was under debate. This thread was debating the act of the death penalty. The point you make is a good argument as to the flaws in the judical system, not the flaws in the death penalty.The second bolded part is a conclusion without premise. Here is my counterexample. I have decided that only black people can vote. In this situation the right to vote is administered unfairly but the right to vote is not 'inherently unjust'As far as ignoring the 'whole second section,' you told me to read your 'fir

First off, quite an impressive list of accolades. Second, I am still having difficulty finding your argument. See comments below As for 1.) Retributivism, you simply said "why? Why? do we need to have an 'ultimate' punishment?" This is not exactly an argument in my book but merely a "hey, defend your argument" which is what I said in my previous post.As for number 2, again you say this is not a basis for the death penalty and therefore the opposite must be true, which in my last post I said was an ineffectual argument, as I am sure they taught you in school.As for the first bolded stateme

I KNEW IT!!! Damn, I wish I could find that post I made like a month ago when I asked you. Please take this as a compliment, I am just amazed that I knew something that Norm didn'tWhat i was referring to was in 1999, we tried to buy Dr. Pepper from Cadbury Schweppes. The deal went through, however, the federal government squashed it under anti-trust/monopoly laws. what i didn't know is that we retained our licensing rights.in about 30% of U.S. Dr Pepper is made and distributed by Cadburry, 30% pepsico and 30% Coke. In Canada, it's all Pepsico, in Europe its coke.I see.