Should "Old Sparky" Be Reinstated?

Jump to Last Post 1-26 of 26 discussions (123 posts)

60
qwarkposted 14 years ago
Should we consider bringing back the electric chair for executions?
Should revenge and pain be part of the execution experience?
Reasons pls.
reply report
1. 70
  alexandriaruthkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  the system is not perfect and at times justice can be bought --
  
  because of DNA people are found not guilty after 30 years or so if there is death penalty you killed a person who is not guilty -- what now??
  reply report
82
Rafiniposted 14 years ago
i dont know about revenge & pain...

my thoughts on executions are this:

they had damn well better be guilty!!
reply report
1. 60
  qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Rafini:
  I'll go with the system.
  If the perp has been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, he/she can take it to a higher court.
  If all opportunities have been sought and pleas have been overturned. I will want the perp to meet, personally, "Old Sparky."
  Not be fed, and layed out on a table, given a couple of shots and killed.
  The victim was not given that kind of sympathetic, caring and humane ending!
  reply report
  82
  Rafiniposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  that is what I meant - if they dont appeal they are gulty, if they have been found guilty all the way to the supreme court they are guilty, But if the execution happens w/o an appeal and the "criminal" maintains their innocence....that is where my doubt lies
  reply report
  60
  Pandoras Boxposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I'll agree with that, but I'm pretty much drunk off my arse right now. SO don't hold me very responsible for anything I say tonight.
  
  I think too it should be public. Not like I'd go watch it or anything, but I figure people inclined towards violence would. Maybe it would deter a few. I dunno.
  
  Kill 'em. There's no reason we should foot the bill for them for eternity.
  reply report
  74
  cheaptrickposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Would that include the 33 people exonerated from death row by DNA evidence?
  What % of innocent people put to death is acceptable to ensure the guilty die?
  reply report
  60
  qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  That's life.
  An innocent child dies every 3 minutes on this planet.
  Religious war has killed untold numbers of innocents.
  The auto kills 50k people every yr in the USA.
  On and on and on...
  It's the "human" way....and it's not gonna change just because ya think it's unfair.
  reply report
  74
  cheaptrickposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  So what % is acceptable?
  reply report
  82
  Rafiniposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  now that DNA evidence exists, i feel more strongly about the death penalty when there is no chance for parole, such as: multiple life sentances. IMO that is the only acceptable penalty in those types of cases. Or the only acceptable cases for that type of penalty. Whichever way you look at it, it means the same.
  reply report
  74
  cheaptrickposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  The only difference between Murder and Execution is the order in which they take place.
  reply report
  61
  Hokeyposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  DNA evidence frees man wrongly convicted for 35 years: Jamie Bain goes home (video)
  December 17, 5:07 PM Tampa Crime Examiner Charisse Van Horn
  
  http://www.examiner.com/x-7403-Tampa-Cr … home-video
  
  No.
  reply report
  91
  RachaelLeflerposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I think the electric chair is a better deterrent because it inspires more fear. They should make convicts sweep the floor in the execution room daily just so they look up at that chair and become afraid of committing a murder.
  reply report
74
muley84posted 14 years ago
I believe the old "eye for an eye" punishment is not relevant today. Freedom is a privilige, if it is abused it should be taken away. Two wrongs never make a right. If someone commits murder that does not give you, me, or the state the right to do the same.
reply report
1. 60
  qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Muley:
  Why is it not relevant today? What do you base that comment on?
  What do you mean freedom is a privilege?
  Why do you say the state doesn't have the right to execute?
  reply report
  82
  Rafiniposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  muley explained that - if freedom is abused it should be taken away (rather than death - eye for eye)
  the state doesn't have the right to murder a murderer (execution)
  
  as to freedom being a privilege, that is individually considered. I feel the same but may have different reasons than muley.
  reply report
  60
  qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Rafini:
  Why are you speaking for Muley?
  Muley didn't answer my question, nor did you.
  I asked WHY the state doesn't have the right to execute and why shouldn't there be an eye-for-an-eye punishment?
  You can offer those kinds of opinions and have no basis for them? Why is that?
  Dont'cha think Muley should respond to my questions?
  All you have offered is a response with no foundation.
  reply report
  82
  Rafiniposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  whatever
  reply report
60
samboiamposted 14 years ago
Why should we resume the use of "sparky"? Aren't they just as dead with the needle? My problem isn't with the technique that is used but with how long it takes to carry out the sentence.

The victims didn't get a chance to appeal.
reply report
1. 60
  qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Sambo:
  I want a perpetrator of a heinous premeditated murder of an innocent human being to "SUFFER" the same feeling in body and mind the victim felt as they leave this life.
  
  ...and I would like the execution to be televised!
  There would be a gathering in front of my garage. I would have a "tailgate" party. The TV would be turned on and we'd all sing 21 bottles of beer on the wall as the murderous SOB was screaming..on his way out!
  
  I am a troglodyte at heart!
  reply report
  61
  Friendlywordposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Could it be people have homicidal tendencies and they are just to cowardly to do it themselves? So they need to see other people die?
  reply report
  60
  Pandoras Boxposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  No, I don't think so. I think we're tired of hearing about all these disgusting crimes, and we want them to stop. If someone tortures, rapes and murders a child, should we get together and fund their life, or let them die to signify our unwillingness to let such creeps participate in any way in our society?
  reply report
  60
  qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Friendly:
  That certainly is a possibility. There are all kinds out there. The human beast is "exactly" that: "a beast!"
  But, I am just one of those "beasts" that loves and appreciates the holistic concept of "life."
  It is so precious that it should be lived to the full extent of it's genetic programming.
  Any man/woman who deprives another of that potential, has proven themselves to be of no value to himself or to the society he resides within and should be "deleted!"
  I, tho, am one of those "beasts" who is not so evolved that I accept the elimination of the "perp" to be without experiencing the pain the victim endured.
  I would watch it and rejoice in the knowledge that the savage monster paid his due with equal suffering!
  Revenge can be so "spiritually" elevating!
  Is it no wonder that the "murderous" god thing of the bible says: "revenge is mine!?"
  reply report
2. 0
  Justine76posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  and how much it costs tax payers.
  wrong or right, if someone violently hurt my loved ones.....
  I mean really? once youve raped or brutally murderd a child, why do you still have "rights"? And insantiy? PLEASE.....if you committ a crime worthy of death, your clearly insane. Does that make it OK?
  reply report
61
Friendlywordposted 14 years ago
A simple answer for this question does not exist. Why is Jeffrey Dhamer dead and Charles Manson still breaths our air? It's the unfairness and the uncertainty in some cases that makes it best to abolish the death penalty in America.
reply report
1. 82
  Rafiniposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Jeffrey Dhamer was killed by fellow prisoners, not the death penalty
  reply report
  61
  Friendlywordposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Opps...Never Mind.
  
  Now focus on the point I made. Replace the names with other murders. Didn't Arkansas and Texas kill two brain damaged people with the mentallity of Children?
  reply report
  82
  Rafiniposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  reinforces my feelings
  
  "they had better damn well be guilty!"
  
