Y'know what's fucking hilarious? A lot of people here in East Texas despise ketchup and like mustard alone on sandwiches.
I did a headstand when that clip played.
Isn't dijon mustard one of those thing that's kinda...uh...incredibly common?
In fact, it's been around for 150 years.
From Newt Gingrich's twitter
Callista and I had a great dinner with greta van susteren and her husband john at one of my favorites l'auberge chez francois in great falls
I'm pretty sure "l'auberge chez francois" is a little bit more "elitist" than gray poupon or whatever the fuck. And neither one is "elitist". When the fuck did being elite become a bad thing, exactly? Was it just when a black guy started doing it?
When the middle class cried out against the Bush Tax cuts.
I just knew you'd turn this into a persecution complex somehow.
And the middle class was crying out because the upper class was getting the tax cuts.
And it was the upper class crying out about elitism.
Y'know what's fucking hilarious? A lot of people here in East Texas despise ketchup and like mustard alone on sandwiches.
I did a headstand when that clip played.
Isn't dijon mustard one of those thing that's kinda...uh...incredibly common?
In fact, it's been around for 150 years.
From Newt Gingrich's twitter
Callista and I had a great dinner with greta van susteren and her husband john at one of my favorites l'auberge chez francois in great falls
I'm pretty sure "l'auberge chez francois" is a little bit more "elitist" than gray poupon or whatever the fuck. And neither one is "elitist". When the fuck did being elite become a bad thing, exactly? Was it just when a black guy started doing it?
When the middle class cried out against the Bush Tax cuts.
Y'know what's fucking hilarious? A lot of people here in East Texas despise ketchup and like mustard alone on sandwiches.
I did a headstand when that clip played.
Isn't dijon mustard one of those thing that's kinda...uh...incredibly common?
In fact, it's been around for 150 years.
From Newt Gingrich's twitter
Callista and I had a great dinner with greta van susteren and her husband john at one of my favorites l'auberge chez francois in great falls
I'm pretty sure "l'auberge chez francois" is a little bit more "elitist" than gray poupon or whatever the fuck. And neither one is "elitist". When the fuck did being elite become a bad thing, exactly? Was it just when a black guy started doing it?
When the middle class cried out against the Bush Tax cuts.
I just knew you'd turn this into a persecution complex somehow.
And the middle class was crying out because the upper class was getting the tax cuts.
And it was the upper class crying out about elitism.
Hmmmmmmm...
I don't know what you're getting at, but the elitism meme was originally invented by the liberal left, briefly used by the Republicans as a backhand attack.
I don't know what you're getting at, but the elitism meme was originally invented by the liberal left, briefly used by the Republicans as a backhand attack.
Accusing your opponent of being "elitist" is as old as politics. It just means they're not in touch with the wants and needs of the common people (IE, you, the audience). It wasn't invented by any political party in the US and it sure as hell wasn't invented in the last ten years.
I don't know what you're getting at, but the elitism meme was originally invented by the liberal left, briefly used by the Republicans as a backhand attack.
When the hell was this? A hundred years ago?
Back when they were talking about actual rich white landowners who got to decide everything
I don't know what you're getting at, but the elitism meme was originally invented by the liberal left, briefly used by the Republicans as a backhand attack.
When the hell was this? A hundred years ago?
Seriously. "Latte-sipping liberal" has been around forever.
I don't know what you're getting at, but the elitism meme was originally invented by the liberal left, briefly used by the Republicans as a backhand attack.
When the hell was this? A hundred years ago?
I'd love to see some articles or quotes or something regarding this. Where some large, vocal portion of the "left" used elitism in this way.
Accusing your opponent of being "elitist" is as old as politics. It just means they're not in touch with the wants and needs of the common people (IE, you, the audience). It wasn't invented by any political party in the US and it sure as hell wasn't invented in the last ten years.
This. It's a reference to aristocracy if anything. And it's now just an attempt to paint someone as thinking they're better than you and you aren't going to take that from THEM, are you?
Last year was about how elitist it was to know the name of a form of lettuce and drinking freaking starbucks. The attack has lost all meaning and is just mindlessly playing to people who already hate whoever you're talking about.
Accusing your opponent of being "elitist" is as old as politics. It just means they're not in touch with the wants and needs of the common people (IE, you, the audience). It wasn't invented by any political party in the US and it sure as hell wasn't invented in the last ten years.
