Didn’t take long for a liberal bleeding heart fuckstick to crawl out from under his rock so he could stroke his holier-than-thou, hyperinflated ego in public. Don’t indecent exposure laws apply in Seattle? (thanks to Alert Reader Odie for the tip)
“Vengeance is mine,” said the Lord.
And then you read the names of the slain.
Judy and Wayne Anderson, both in their 60s.
Scott Anderson and his wife, Erica, and their two kids, Olivia, 6, and Nathan, just 3.
All shot dead on Christmas Eve.
You learn how these innocents pleaded for their lives and were blasted away by gunfire inside a Carnation home — and you do not want to wait for God.
You want the two suspects, Michele Anderson and her boyfriend, Joseph McEnroe, to feel vengeance now, get the ultimate payback.
Well, yes. But most of all, you want those two things taken out of circulation so that they may never, under any circumstances, hurt anybody ever again. The fact that they won’t be wasting valuable nutrients and oxygen either is just a bonus.
King County prosecutors Friday charged the pair with six counts of aggravated first-degree murder, opening the door to capital punishment. But the death penalty shouldn’t be the knee-jerk choice here — not in a civilized nation that so strongly touts its Christian ways.
Hooray! If there’s one thing that can make His Imperial Majesty all giddy with joy on a Sunday, it’s an opportunity to mock and ridicule yet another liberal assclown who thinks he knows something about Christianity but, in a few short paragraphs, proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he knows less about it than Muqtada al-Sadr. And when you see a screed claiming that capital punishment is against Christian doctrine, you know that the game is on.
Last I checked, an enduring message of Jesus is about redemption and forgiveness, even after the most pernicious evil.
Right. G-d’s forgiveness. As well as ours, for the sins committed against us. What Christian doctrine does not teach is that we’re all supposed to inflate our sanctimonious “look how good I am” creds by knee-jerkingly forgiving any and all sins committed against others. Funny that you should mention knee-jerks in the opening paragraphs and then immediately go on to jerk your own knee like a tazed bro, isn’t it? Funny, but not at all surprising.
And that’s just one aspect. Another is that you also, predictably so, have completely misunderstood what forgiveness means. It doesn’t mean that you’re immediately given a get-out-of-jail-free card. Yes, your sin may be forgiven, but that doesn’t mean that Earthly punishment for your crime is suddenly no longer necessary. Render unto Caesar and all that, something that you might want to look up if you insist on continuing to impersonate somebody who knows what Christianity is all about. I can and should forgive you for rear-ending my car, but that doesn’t mean that you won’t have to pay for the repairs.
Let’s try to make it even more simple for you, although we seriously doubt that we can ever make it simple enough for you to understand: Your sin, whatever it may be, has consequences. Forgiveness covers only the sin. You still have to make restitution for the consequences of it. Can we continue now, or do you need a few months to fully grok what we’re talking about here? Six-year-olds manage to catch on quite well in Sunday School, but we don’t want to presumptuously assume that your intellect is at that level. It’s bad teaching manners.
Beyond being un-Christian, government-sanctioned killing seems hypocritical: to do to people the very thing you’re condemning them for doing. That’s not showing a cultural value for life or setting a good societal example about how killing is wrong.
And, as you will show in a few short paragraphs, you know quite a bit about hypocrisy, being a quite accomplished practitioner thereof.
Nobody is suggesting that we “do to them what we’re condemning them for doing.” For us to do that, we would have to suggest murdering them. We’re not. We’re suggesting that we kill them as punishment for the murder that they committed, which is quite a different sort of thing. You’re not one of the morons who believe that our soldiers should refuse shooting back because “that would be just as bad as the enemy shooting at them“, are you? You just might be. That or you’re just completely overwhelmed when faced with the most basic of life’s concepts, rules and customs. We sometimes refer to people like that as “imbeciles.”
The crimes Anderson and McEnroe are accused of are unconscionable and unjustifiable. Prosecutors believe the slayings were motivated initially by money and greed, but the pair continued to spill blood to cover their tracks.
If convicted — a matter more of when than if, since prosecutors say Anderson and McEnroe have confessed — life behind bars would be righteous and just.
