Rybo
-
Content Count
754 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by Rybo
-
-
The Usual Suspects
-
Hmmmm, it was working fine before, oh well here is another one
All I get is "this image hosted by tripod."Having seen your taste in pictures, this is sure to be great.Great picture, thought I would share
-
Halley Joel Osmett
-
Great picture, thought I would share
-
nipples
-
Funny, but I don't think that counts
Guy from SawSaw II -
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 come in (no this is not going to turn into a 4-some, much to my dismay) One of the girls, the one I was most interested in, tells me her friend wants me. So I look at her and say, "well what if I want something else?" as i touch her hand. She Blushes and says, "I am trying to be a good roommate" with this cute 'come and get it' smile on her face. Anyways, I excuse myself for the evening and later that week the girl I wanted calls me and asks if I want to go to a party with her. We drink a little and get a ride back to my place from her friend. Nothing really happened between her and I during the party but during the ride home she starts to play Footsie with me then puts her hand on my thigh and everything so I pull the old "want to watch a movie with me?" I call my roommate and told him to sleep on the couch because i had "company." And god bless him, at 4 in the morning he got out of his bed and left the room. Anyways, she ended up having an even better body than I had thought, perfects breasts, great legs, and shaved closer than a naked mole rat. She was a freak in the bed, it was great. telling me that my tattoos turned her on, some nibbling some scratching. It was awesome. I have no idea what happened after that but neither of us ever called the other one again...i wonder if I still have her number?
-
of
-
-
and
-
on
-
mice
-
-
-
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 filmKeith...on your recommendation, I watched Sideways recently.Very good movie. Some stuff there I could relate to.Although Paul Giamatti acts circles around Thomas Hayden Church, who was horribly miscast, imo. They needed a better actor for the part. -
OMG. I know people say this all the time on this forum, but I seriously just threw up in my mouth a bit.I have a story from my University Residence days. After a night at the bar, a buddy of mine brought this girl back to his room one night. He knew her a little from before but according to him they had never had sex. Anyway, they go at it all night and the next morning (after she left) we pile into his room to find out how she was (that's what guys do, ladies) and our buddy's face is all covered in dried blood. From forehead to chin and from ear to ear. :shock:
The moral of the story is that Whiskey Sours greatly affect both your judgement and tastebuds. -
I am sure you were writing this before my last post so read it adn you'll see why I am not responding :-) Have a great one.
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 propagandize, and hurt people financially, even physically, in my right to exercize free speech.But I can't broadcast troop movements. I can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater. That's going too far. Same with crime/punishment. The system's flawed. But it's necessary. However, at some point we have to realize there's such a thing as going too far. The death penalty causes IRREPRABLE harm. Once dead, there can be no proper amends made. The HUGE mistake of executing an innocent- or the combination of small mistakes that leads to the facts in my last post- easily outweighs the potential benefits of the death penalty.Add to this my objection concerning the hypocrisy of the DP, and... It shouldn't be used.IceThis is quite shocking and speaks volumes as to the racism that not only lurks in our country but also is infecting our courtrooms. Thank you for posting this and I will take those findings to heart. After saying that though, I have to say that these facts are not relevant to the DP itself, but are instead relevant to the method in which the penalty is given and is an indictment (or should be) of the judicial system in this country -
Ok now I see (although that wasn't in your first post). This is a decent start to a debate. I am not going to retort because, as I am sure you are aware, I have been debating that neither side had started with a good basis for their beliefs and was not debating for or against the DP itself. Anyways, as far as my debate goes, I give it to Iceman, even though I think the basis is weak and merely a starting point, he did prove that one was brought up in an earlier post. So I recant my statement that no one had brought up basis for their opinion and I look forward to this being expounded on or the Pro DP bringing up something other than he 'deservs it'
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?IceAs far as ignoring the 'whole second section,' you told me to read your 'first post.' If I missed something in your first post then I guess I need you to point this part out because I re-read your post and then my reply to it and I can't find a part I missed. Also, the final three sentences at the end of the post above could have been left out of a 'friendly debate' -
This is quite shocking and speaks volumes as to the racism that not only lurks in our country but also is infecting our courtrooms. Thank you for posting this and I will take those findings to heart. After saying that though, I have to say that these facts are not relevant to the DP itself, but are instead relevant to the method in which the penalty is given and is an indictment (or should be) of the judicial system in this country