The latest food related crap is the stupidest form of it since the hard cider political cartoons. Unless Obama routinely dines on caviar and truffles, using what he eats as evidence of supposed elitism is just stupid.
Couscous on
0
Dr Mario KartGames DealerAustin, TXRegistered Userregular
Maybe the Obama government would actually welcome investigations into Bushco's actions, and by releasing one piece of damning evidence at a time they continue to build public support into investigations.
I'm really struggling to discern Obama's real position on the matter.
Normally presidents dont pursue crimes of the previous administration. I suspect in the short term they are concerned about the divisiveness created as well as their own re-election.
However in doing so, for whatever reasons they have, they are ignoring the long term. It is critical that people be held accountable for torture, not just because we are in violation of the Conventions against Torture, but because it guarantees that at some point such crimes will happen again.
I suspect that Obama wants to in secret, but is doing the politically expedient thing. In that case, this slowly building of public support may be a good strategy, although it is pissing off progressives who want justice sooner rather than later.
Maybe the Obama government would actually welcome investigations into Bushco's actions, and by releasing one piece of damning evidence at a time they continue to build public support into investigations.
I'm really struggling to discern Obama's real position on the matter.
Normally presidents dont pursue crimes of the previous administration. I suspect in the short term they are concerned about the divisiveness created as well as their own re-election.
However in doing so, for whatever reasons they have, they are ignoring the long term. It is critical that people be held accountable for torture, not just because we are in violation of the Conventions against Torture, but because it guarantees that at some point such crimes will happen again.
I suspect that Obama wants to in secret, but is doing the politically expedient thing. In that case, this slowly building of public support may be a good strategy, although it is pissing off progressives who want justice sooner rather than later.
I really hope Obama doesn't pursue investigation of "crimes" of a previous administration. It's petty at best, and brings up a lot of bad blood.
America just needs to let it go already. It happened, it's done. It can't be undone. So some guys that probably deserved to get tortured got "tortured". OK, so what? It won't happen again right?
Maybe the Obama government would actually welcome investigations into Bushco's actions, and by releasing one piece of damning evidence at a time they continue to build public support into investigations.
I'm really struggling to discern Obama's real position on the matter.
Normally presidents dont pursue crimes of the previous administration. I suspect in the short term they are concerned about the divisiveness created as well as their own re-election.
However in doing so, for whatever reasons they have, they are ignoring the long term. It is critical that people be held accountable for torture, not just because we are in violation of the Conventions against Torture, but because it guarantees that at some point such crimes will happen again.
I suspect that Obama wants to in secret, but is doing the politically expedient thing. In that case, this slowly building of public support may be a good strategy, although it is pissing off progressives who want justice sooner rather than later.
I really hope Obama doesn't pursue investigation of "crimes" of a previous administration. It's petty at best, and brings up a lot of bad blood.
America just needs to let it go already. It happened, it's done. It can't be undone. So some guys that probably deserved to get tortured got "tortured". OK, so what? It won't happen again right?
Good.
It's time to look forward, not back.
Guess what, genius. North Koreans are justifying their treatment of Americans by citing Guantanamo. It's a very real problem, even ignoring all your bullshit quotation marks that you should be embarrassed by.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Maybe the Obama government would actually welcome investigations into Bushco's actions, and by releasing one piece of damning evidence at a time they continue to build public support into investigations.
I'm really struggling to discern Obama's real position on the matter.
Normally presidents dont pursue crimes of the previous administration. I suspect in the short term they are concerned about the divisiveness created as well as their own re-election.
However in doing so, for whatever reasons they have, they are ignoring the long term. It is critical that people be held accountable for torture, not just because we are in violation of the Conventions against Torture, but because it guarantees that at some point such crimes will happen again.
I suspect that Obama wants to in secret, but is doing the politically expedient thing. In that case, this slowly building of public support may be a good strategy, although it is pissing off progressives who want justice sooner rather than later.
I really hope Obama doesn't pursue investigation of "crimes" of a previous administration. It's petty at best, and brings up a lot of bad blood.
America just needs to let it go already. It happened, it's done. It can't be undone. So some guys that probably deserved to get tortured got "tortured". OK, so what? It won't happen again right?
Good.
It's time to look forward, not back.
So, "what" you're "saying" is, that "I" can "go" "kill" a man and "then" use "the" defense "that" "It happened "yesterday", I should "be" "exonerated" today"?
I really hope Obama doesn't pursue investigation of "crimes" of a previous administration. It's petty at best, and brings up a lot of bad blood.
I like how you put crimes in quotes. That suggests objectivity right off the bat.
America just needs to let it go already. It happened, it's done. It can't be undone. So some guys that probably deserved to get tortured got "tortured". OK, so what? It won't happen again right?
Good.
It's time to look forward, not back.
Is it just these crimes you feel that way about? Is there any limit to this philosophy? Like, I don't know, if we had found an entire sub-basement filled with the severed heads of interns, would prosecuting that be petty as well? It's done, can't be undone, and probably isn't going to happen again...right? Time to look forward, and not back, and all that.
And why, exactly, do you think it won't happen again? Absent a precedent for such acts being prosecuted, why exactly wouldn't it happen again? Sure, some here might be willing to assume Obama won't do the same...but that only covers the next 4-8 years.
Maybe the Obama government would actually welcome investigations into Bushco's actions, and by releasing one piece of damning evidence at a time they continue to build public support into investigations.
I'm really struggling to discern Obama's real position on the matter.
Normally presidents dont pursue crimes of the previous administration. I suspect in the short term they are concerned about the divisiveness created as well as their own re-election.
However in doing so, for whatever reasons they have, they are ignoring the long term. It is critical that people be held accountable for torture, not just because we are in violation of the Conventions against Torture, but because it guarantees that at some point such crimes will happen again.
I suspect that Obama wants to in secret, but is doing the politically expedient thing. In that case, this slowly building of public support may be a good strategy, although it is pissing off progressives who want justice sooner rather than later.
I really hope Obama doesn't pursue investigation of "crimes" of a previous administration. It's petty at best, and brings up a lot of bad blood.
America just needs to let it go already. It happened, it's done. It can't be undone. So some guys that probably deserved to get tortured got "tortured". OK, so what? It won't happen again right?
Good.
It's time to look forward, not back.
No one deserves to be tortured. This is the kind of thinking that causes these crimes to begin with. And yes, they are crimes, they're against the law. The problem, of course, is that while we do need to deal with things happening now, we also can't treat any administration as if they're above the law.
I really hope Obama doesn't pursue investigation of "crimes" of a previous administration. It's petty at best, and brings up a lot of bad blood.
America just needs to let it go already. It happened, it's done. It can't be undone. So some guys that probably deserved to get tortured got "tortured". OK, so what? It won't happen again right?
Good.
It's time to look forward, not back.
Thats not the way it works Obs. If you were robbed/mugged/assaulted I doubt you'd be playing the same fucking tune if the police told you "It happened, it's done. It can't be undone."
You kind of seem like a shitty person who has no empathy toward anyone's situation outside of your own. I think that's the right word. You don't give a shit unless it happens to you. You can't even imagine what it's like in someone else's shoes.
I really hope Obama doesn't pursue investigation of "crimes" of a previous administration. It's petty at best, and brings up a lot of bad blood.
America just needs to let it go already. It happened, it's done. It can't be undone. So some guys that probably deserved to get tortured got "tortured". OK, so what? It won't happen again right?
Good.
It's time to look forward, not back.
I'm looking forward to the trial, if that counts.
Some innocent people were tortured, and a lot of people in the know knew it was illegal, unethical, and producing no results. So the only option left is sadism?
Murder can't be undone, but you can punish the guilty. Unless you're arguing that crimes should not be punished unless the punishment can put everything back? So theft is a crime, but murder is cool?
I really hope Obama doesn't pursue investigation of "crimes" of a previous administration. It's petty at best, and brings up a lot of bad blood.
America just needs to let it go already. It happened, it's done. It can't be undone. So some guys that probably deserved to get tortured got "tortured". OK, so what? It won't happen again right?
Good.
It's time to look forward, not back.
Thats not the way it works Obs. If you were robbed/mugged/assaulted I doubt you'd be playing the same fucking tune if the police told you "It happened, it's done. It can't be undone."
You kind of seem like a shitty person who has no empathy toward anyone's situation outside of your own. I think that's the right word. You don't give a shit unless it happens to you. You can't even imagine what it's like in someone else's shoes.
But empathy is evil!
/conservative commentator'd
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
And what message will it send when they fail to convict anyone in the Bush Administration for anything?
So, "because" the trial "might" not "succeed", we shouldn't "even" bother "trying"?
Well, shit. let's just get rid of the entire court system! After all, no trial is a guarantee! We need to make a new judicial system! One where every trial is 100% guaranteed to win!
Maybe the Obama government would actually welcome investigations into Bushco's actions, and by releasing one piece of damning evidence at a time they continue to build public support into investigations.
I'm really struggling to discern Obama's real position on the matter.
Normally presidents dont pursue crimes of the previous administration. I suspect in the short term they are concerned about the divisiveness created as well as their own re-election.
However in doing so, for whatever reasons they have, they are ignoring the long term. It is critical that people be held accountable for torture, not just because we are in violation of the Conventions against Torture, but because it guarantees that at some point such crimes will happen again.
I suspect that Obama wants to in secret, but is doing the politically expedient thing. In that case, this slowly building of public support may be a good strategy, although it is pissing off progressives who want justice sooner rather than later.
I really hope Obama doesn't pursue investigation of "crimes" of a previous administration. It's petty at best, and brings up a lot of bad blood.
America just needs to let it go already. It happened, it's done. It can't be undone. So some guys that probably deserved to get tortured got "tortured". OK, so what? It won't happen again right?
Good.
It's time to look forward, not back.
Yeah, because no one should ever be held accountable for breaking the law.
That's basically what you're advocating.
And who the hell are you to decide who deserves to get torutured and who doesn't?
I really hope Obama doesn't pursue investigation of "crimes" of a previous administration. It's petty at best, and brings up a lot of bad blood.
America just needs to let it go already. It happened, it's done. It can't be undone. So some guys that probably deserved to get tortured got "tortured". OK, so what? It won't happen again right?
Good.
It's time to look forward, not back.
Thats not the way it works Obs. If you were robbed/mugged/assaulted I doubt you'd be playing the same fucking tune if the police told you "It happened, it's done. It can't be undone."
You kind of seem like a shitty person who has no empathy toward anyone's situation outside of your own. I think that's the right word. You don't give a shit unless it happens to you. You can't even imagine what it's like in someone else's shoes.
Wrong analogy.
The situation is more like "Someone robbed me, and the next day I found the dude and slit his throat, ending his life" and then I'm getting accused of the crime by my friends.
Did I commit a crime? Sure.
In the context of the situation though, is it really the worst thing ever? Not really.
And what message will it send when they fail to convict anyone in the Bush Administration for anything?
If they fail to do so (and that's highly unlikely; someone's going to take the fall for it if trials happen), then I'll be happy. Because that's the way shit is supposed to work. I don't see why it's so terrible to require that everyone be subject to the law.
The situation is more like "Someone robbed me, and the next day I found the dude and slit his throat, ending his life" and then I'm getting accused of the crime by my friends.
Did I commit a crime? Sure.
In the context of the situation though, is it really the worst thing ever? Not really.
What the fuck is wrong with you? Slitting a guy's throat for robbing you instead of calling the police and getting him arrested in a legal fashion is just fucking insane.
I really hope Obama doesn't pursue investigation of "crimes" of a previous administration. It's petty at best, and brings up a lot of bad blood.
America just needs to let it go already. It happened, it's done. It can't be undone. So some guys that probably deserved to get tortured got "tortured". OK, so what? It won't happen again right?
Good.
It's time to look forward, not back.
Thats not the way it works Obs. If you were robbed/mugged/assaulted I doubt you'd be playing the same fucking tune if the police told you "It happened, it's done. It can't be undone."
You kind of seem like a shitty person who has no empathy toward anyone's situation outside of your own. I think that's the right word. You don't give a shit unless it happens to you. You can't even imagine what it's like in someone else's shoes.
Wrong analogy.
The situation is more like "Someone robbed me, and the next day I found the dude and slit his throat, ending his life" and then I'm getting accused of the crime by my friends.
Did I commit a crime? Sure.
In the context of the situation though, is it really the worst thing ever? Not really.
Your solution to a robbery is to slit the guy's throat and THAT ISN'T THE WORST THING EVER?!
Congratulations, you've officially lost any semblance of reality. You'll find your membership card and free room down the hall to your left, have a nice day.
I really hope Obama doesn't pursue investigation of "crimes" of a previous administration. It's petty at best, and brings up a lot of bad blood.
America just needs to let it go already. It happened, it's done. It can't be undone. So some guys that probably deserved to get tortured got "tortured". OK, so what? It won't happen again right?
