Gene Frenkle

It would be nice if the media stopped giving these backward-ass Jesus freaks so much attention whenever they decide to stage some controversial protest.

I hate everything about this group and then some. Too bad there's no Hell for them to end up in. Free speech is kind of important though...

No nerve struck my friend. In fact, all of the emotional pleading in this thread is coming from those who want to lock him up and throw away the key. I say it's Constitutionally OK to to kill this guy, but not to keep him in solitary confinement for 27 years. I say this not because I sympathize with him or what he's done, but because it's the right thing to do with regard to the inalienable rights of all Americans. Yesterday I read part of a dissenting argument from Justice Antonin Scalia, whose views I rarely agree with, in a completely unrelated case. With regard to the conviction of another killer based largely on the testimony of the dying man he killed, Scalia writes: What has been taken away from him has been taken away from us all. In that case, even thought the guy was a scumbag and certainly the killer, the victim's testimony was not properly obtained (because he was dying). The judges chose to ignore this and allow the testimony, a move that admittedly "feels" good. This is a slippery slope which chips away at the individual rights of all Americans. My argument stems from the same place. The killer in solitary confinement for 27 years is being punished cruelly and unusually (IMO). If you don't think the punishment is cruel and unusual, then there is no problem I guess. If you do, then we're all losing out in a very real way. As far as what to do with the guy instead of solitary confinement, well that's not for me to decide. I'm sure there are very competent people in the US criminal justice system who can come up with an acceptable solution. Keep him in contact with other human beings, but locked down most of the time. I'm not suggesting that he be coddled in any way. Alternately, execute him and save the taxpayers a ton of money. I'll shed no tears for this man. Uphold the Constitution and Bill of Rights at all costs. You're being more of a bleeding heart here than any liberal I've ever seen.

No, I don't really care enough to argue too much, but there is a history to the general comedic device that is clearly offensive. To me, this guy was just trying to look authentic as Obama, as opposed to trying to meet a stereotype, and that makes a big difference. I'm not black though, and don't really have strong feelings about it either way. I can see why someone might be offended, but I certainly understand the importance free speech. IMO, Downey was really funny playing that part. When you're funny, and don't have a particular agenda, you can get away with all kinds of stuff. Just ask South Park. Unfortunately for this guy, he looked pretty good but wasn't very funny. I think people should be offended by his inability to be humorous more than anything.

All I said was that it's a bit tasteless. Of course it's a double-standard, but I don't think you can look at it a vacuum. Just my opinion.

Wow, he looks a lot like Obama, but the blackface is probably a bit tasteless.

How incredibly ironic that you can't even spell empathy. It's not about empathy or making you feel good. It's about upholding the Constitution. Well, if he kills himself then he goes straight to Hell, so that's obviously out. Yes, the death penalty is not cruel and unusual IMO. It's much less of a burden on the taxpayers as well. Violent criminals should not be coddled, but their inalienable rights should be upheld. I know that's just a Frenklesque bleeding-heart libitard concept. It seems to me that many of you are only interested in upholding the Constitution when it's convenient.

Please take any positive crap you have to say about the US economy to the Rainbows and Unicorn Farts forum. There is no room for this type of talk here. You have been warned.

I know you're making a joke, but this isn't really about what anyone wants.

...and never mind...after reading a bit further, you guys ruined the funny joke... I'm REALLY good at logging in and out and who doesn't like a little head once in a while?

The smallest minds simply end the discussion with a 'No' when backed into a corner. I think that was the rest of the quote. Like I said, nowhere to go from there so I'm not even sure why you're still posting in this thread.

The microprocessor is many orders of magnitude more impressive than the zombie Jesus story.

I'd say that our knowledge of engineering and science is EXACTLY will cause future civilizations to view the modern America as great civilization. There are many parallels. It's certainly not the gods that they worshiped or we worship that make either society great because the gods dejour seem to change so often. Future civilizations will likely look upon our gods and religions as silly and outdated, just as we view the Egyptian gods today. Just as some of us do today.

I'd say that their knowledge of engineering and science made Ancient Egypt a great civilization.

That's a nice illustration of the evolution of crime and punishment in our country. I'd imagine that in a couple of hundred years, 27 years of solitary confinement will seem as backward and archaic as branding does today. But the country's just gone downhill since they did away with the branding of foreheads. Are you even serious with that?

That's an interesting take. Of course, anything can become usual if we let it.

Patent? True. Instead western civilization seems to just have inherited a bastardized form of their religion.

Walt's the man and he's smart enough not to get into that kind of stuff. Appearance-wise, we're not too dissimilar. I've got better eyesight, but he probably grows a better goatee. Of course I am a meth-head.

That's one vote for 'No' from our Canadian friend who's opinion doesn't actually matter in this debate. Anybody keeping track? Nowhere to go from there. Thanks for participating. Love the new avatar. A bit mismatched, but very nice nonetheless.

The solitary confinement leading to insanity hypothesis is pretty well-established. The legal system has deemed this acceptable for now, but this thread is about whether or not it should be considered such. Your opinion that he is serving the sentence deemed proper for his crime is completely irrelevant. It's an American thing, you wouldn't understand. So I'll use repetition again and again: Is placing a prisoner in conditions that are guaranteed to cause him to go insane cruel and unusual? Thank you for your insight Mr. Franklin.

Wow.

With my new-found power, I would personally like to retroactively grant Dahmer's victims the full extent of their rights against cruel and unusual punishment. Mr. Dahmer, even though you and they are all dead, I feel that the killing and eating of your victims constitutes cruel and unusual punishment and that your victims should be protected by the Bill of Rights. Stopped diding that!

Oh, right!

I don't consider the death penalty to be cruel and unusual. In extreme cases that's appropriate. BTW, Hannibal the Cannibal isn't real. Jeffery Dahmer would be a better example. From what I've read of Dahmer, he probably belongs in a mental hospital. Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin