Napalm

Abc stop modifying your posts.

>Kid cartoons

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c71RCAyLS1M

Last one to open the door walks the dinosaur.

360 - Degree vision. Well... uhh... I kinda see them coming before they kill me. And then I... uh... I turn around and shoot at you with a gun while not looking directly at you. Yeash.

People should be free to choose their sexual partners regardless of race. I don't see any reason why it shouldn't happen. Societal norms change over time, and it is only frowned upon because it was quite rare in the past, but I don't think that as reason to stop anyone.

I wasn't aware. I still disagree with the way the situation was handled, though, and I don't believe "It was cheaper to do so" is a valid excuse for killing him without trial.

Last one to post wins. Last one to post wins. Last one to post wins. Last one to post wins.

Sep. 30th?

Nov. 11th?

I'm selling these fine leather jacketS...

Me either, but it is.

When I read Carlos Mencia I thought of Emilio Estevez. Also, dammit, I a ccidentally washed my hair with shampoo twice when showering today and it's now all weird.

Chu-churuuu~

I spill my drink on the wall. 36 HP.

I have to disagree, I don't find it to be a necessity. He didn''t break any laws, and even if he had done so, he deserved a trial, where he would be judged based on evidence. You can't just skip all the process and have someone killed because he says something you don't like (which aslo happens to be protected by your own laws). What's more is that trying to justify this is supporting the idea that a single person (or a very small group of priviledged people) can determine wether it is a necessity or not to kill someone without having questions asked. The whole point of the second article was to say how that approach isn't practical. It basically boils down to giving one person a fair trial, or letting further terrorist attacks occur. I don't think one is going to stop the other. If anything, I suspect his killing, at least in the manner that it was carried out, would cause more revolt than letting him free. And even if you felt the other way, there is always the option of imprisoning him, which would also stop him from trying to spread his ideals. It seems to me that the whole point was making an example out of his death, rather than preventing the threats.

Haha, what?

I have to disagree, I don't find it to be a necessity. He didn''t break any laws, and even if he had done so, he deserved a trial, where he would be judged based on evidence. You can't just skip all the process and have someone killed because he says something you don't like (which aslo happens to be protected by your own laws). What's more is that trying to justify this is supporting the idea that a single person (or a very small group of priviledged people) can determine wether it is a necessity or not to kill someone without having questions asked. 10/10 post, would read again.

If you didn't know about it would you have guessed where it is because of what I said?

Say wow after you see... that other place for discussion that mods don't know about.

Okay, see you later Killer. I've got to head out soon too.

Now you understand how we feel everytime the word menstruation or period is mentioned.

Haha, The F word that ends with AP is censored now.