Good.
It's time to look forward, not back.
Thats not the way it works Obs. If you were robbed/mugged/assaulted I doubt you'd be playing the same fucking tune if the police told you "It happened, it's done. It can't be undone."
You kind of seem like a shitty person who has no empathy toward anyone's situation outside of your own. I think that's the right word. You don't give a shit unless it happens to you. You can't even imagine what it's like in someone else's shoes.
Wrong analogy.
The situation is more like "Someone robbed me, and the next day I found the dude and slit his throat, ending his life" and then I'm getting accused of the crime by my friends.
Did I commit a crime? Sure.
In the context of the situation though, is it really the worst thing ever? Not really.
Oh, I get it now: you're a terrible person. Glad to get that settled in my mind.
The situation is more like "Someone robbed me, and the next day I found the dude and slit his throat, ending his life" and then I'm getting accused of the crime by my friends.
Did I commit a crime? Sure.
In the context of the situation though, is it really the worst thing ever? Not really.
Bwuh?
I assume the guy who robbed you is the dude getting waterboarded in Gitmo?
So we can assume 100% of those dudes were guilty, now?
Also, friend or no, if I found out you had slit some guy's throat who robbed you, I'd have no problem seeing you charged and convicted, then off to prison. Because it sounds like you'd be a violent sociopath.
EDIT: Put me on the "Obs sounds like a terrible person" bandwagon. Also, I'll go ahead and risk the infraction by asking why the hell this guy is even around here anymore.
EDIT: I actually had the housekeeping staff of the hotel I stayed in this weekend try to steal from me. Guess I should sharpen up the ol' blade and head back down to Bozeman, m i rite?
The situation is more like "Someone robbed me, and the next day I found the dude and slit his throat, ending his life" and then I'm getting accused of the crime by my friends.
Did I commit a crime? Sure.
In the context of the situation though, is it really the worst thing ever? Not really.
What the fuck is wrong with you? Slitting a guy's throat for robbing you instead of calling the police and getting him arrested in a legal fashion is just fucking insane.
Actually, that analogy was a bit flawed too. The throat slitting was a bit much.
Replace the throat slitting with "beat the shit out of and interrogated for my money, but left the dude alive", and it's now more understandable.
The situation is more like "Someone robbed me, and the next day I found the dude and slit his throat, ending his life" and then I'm getting accused of the crime by my friends.
Did I commit a crime? Sure.
In the context of the situation though, is it really the worst thing ever? Not really.
If someone robbed you and as a response you murdered him?
Yeah, that's kind of in the realm of "worst thing ever"
Especially when they go "uh, dude? That isn't the guy who robbed you. That was his roommate."
Posts
And the middle class was crying out because the upper class was getting the tax cuts.
And it was the upper class crying out about elitism.
Hmmmmmmm...
No, try again.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
I don't know what you're getting at, but the elitism meme was originally invented by the liberal left, briefly used by the Republicans as a backhand attack.
When the hell was this? A hundred years ago?
Back when they were talking about actual rich white landowners who got to decide everything
Seriously. "Latte-sipping liberal" has been around forever.
This. It's a reference to aristocracy if anything. And it's now just an attempt to paint someone as thinking they're better than you and you aren't going to take that from THEM, are you?
Last year was about how elitist it was to know the name of a form of lettuce and drinking freaking starbucks. The attack has lost all meaning and is just mindlessly playing to people who already hate whoever you're talking about.
The latest food related crap is the stupidest form of it since the hard cider political cartoons. Unless Obama routinely dines on caviar and truffles, using what he eats as evidence of supposed elitism is just stupid.
Normally presidents dont pursue crimes of the previous administration. I suspect in the short term they are concerned about the divisiveness created as well as their own re-election.
However in doing so, for whatever reasons they have, they are ignoring the long term. It is critical that people be held accountable for torture, not just because we are in violation of the Conventions against Torture, but because it guarantees that at some point such crimes will happen again.
I suspect that Obama wants to in secret, but is doing the politically expedient thing. In that case, this slowly building of public support may be a good strategy, although it is pissing off progressives who want justice sooner rather than later.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
They've barely even pretended to represent anyone but the rich and powerful for a good 20 years.
?
I really hope Obama doesn't pursue investigation of "crimes" of a previous administration. It's petty at best, and brings up a lot of bad blood.
America just needs to let it go already. It happened, it's done. It can't be undone. So some guys that probably deserved to get tortured got "tortured". OK, so what? It won't happen again right?
Good.
It's time to look forward, not back.
Yeah I didn't really pay much attention to political news/blogs for that election. All I cared about was that Bush lost.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Guess what, genius. North Koreans are justifying their treatment of Americans by citing Guantanamo. It's a very real problem, even ignoring all your bullshit quotation marks that you should be embarrassed by.
So, "what" you're "saying" is, that "I" can "go" "kill" a man and "then" use "the" defense "that" "It happened "yesterday", I should "be" "exonerated" today"?
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
So yeah, the problem is people committing crimes and not punishing them for it.
I like how you put crimes in quotes. That suggests objectivity right off the bat.
Is it just these crimes you feel that way about? Is there any limit to this philosophy? Like, I don't know, if we had found an entire sub-basement filled with the severed heads of interns, would prosecuting that be petty as well? It's done, can't be undone, and probably isn't going to happen again...right? Time to look forward, and not back, and all that.
And why, exactly, do you think it won't happen again? Absent a precedent for such acts being prosecuted, why exactly wouldn't it happen again? Sure, some here might be willing to assume Obama won't do the same...but that only covers the next 4-8 years.
You kind of seem like a shitty person who has no empathy toward anyone's situation outside of your own. I think that's the right word. You don't give a shit unless it happens to you. You can't even imagine what it's like in someone else's shoes.
That either A) they were innocent or
Any other stupid questions?
EDIT: Explain, if you will, how this is any worse than "we won't even bother to charge you for crimes committed while in office. Go wild!"
EDIT: Well, unless those crimes involve a blowjob.
I'm looking forward to the trial, if that counts.
Some innocent people were tortured, and a lot of people in the know knew it was illegal, unethical, and producing no results. So the only option left is sadism?
Murder can't be undone, but you can punish the guilty. Unless you're arguing that crimes should not be punished unless the punishment can put everything back? So theft is a crime, but murder is cool?
But empathy is evil!
/conservative commentator'd
So, "because" the trial "might" not "succeed", we shouldn't "even" bother "trying"?
Well, shit. let's just get rid of the entire court system! After all, no trial is a guarantee! We need to make a new judicial system! One where every trial is 100% guaranteed to win!
You're a fucking genius!
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
That none of them directly violated any laws, and our legal system has had a chance to do it's job.
That's basically what you're advocating.
And who the hell are you to decide who deserves to get torutured and who doesn't?
Wrong analogy.
The situation is more like "Someone robbed me, and the next day I found the dude and slit his throat, ending his life" and then I'm getting accused of the crime by my friends.
Did I commit a crime? Sure.
In the context of the situation though, is it really the worst thing ever? Not really.
If they fail to do so (and that's highly unlikely; someone's going to take the fall for it if trials happen), then I'll be happy. Because that's the way shit is supposed to work. I don't see why it's so terrible to require that everyone be subject to the law.
Your solution to a robbery is to slit the guy's throat and THAT ISN'T THE WORST THING EVER?!
Congratulations, you've officially lost any semblance of reality. You'll find your membership card and free room down the hall to your left, have a nice day.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Oh, I get it now: you're a terrible person. Glad to get that settled in my mind.
Bwuh?
I assume the guy who robbed you is the dude getting waterboarded in Gitmo?
So we can assume 100% of those dudes were guilty, now?
Also, friend or no, if I found out you had slit some guy's throat who robbed you, I'd have no problem seeing you charged and convicted, then off to prison. Because it sounds like you'd be a violent sociopath.
EDIT: Put me on the "Obs sounds like a terrible person" bandwagon. Also, I'll go ahead and risk the infraction by asking why the hell this guy is even around here anymore.
EDIT: I actually had the housekeeping staff of the hotel I stayed in this weekend try to steal from me. Guess I should sharpen up the ol' blade and head back down to Bozeman, m i rite?
Actually, that analogy was a bit flawed too. The throat slitting was a bit much.
Replace the throat slitting with "beat the shit out of and interrogated for my money, but left the dude alive", and it's now more understandable.
If someone robbed you and as a response you murdered him?
Yeah, that's kind of in the realm of "worst thing ever"
Especially when they go "uh, dude? That isn't the guy who robbed you. That was his roommate."