Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

ScottInStanley

Incredibly Sobering Article by Lavar Arrington

48 posts in this topic

I am all for the Death Penalty, but I think the DP is too good for these people. Child Molesters should be beaten repeatedly everyday for life.

I agree but some of the posters like the death of someone when it hits to close to home but don't agree with it when its a case they aren't emotionally involved with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm for the death penalty 24/7

Only they should speed up the process

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm for the death penalty 24/7

Only they should speed up the process

what if one of the many underage girls you've posted pictures of causes a lust to spark in the heart of a disturbed man browsing the forums and is a step in the process of his slow slide towards depraved sexual abuse?

or are you already that guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I vote that those kids should be allowed to torture this guy with the worst torturing methods known on this earth. Treat him even more horribly than the worst terrorists on the planet!

I hope the Devil reems his ass daily for all of eternity! What a FUG!!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sandusky is fu*ked. Life without for sure. But fu*k that motherfu*ker, who cares about some serial molesting piece of crap? The ones that should be focused on are the victims, but the media (As usual) always wants to make it all about the criminal. This story strikes a nerve way too close to home with me and it angers me when the focus is on some asshole rather than on helping the victims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was a reference to my death penalty comment earlier. I could care less if we have the death penalty or not, but some of the posters seem to agree with beating a man to death that molested their child, while being against the death penalty. Why is that OK but, having a jury of 12 decide to put a man to death so cruel?

My thought is that no one likes the death penalty until it happens to one of their family members being raped or murderd and then its justified.

It's cruel and unusual. The state has no business murdering anyone. The case where the father protected his child is different. He caught the subject while he was engaged in serious sexual assault. By definition of the law he can use deadly force. He did so accidentally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what ever happened to lavar arrington?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sandusky is fu*ked. Life without for sure. But fu*k that motherfu*ker, who cares about some serial molesting piece of crap? The ones that should be focused on are the victims, but the media (As usual) always wants to make it all about the criminal. This story strikes a nerve way too close to home with me and it angers me when the focus is on some asshole rather than on helping the victims.

the publicity and focus on sandusky brings the problem of sex abuse into the forefront of public consciousness, which is unequivocally a good thing. the focus of the media should be on sandusky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the publicity and focus on sandusky brings the problem of sex abuse into the forefront of public consciousness, which is unequivocally a good thing. the focus of the media should be on sandusky.

You miss the point of what I was trying to say. The victims seem to fall by the wayside in these cases, the focus should be on helping them. To hell with the criminal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the publicity and focus on sandusky brings the problem of sex abuse into the forefront of public consciousness, which is unequivocally a good thing. the focus of the media should be on sandusky.

I agree. I cant imagine any of the victims would want to be on the forefront of the media blitz on this case. Justice will be served, I just pray its severe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



  • Posts

    • Mitchell would be a mistake IMO. He's too short to play with Walker. It would be the NBA's smallest backcourt. 
    • Look at this from Greg's viewpoint: 1. We did not draft or bring in a TE (many of us, including me, thought the team might bring in a young TE) Greg knows we have few options at this point. 2. Greg is about to retire (2-3 years) and his stock will never be higher.  He has led the team in receiving for a few years. 3. He knows there is cap room.  Gettlemen wants to carry  that over to re-sign 3 hog mollies for 2018; Olsen wants it now.) I think the Panthers lack of movement at TE has Olsen in a great negotiating position. Now let's take a look at the Panther's position: His quote about business and productivity could backfire on him. Businesses sign contracts for future services.  People sign them every day and honor them.  I may sign a long-term contract for less than I am worth, but in turn, I get security.  If you think you are worth more, don't sign.  I think the problem is the transparency over salaries.  If you know what Jacob Tamme made last year because his agent worked out a great deal, you can use that to negotiate a new deal for Olsen if you compare the numbers.  However, Tamme may have underperformed his deal, and it is erroneous to assume the performance of others based on their contracts is fair market value.  What they offer and what you take is fair market value. If Olsen wants a deal based on his productivity, remove his guaranteed money and make it incentive based. Take away the guarantees and make it possible for him to earn $10m--or $2m, depending on his productivity.  I am sure that he wants the security of the current deal and the Panthers to assume all risk.   Do you think the Raiders did not think that Jamarcus Russell's deal should equal productivity?  It is a gamble for both sides--a 4-5 year contract is security.  Guaranteed money you take for a promise to perform at your highest level for the length of the contract.  Olsen is not giving money back if he has a bad year, I assure you.  Contracts are not rewards, they only concern themselves with the now and the future. So where you ranked last year and the year before that---that simply means the Panthers made a wise investment in Greg Olsen.  I mean, if I invest in Cisco stock, buying it at $40 per share because it is expected to rise to $50 per share and it ends the year at $60, Cisco does not come to me and say, "We should have charged you more when you bought our shares--can we have an additional $8 per share?" THAT is business . Olsen should blame himself if he signed a lower deal than he is worth.  If he did not believe he was worth more then, why should the Panthers pay more now?  The Panthers paid him fair market value and he accepted the offer. I think it is bad practice to start paying people who outperform their contracts