Toss the key.
It would? It would be “righteous and just” to allow them to continue to live, an option that they denied to six people, two of them small children who had never done anybody any harm? It would be “righteous and just” to let them continue living in the hopes that one day, somehow, a successful appeal or a subretarded Governor in the mold of Hickaboo came along and got them out of the clink?
Let them face each day for the rest of their days haunted by thoughts of the lives they savagely stole, and let Anderson, 29, feel the suffocating weight of what she did to her own kin.
Wouldn’t this beat death in a blink by capital punishment –
Wait a minute here. First you say that capital punishment is un-Christian, barbaric and unjust, and then you suggest that they instead be given a punishment that you yourself consider far worse than death?
You really ARE a Subject Matter Expert when it comes to hypocrisy, aren’t you?
after years of appeals and hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayer money spent fighting them? Wouldn’t this prevent the avoidable agony of victims’ loved ones being dragged through court long after the slayings have faded from public view?
And an expert on what the victims’ loved ones want too, we see. Isn’t it an awe-inspiring, almost unbearable burden to know so much about what other people think and feel and what is best for them? It’s almost — godlike in its scope. You should be careful not to hang around Romans and big wooden crosses, in our opinion.
Ultimately, life without parole is humane and in keeping with the tenet of turning the cheek.
It’s “humane” yet infinitely worse than the death penalty? You keep using that word, yet somehow we get the feeling that it doesn’t mean exactly what you think that it means. Coincidentally, that the exact same feeling that we get about everything else that you’re opining on in this uninformed, incoherent, illogical heap of goat’s droppings that you call a column.
And the only tenet it’s in keeping with is the one of “turning somebody else’s cheek so that you may feel better about yourself”, a tenet that we have never, not once encountered in Christian teachings.
People love to quote the Bible’s “an eye for an eye,” but they conveniently forget that God says “thou shall not kill” and commands us to exercise forgiveness and love even when there is a just claim for vengeance.
Put down the shovel and step away from it, will you? The hole is already plenty deep enough. What G-d does say, if you’d bother looking up the original text, is “thou shalt not murder“, which is quite a different cup of tea. It never ceases to amaze us that so many self-proclaimed theologian laymen insist on getting that one wrong. We mean, with all of the killing going on in the Bible without as much as a raised eyebrow from the Big Guy, as a matter of fact quite a bit of it happens at His insistence, doesn’t it seem strange in the least to you that He would make one of His most fundamental laws “thou shalt not kill?” Doesn’t it at least suggest that maybe, somehow, something was lost in translation along the way?
We did, so we looked it up and, lo and behold, something was indeed lost in translation. Amazing how you can learn things if your brain has an “on” switch that you know how to use, isn’t it?
This will weigh on newly elected King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg, who now faces his first big capital punishment decision involving multiple victims.
Our state fancies itself more progressive and enlightened than Texas, where politicians eagerly race to send felons to death even though so many felons convicted of horrific crimes have been cleared through DNA.
Yes, we know that you consider yourselves more “progressive and enlightened”, but that, at the end of the day, doesn’t mean squat. I once met a man who considered himself to be Napoleon Bonaparte, but last I checked he hadn’t won a battle at Austerlitz, nor had he managed to use an Imperial Decree to get himself out of the mental institution to which he was committed.
And just how many murderers have been executed only to be found innocent after their execution? Could we have an example, please? It’s another one of those idiotic memes being trotted out by Idiotarians: “Some criminals have been found innocent through DNA analysis, ergo people have been executed wrongfully.” One does not follow the other. Yes, some criminals in jail with long sentences have been found innocent but, guess what, they weren’t among the ones executed. They weren’t executed because the evidence against them didn’t meet the standards that we sensibly require before we send somebody to Death Row, since we can’t revive them if it later turns out that we were wrong. So we give them prison sentences instead so that we may let them out if it turns out that they were innocent.
Which brings us to our second question: What, in the name of Be’elzebubs scrotal itch does that have to do with this case? It’s open and shut. You may not have noticed, but the two animals here confessed to the crime, there is absolutely no doubt, reasonable or otherwise, that they did it. So what does this have to do with cases in which DNA analysis later showed that the accused were innocent? If you answer “nothing”, you earn a cookie, but you’ll still have to justify the verbal diarrhea that you have profaned the Internet with.
But Washington might do well to look at the courage lawmakers marshaled in New Jersey. There, they voted this month to become the first state to repeal the death penalty since the U.S. Supreme Court allowed executions to resume in 1976. One of New Jersey’s death-row cretins is a familiar face. In 1992, Ambrose Harris raped and shot to death Kristin Huggins. Kristin, 22, was my high school friend.
Harris is an impenitent killer, remorseless, a predatory abuser who had been abused as a child. He’s earned his death wish.
But he has a divine right to life — every bit as much as Anderson and McEnroe, both of whom, judging from prosecutors, are coldblooded.
We’ve already noticed that you’re awfully generous handing out clemency to animals who have committed atrocities against others, there’s no need to rub it in. We get the point. We’re sure that you also belong to those who are ever so charitable with other people’s money, i.e. socialists, but we have to inform you that it doesn’t earn you any brownie points with people who have an actual brain.
It may make you feel better about yourself, as a matter of fact we’re sure that it does, but public displays of moral masturbation are as unbecoming as they are sickening, so we really would appreciate it if you’d cease and desist before we vomit.
Maybe the moral costs or faith argument against the death penalty doesn’t sway you. Well, there’s this — money.
Aren’t political conservatives, when they aren’t thundering about Christian values, always ranting about how government wastes money?
According to The Washington Post, keeping inmates on death row in New Jersey, for example, costs that state $72,602 per year per prisoner. Inmates kept in the general population cost $40,121 per year each. But the New Jersey corrections department found repealing capital punishment would save the state as much as $1.3 million per inmate over a lifetime — not including millions spent by public defenders on inmates’ appeals. That’s a lot of cash for other things.
So we’ve already established that you’re a hypocrite, that you know absolutely nothing about Christian tenets, even the most basic ones, and that you know nothing about justice, ethics, morals or the concept of forgiveness and charity either. How good of you to finish your screed by demonstrating that you know nothing about conservatism. That’s quite impressive.
Conservatives are all about getting things done as cheaply and efficiently as possible. That is not quite the same as “getting nothing done because it costs money.” Believe it or not, there are things that we conservatives believe have to be done, even if we have to pay for them. We’re just a bit more critical when it comes to the part where we have to decide whether government needs to do it in the first place. Once we’ve decided that it is something that needs to be done, we’re all about getting it done as cheaply as possible. Which means that you do have a point, stunningly surprising though it is, just not one that we think that you wanted to make.
The appeals process is rather ridiculously long and expensive, isn’t it? Something needs to be done about that. Thanks for noticing. We mean, the length of it ought to depend on the sentence and the level of evidence presented against the convict, no? Is there really any good reason why, in cases such as this one where there is absolutely NO doubt about the guilt of the swamp things, the appeals process needs to drag out for years and years? They’re guilty, they’ve confessed their guilt, now send them to Hell where they belong. Think of all the money we could save!
As I struggled to read court papers of what Anderson and McEnroe did in the Carnation home, I wanted in my heart to execute them. Wipe them off the Earth. The gory details spark such strong emotions.
But then, the mind kicks in.
No. What happened was that you saw an opportunity for verbal auto-eroticism that you just could not resist. A golden opportunity for you to stroke your “humanitarian credentials” by demonstrating how willing you are to forgive others for trespasses against people who are not you.
Hollow, disgusting, dishonest and none of your frackin’ gorram business.
Society should be in the business of seeking justice, not in the death business of blind revenge.
The former can be found by letting the criminals rot behind bars.
Revenge? That’s best left to our maker.
You’re the one bringing up revenge all the time, not us. We, on the other hand, are talking about justice and making sure that we, as a society, demonstrate that there are some life forms that we simply will not allow to walk among us, that there are some crimes so vile that the perpetrators have forfeited their rights to be called “men” and that we’re committed to safe-guarding and protecting the rest of society from them by putting them out of our misery.
G-d will have His vengeance upon them, of that there is no doubt. We’re just expediting their departure a bit.