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 cases, a white man received the death penalty and was executed for killing a black man.In 218 cases, a black man received the death penalty and was executed for killing a white man.Here's one example that doesn't involve any complicated numbers: In preparing for the penalty phase of an African-American defendant's trial, a white judge in Florida said in open court: "Since the nigger mom and dad are here anyway, why don't we go ahead and do the penalty phase today instead of having to subpoena them back at cost to the state." Peek was executed and his appeal denied [Peek v. Florida, 488 So.2d 52, 56 (Fla. 1986)]Just so you don't think I'm confining my charge of racism to the deep south, I'll move the Pennsyvania. (That's the big state kinda near New York, well north of the Mason Dixie line.)"The researchers examined a large sample of the murders which were eligible for the death penalty in the state between 1983 and 1993. The researchers found that, even after controlling for case differences, blacks in Philadelphia were substantially more likely to get the death penalty than other defendants who committed similar murders. Black defendants faced odds of receiving a death sentence that were 3.9 times higher than other similarly situated defendants." (David Baldus, George Woodsworth, published in the Cornell Law Review, Fall of 1998)If you need the specific sources, let me know and I'll track them down for you. Love and Kisses, T.Icemanwith no clear evidence other than your own fuckin hearsay jibberish, that's nothing but either an ill-hearted attempt at a shitty scarecrow -
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 right. So, to sum up I guess, I do not agree that the onus is on Pro DP to defend what is being done. Instead, it is up to BOTH sides to come up with a coherent argument in defense of their opinion.Don't the pro death penalty advocates have the burden of proof, though? I feel that if you want to kill someone, you have to demonstrate reason. If no side has any argument, don't the anti death penalty supporters win by default? As I said earlier, the only reason that death penalty could be justified is if it deters more crime than life in prison. So, until someone can demonstrate that this is the case, the debate is at a standstill and we will continue to pick at each other's earlier arguments. -
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 'first post.' If I missed something in your first post then I guess I need you to point this part out because I re-read your post and then my reply to it and I can't find a part I missed. Also, the final three sentences at the end of the post above could have been left out of a 'friendly debate'The first part was mostly exposition. Just wanted to make sure people knew what the current justifications for the DP were. Part of my argument is that the ADMINISTRATION of the death penalty is flawed. A black convicted of the same crime as a white is something like twice or three times as likely to be put to death. This is unfair, and definitely an argument against the use of the death penalty. If it can't be administered fairly, it's inherently unjust. I also argue that taking punishment to it's irreversible extreme (ie, killing someone) only exacerbates the imperfections of the systemYou ignore the whole second section where I argue that the death penalty is hypocritical and sends a dangerous message.BESIDES THOSE THINGS, perhaps I make no argument. Just beside those. Those few things.Ice -
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 statement, it seems that you were saying that because there are possible flaws in the process it shouldn't be done. This could be the start to a debate except that you went into how minorities and poor are more often given this sentence which is NOT a argument about the inhumanity of the death sentence itself.the second bolded portion is actually the same argument I am using against you in that, "hey yours doesn't work so either find something else or I am right" which I admit is flawed in its very nature which is why I have decided against debating one way or the other.So to reiterate my last post, neither side has quite come up with a base for their argument other than I am right because you are wrong which is why this is a national issue and not one that can be worked out on an internet forum. But thank you Iceman for giving my brain a workout :-) best wishes and gongrats again on all those debating awardsI think you miss the entire point of the death penalty debate. You're speaking in broad strokes that paint the picture too sloppily. There are 2 ways to justify the death penalty1) Retributivism- ie, lex talionis, an eye for an eye. Retribution deals with the issue of desert. In our society, almost everyone agrees that GOOD deeds should be REWARDED, and BAD deeds should be PUNISHED, and it should be done proportionally. I won't get into it, but the question of "well, why?" is quite interesting. Most death penalty advocates believe that there MUST be some extreme form of punishment that equates with the most extremely bad deeds. We can all agree that 3-counts of armed robbery and 4 counts of assault is nowhere NEAR as bad as 2 counts of first degree murder, but they usually yield the same sentence: Life in prison. Most death penalty advocates believe there has to be something reserved for the most HEINOUS of crimes.2) Deterrence- both specific and general. Obviously, the specific component is slightly more effective with the death penalty (how can you commit anymore crimes if you're dead?) than life imprisonment, but by a miniscule margin.General deterrence is the idea that the THREAT of a penalty- in this case, the death penalty- will act as a deterrent to crime. The death penalty doesn't make much of a difference, though, (though many people will argue otherwise, incorrectly) so we're left with number 1.I'm a staunchly anti-death penalty person. Our legal system is so imperfect, and the death penalty can take a multitude of small errors and prejudices, and exacerbate them to a degree so egregious as to be inhumane. We execute minorities significantly more frequently than their white counterparts for the same crimes. Same with the poor. Is it okay to make a mistake in these cases, especially when we can patently disregard the utilitarian benefits (deterrence), or lackthereof?I don't take a high-and-mighty stance with the death penalty, but anybody who jumps to a quick, gut-based decision would be well-served to think the matter through more carefully. There are so many facets to the debate, that a blanket statement like, "He doesn't deserve to live" doesn't cut it.It's just not that simple.Sorry for the long post,Ice -
I see.
What 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 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'tSeems i was in error people!Upon further review, it seems that the Coca-Cola Company does in fact have a licensing agreement with Dr. Pepper. Details to come later.
women
in General
Posted
bump :oops: