namelesstavern.net

http://news.yahoo.com/norway-suspect-de ... 54792.html

Before the handful of retards on NT accuse me of being sympathetic to the actions by this maniac, I'll be the first to tell you that I don't think anywhere near along the lines of this extremist, and this just sets us up for more attacks from Islamic retards who are just as bent as this piece of shit. What a sad day for Norway and the over 90 families affected by this asshole.

i'm not sure what race or religion the person responsible belongs to but let me just say we should generalize and denigrate anyone belonging to those two demographics (especially when they overlap) and prevent any places of worship dedicated to that religion from being built in America because that's how we do things in this country

Was I generalizing? I'm talking about extremists. Muslims have every right to build mosques in America. I'm not crazy about them building one at Ground Zero though. Again, they have the right, but I view it as a slap in the face.

Its not at ground zero and say it with me now ........ FREEDOM OF RELIGION . Its not a slap in the face the people that attacked us are dead and werent even from this country the people who would worship in that mousq ( however the fuck you spell it) had nothing to do with that attack.

When I read the thread title, I first thought perhaps a mad scientist in a darkened lab had developed a virulent strain of SARS-CoV that was resistant to antibiotics and then released said virus simultaneously in a dozen major population centers.

I'm glad I was wrong.

Menelvir wrote:When I read the thread title, I first thought perhaps a mad scientist in a darkened lab had developed a virulent strain of SARS-CoV that was resistant to antibiotics and then released said virus simultaneously in a dozen major population centers.

I'm glad I was wrong.

Yeah but this guy is still a heartless and dangerous individual. Apparently, he wrote a 1500 page manifesto, even borrowing some concepts from Theodore Kazinsky (sp?). To add insult to injury, Norway only has a max prison term of 21 years, no matter what the crime was. So, the guy is 32. When he's 53, he gets to get out of jail and commit another atrocity? Wow.

I think at the end of that 21 year stretch they can decide to give him more or not let him out or some thing like that or so I hear.

From what I understand, their normal max is 21 years, but in special cases, where the individual is deemed to be an ongoing threat to society (methinks he will qualify), that penalty can be extended indefinitely. So no, he is not going to get out at 53. Barring some radical change, he is going to spend the rest of his life in prison.

If you really want to read more about it, here's a google translate from the Norwegian Correctional Services website describing it:
http://translate.google.com/translate?h ... d%3D278212

So yeah, all the hyperbole about sentences only being 21 years is all a bunch of blowhard nonsense, trying to rile up sentiment. It's simply not true.

-Arlos

Arlos wrote:From what I understand, their normal max is 21 years, but in special cases, where the individual is deemed to be an ongoing threat to society (methinks he will qualify), that penalty can be extended indefinitely. So no, he is not going to get out at 53. Barring some radical change, he is going to spend the rest of his life in prison.

If you really want to read more about it, here's a google translate from the Norwegian Correctional Services website describing it:
http://translate.google.com/translate?h ... d%3D278212

So yeah, all the hyperbole about sentences only being 21 years is all a bunch of blowhard nonsense, trying to rile up sentiment. It's simply not true.

-Arlos

Thank God. It's cases like this that make me wish Norway had the death penalty. But then again, I'd be being a hypocrite being in favor of the death penalty, yet wanting to save the lives of fetuses... but not really hypocritical because the fetus is totally innocent and hasn't made any bad choices in life. Liberals who say they want to abolish the death penalty in America, yet are also pro-abortion, is really a head-scratching hypocritical concept for real.

Narrock wrote:

Arlos wrote:From what I understand, their normal max is 21 years, but in special cases, where the individual is deemed to be an ongoing threat to society (methinks he will qualify), that penalty can be extended indefinitely. So no, he is not going to get out at 53. Barring some radical change, he is going to spend the rest of his life in prison.

If you really want to read more about it, here's a google translate from the Norwegian Correctional Services website describing it:
http://translate.google.com/translate?h ... d%3D278212

So yeah, all the hyperbole about sentences only being 21 years is all a bunch of blowhard nonsense, trying to rile up sentiment. It's simply not true.

-Arlos

Thank God. It's cases like this that make me wish Norway had the death penalty. But then again, I'd be being a hypocrite being in favor of the death penalty, yet wanting to save the lives of fetuses... but not really hypocritical because the fetus is totally innocent and hasn't made any bad choices in life. Liberals who say they want to abolish the death penalty in America, yet are also pro-abortion, is really a head-scratching hypocritical concept for real.

Not as hypocritical as people who are anti abortion yet try their best to get all funding cut for sex education, birth control and other programs to cut down on unwanted pregnancies.

i don't feel like anyone is actually "pro abortion." no one is cheering for the idea of an unborn fetus being slurped out of a uterus, probably not even the woman who are choosing to have an abortion. that sucks and is a terrible thing to go through, i'd wager. i think being "pro choice" is something completely different--saying a woman has the right to choose what happens to and in her body. having an abortion is not a choice i'd make for myself, nor is it something a lot of pro-choice proponents would choose to do, but absolutely i will defend someone else's right to make that choice because it's not my body and therefore not my call. /shrug

all that said, i think the debate about abortion would be far less necessary if we could talk openly and honestly about contraception options rather than just saying "don't have sex, mmk?"

leah wrote:i don't feel like anyone is actually "pro abortion." no one is cheering for the idea of an unborn fetus being slurped out of a uterus, probably not even the woman who are choosing to have an abortion. that sucks and is a terrible thing to go through, i'd wager. i think being "pro choice" is something completely different--saying a woman has the right to choose what happens to and in her body. having an abortion is not a choice i'd make for myself, nor is it something a lot of pro-choice proponents would choose to do, but absolutely i will defend someone else's right to make that choice because it's not my body and therefore not my call. /shrug

all that said, i think the debate about abortion would be far less necessary if we could talk openly and honestly about contraception options rather than just saying "don't have sex, mmk?"

zomg... it turned into the abortion issue again lol

How about reserving abortion only in instances where you have a still-born baby in the womb, or there is a danger to the mother's life if she kept the baby growing in her? Why is adoption so hard a concept to grab hold of? There are hundreds of qualified would-be parents waiting for the opportunity to adopt a new born baby. I can't think of a sicker or more selfish act than a chick who had sex without protection, or the protection failed, and now she wants to KILL the baby growing inside her because it's "inconvenient" to her. That is just so selfish, sick, and sad... to the point of tears. That's why I will always vote pro-life when it comes up. Now that I have a daughter and see how much happiness and joy she brings to my life my feelings are even stronger towards pro life.

Furthermore, "Planned Parenthood" is the biggest steampile of bullshit of a term I've ever heard of. They should change the name to "Unplanned Parenthood." Sickos.

Narrock wrote:

leah wrote:i don't feel like anyone is actually "pro abortion." no one is cheering for the idea of an unborn fetus being slurped out of a uterus, probably not even the woman who are choosing to have an abortion. that sucks and is a terrible thing to go through, i'd wager. i think being "pro choice" is something completely different--saying a woman has the right to choose what happens to and in her body. having an abortion is not a choice i'd make for myself, nor is it something a lot of pro-choice proponents would choose to do, but absolutely i will defend someone else's right to make that choice because it's not my body and therefore not my call. /shrug

all that said, i think the debate about abortion would be far less necessary if we could talk openly and honestly about contraception options rather than just saying "don't have sex, mmk?"

zomg... it turned into the abortion issue again lol

How about reserving abortion only in instances where you have a still-born baby in the womb, or there is a danger to the mother's life if she kept the baby growing in her? Why is adoption so hard a concept to grab hold of? There are hundreds of qualified would-be parents waiting for the opportunity to adopt a new born baby. I can't think of a sicker or more selfish act than a chick who had sex without protection, or the protection failed, and now she wants to KILL the baby growing inside her because it's "inconvenient" to her. That is just so selfish, sick, and sad... to the point of tears. That's why I will always vote pro-life when it comes up. Now that I have a daughter and see how much happiness and joy she brings to my life my feelings are even stronger towards pro life.

Furthermore, "Planned Parenthood" is the biggest steampile of bullshit of a term I've ever heard of. They should change the name to "Unplanned Parenthood." Sickos.

i don't really get the hate for PP, but OK. i understand your points re: abortion, and again, if i were in that position, absolutely i would choose adoption. but that's just me and my choice.

do you at least agree that abstinence-only education is ineffective at best?

No, I wouldn't agree that abstinence-only education is ineffective, but I would agree that the concept of abstinence-only isn't the only thing you should be teaching your child. Also show them disgusting graphic images of STD's and make them watch "16 and Pregnant" to see how hard of a life it is to have a child that young. If you just say, "Go ahead and have sex but make sure you use protection" is just about the most ignorant thing you can teach a child and is very bad parenting.

well, yeah, i'm not saying that teaching abstinence is a bad thing, gosh! i just mean that it needs to be "well, you should wait until you're more mature and in love and possibly even married to have sex, because sex is a special thing that shouldn't be wasted or cheapened--and then at such point as you feel like you are really and truly ready, here are your options for protecting yourself from nasty STDs and unwanted pregnancies." meaning, teach kids how important and weighty the act of sex is and that there are certain responsibilities and precautions that are required of sexually active people.

what i mean is, you can't teach kids all one thing or all the other. there has to be a balance so that they have all of the information.




...dang, this thread really got derailed but quick, didn't it? ha.

leah wrote:well, yeah, i'm not saying that teaching abstinence is a bad thing, gosh! i just mean that it needs to be "well, you should wait until you're more mature and in love and possibly even married to have sex, because sex is a special thing that shouldn't be wasted or cheapened--and then at such point as you feel like you are really and truly ready, here are your options for protecting yourself from nasty STDs and unwanted pregnancies." meaning, teach kids how important and weighty the act of sex is and that there are certain responsibilities and precautions that are required of sexually active people.

what i mean is, you can't teach kids all one thing or all the other. there has to be a balance so that they have all of the information.




...dang, this thread really got derailed but quick, didn't it? ha.

Tru dat lol

lso show them disgusting graphic images of STD's and make them watch "16 and Pregnant" to see how hard of a life it is to have a child that young.

Yeah, good idea.