Blood-sucking Australian Land Leech

[PlastikBuddha]

Don't people already get a choice in some cases?

I'm not a lawyer, but I would imagine that those cases are rare and highly regulated. What would the "exchange rate" be? How many lashes for how many days of incarceration?

 

[Stripe]

I, personally, would be greatly amused if an American politician would make a public declaration of his support for flogging as part of our penal code.
That is my point.
Why don't you pretend to be confused some more, though, and see if we can stretch this out to three pages. Maybe we can shoot for four? With Stripe, the sky is the limit.

I'm glad we got that sorted out.

 

[kmoney]

I'm glad we got that sorted out.

:doh:

 

[PlastikBuddha]

I'm glad we got that sorted out.

Me too. It was tearing me up inside.

 

[Jefferson]

I would sooooo love to hear a viable political candidate admit that he supports the introduction of flogging as punishment. He would do as well to punch a baby and spit on the flag.

Do you think flogging would be an immoral form of punishment? Ineffective? Or what?

 

[PlastikBuddha]

Do you think flogging would be an immoral form of punishment?

Not necessarily.

Ineffective?

Not necessarily.

Or what?

Barbaric springs to mind. That's not really my point here, however. The question isn't "what's wrong with flogging" but "why aren't American politicians rushing to endorse this wonderful and enlightened form of punishment that would surely enhance our justice system and make us the envy of the civilized world?"

 

[Tyrathca]

Do you think flogging would be an immoral form of punishment? Ineffective? Or what?

I'd say it would be ineffective. If I had the choice between a flogging and a protracted prison sentence of months or more I'd choose the flogging. I also doubt it would act as a good deterent either.

 

[Tyrathca]

The president of the ACLU (Anti-Christ Legions of the Underworld), reached for comment en route to defend a protester’s right to burn down ACLU headquarters, who questioned the leech-to-leech identification since the alleged robber is himself a disenfranchised member of society, having actually descended from leeches, most recently by way of an Australian penal colony, but also in geological terms only recently evolving from the hated blood-sucking Australian Land Leech gnatbobdellida libbata.

Can anyone please explain what this sentence/paragraph is saying. It seems like it is three statements in one. One about the ACLU defending someone which I assume is undeserving of such protection according to Bob Enyart. THen something about him being a leach on soceity as he came from Australia? Then something about literally being a leech???? Next time use some appropriate punctuation (a single full stop would be nice), I can't understand what is being said.

 

[WizardofOz]

Can anyone please explain what this sentence/paragraph is saying. It seems like it is three statements in one. One about the ACLU defending someone which I assume is undeserving of such protection according to Bob Enyart. THen something about him being a leach on soceity as he came from Australia? Then something about literally being a leech???? Next time use some appropriate punctuation (a single full stop would be nice), I can't understand what is being said.

And the question must be asked; were they the Anti-Christ Legion of the Underworld when they defended Bob in his child abuse case?

The irony of it all is hilarious

 

[Lighthouse]

Atheists love to point to the popularity of a thing as if it has some bearing on what is true.

Christians do it too. I recall someone once using the argument that MAD was only believed by a minority of Christians, suggesting that this was due to it not being true. Oddly enough he was an open theist.:doh: He used to post here under the name "Philetus."

I'd say it would be ineffective. If I had the choice between a flogging and a protracted prison sentence of months or more I'd choose the flogging. I also doubt it would act as a good deterent either.

You apparently don't know what a flogging is.

Now, I'm not suggesting we wrong glass, stone and pottery shards in the tails of the whip, but if you've ever seen The Passion of the Christ that was a flogging. So dial it back to where there's no ripping the flesh open and you have what you would be choosing over a prison sentence. This includes welts, bruises, broken skin, etc. Not to mention you would be sore for weeks afterward. And your back would not be the only target. The tails would wrap around your body. And you may even receive lashes to your arms and legs.

This is what you would look like afterward:

 

[Lighthouse]

And the question must be asked; were they the Anti-Christ Legion of the Underworld when they defended Bob in his child abuse case?

I have to point out a few things here:

1. They were not defending him in the abuse case. They were defending his right to free speech when some Probation officials were trying to block him from appearing on Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher. They were hired to argue that he had a constitutional right to appear on the show and speak his mind, even if it was to justify his spanking of his now stepson [who agrees that he deserved it, btw].
2. Mr. Keith Coffman is not a very impartial or subjective reporter. If anyone disagrees that there is a bias in the media they only need to read this article; "Enyart's TV show, which was a combination of Christian fundamentalism and anti-government and anti-homosexual rhetoric, has been off the air since his conviction." Bob's show has never been anti-government. Also, the show didn't end because of the conviction, either. This article claims it did. I don't even think it ended around that time. It was either over before that or still on the air for a time after.

 

[Stripe]

"why aren't American politicians rushing to endorse this wonderful and enlightened form of punishment that would surely enhance our justice system and make us the envy of the civilized world?"

So your opening post was meant to be a question? What is the point of your question? To provide more mirth for you?

 

[WizardofOz]

I have to point out a few things here:

1. They were not defending him in the abuse case. They were defending his right to free speech when some Probation officials were trying to block him from appearing on Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher. They were hired to argue that he had a constitutional right to appear on the show and speak his mind, even if it was to justify his spanking of his now stepson [who agrees that he deserved it, btw].
2. Mr. Keith Coffman is not a very impartial or subjective reporter. If anyone disagrees that there is a bias in the media they only need to read this article; "Enyart's TV show, which was a combination of Christian fundamentalism and anti-government and anti-homosexual rhetoric, has been off the air since his conviction." Bob's show has never been anti-government. Also, the show didn't end because of the conviction, either. This article claims it did. I don't even think it ended around that time. It was either over before that or still on the air for a time after.

It was hypocrisy to utilize their services, pure and simple. I'm not interested in airing the past, it just comes to mind whenever I hear Bob or his associates demonizing the ACLU.

 

[Jefferson]

It was hypocrisy to utilize their services, pure and simple. I'm not interested in airing the past, it just comes to mind whenever I hear Bob or his associates demonizing the ACLU.

You don't know the definition of hypocrisy. In The Art of War, Sun Tsu often said that using your enemy's resources against him is one of the wisest things to do in a conflict. He was right too.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

So your opening post was meant to be a question?

No. The question was in response to Jeff's questions.

What is the point of your question?

It was rhetorical.

To provide more mirth for you?

That and to provide you with an excuse to feign a complete inability to understand simple questions.

 

[WizardofOz]

You don't know the definition of hypocrisy. In The Art of War, Sun Tsu often said that using your enemy's resources against him is one of the wisest things to do in a conflict. He was right too.

Which has nothing to do with the topic. Yes, if you're at war and you find a weapon cache of your enemy, you should use it.

If you constantly state that AK-47s are the weapons of Satan, an then you use AK-47s yourself, that is hypocrisy.

I'm glad we could clear that up :thumb:

 

[Jefferson]

If you constantly state that AK-47s are the weapons of Satan, an then you use AK-47s yourself, that is hypocrisy.

Wrong. Wisdom is used by Satan but we are commanded to "be wise as serpents" (Matthew 10:16)

 

[WizardofOz]

Wrong.

How so?

Wisdom is used by Satan but we are commanded to "be wise as serpents" (Matthew 10:16)

This, like the Sun Tsu reference, has nothing to do with the discussion.

 

[Stripe]

No. The question was in response to Jeff's questions.

It was rhetorical.

That and to provide you with an excuse to feign a complete inability to understand simple questions.

Rhetorical or not, the answer to your question is, "because it would not be popular." So is that the point of your question or are you just wasting everyone's time with meaningless posts?

 

[Tyrathca]

Rhetorical or not, the answer to your question is, "because it would not be popular." So is that the point of your question or are you just wasting everyone's time with meaningless posts?

Wow Stripe, you are reading WAY to much into a simple humorous comment.