  brain damaged people do not belong on death row.
  reply report
  60
  Pandoras Boxposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah maybe they get an exception. Not like declared insane by some shrink, but truly verifiably brain damaged.
  reply report
61
logic,commonsenseposted 14 years ago
It is one way to get rid of persons that have not redeeming value to society.
Why should the rest of us have to spend one dime to house and feed a person that is proven to be a murderer or a child molester?
I do not want to 'see' anyone die. However, if a person commits the crime, they need to pay with what is most value to them. It will not deter all the idiots, but it will sure give pause to some and in the end, if we can save one live with the deterence that the death penalty may provide, it will indeed be worth it.
reply report
1. 61
  Friendlywordposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  No it is not! Too many innocent people have been murdered. Alot more that have been saved by the Freedom Project or other means. I feel it is better not to have the death penalty than it is to risk killing more innocent people.
  reply report
  60
  Pandoras Boxposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I agree that they should be like way beyond a shadow of a doubt guilty. I do agree with that.
  reply report
  61
  Friendlywordposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Back to my earlier comment. Why is Charles Manson Breathing our air? And why did Texas and Arkansas kill Brain Damaged men with the mentallity of Children? It's too unjust the way it is used here in America. And do you really think there's some new kind of murder we never had before that will be cured with murder?
  reply report
  60
  Pandoras Boxposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Until yer last sentence I agreed with you. But I'm too drunk to catch the drift of the last thought.
  
  What?
  
  reply report
2. 82
  Rafiniposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I dont believe the death penalty is a deterrant - otherwise these heinous crimes would have STOPPED ages ago!!
  reply report
  0
  Iðunnposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I agree.
  reply report
  60
  qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Rafini:
  I don't think I mentioned anything about killing a murderous monster as being a deterrent to anyone considering to kill someone.
  Deterrency is not my concern.
  Ridding mankind of this "beast" is my concern.
  I do not wish to feed, bed and entertain "it" once it has been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
  Eliminate "it" in the same manner it deprived it's innocent victim of his/her life.
  reply report
  82
  Rafiniposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I was responding to logic.commonsense
  
  and even a murderer is a human being, not a thing.
  reply report
  60
  qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Rafini:
  I respect your right to express yourself.
  I, intoto, disagree.
  In ref to the destruction of human life which has proven itself to be harmful and of no value, logic and common sense would demand it's removal so that "its" deleterious action/s would be permanently, positively and absolutely resolved.
  A "thing" is but a "matter of concern." A murderous human entity would be a matter of concern.
  Mother nature destroys the weak and infirm. That action is of prime import if a species is to become successful.
  At this point in the evolution of the human species, the human animal is not adapting well.
  reply report
69
thisisoliposted 14 years ago
I agree with the death sentence, I also think the prison system needs an overhaul. Lets face it, now when people go to prison they fear the prisoners not the prison. That is not the way things should be.
reply report
71
William F. Torpeyposted 14 years ago
Those who favor capital punishment are as blood thirsty as those who murder. Does anyone really believe that killing is the way to stop killng? Because some people are so heinous as to commit murder, we should then become like them by killing them? Shall we teach our children that violence is OK as long as it's done by the state? Or that it's OK for them to kill if they have a really good reason, or they only want to kill people who are bad? Guilty or not guilty, human beings are human -- even if depraved. Killing humans is verboten. Thou Shalt Not Kill (applies to everyone.)
reply report
1. 60
  qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Torp:
  lolol...I get a kick out of those of your ilk who quote scripture as a defense for their thoughts.
  This biblical god thing is the most savage, murderous, bastard god, man ever created!...or did you miss that when reading your fairytale bible?
  "Thou shalt not kill!" Really? doesn't it say "vengeance is mine sayeth the lord." In other words, hey, let me kill 'em!,,, and "It" killed all life except noah his family and some animals..what a buncha fictitious crap.
  Man is man! He is earths prime predator. He is genetically engineered by time and experience to "kill!"...and everyday he invents new ways to kill more efficiently and without compunction.
  Get over it. Man killing man is the norm.
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I, once again, agree with Qwark. The eye-for-an-eye approach towards punishment, is about as good as it gets - when fairness is factored in. Anybody that wants to give special rights to a premeditated killer, might think otherwise, if that same killer killed a member of "their" family, for example. For the ones who disagree, and if you even think about bellowing out religious rights or any of that other incorrect "politically correct" crap...you'll find yourself falling into the abyss of asininity!
  reply report
2. 82
  Rafiniposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  "Thou shalt not kill" was always interesting to me. I was taught that hatred = murder, to some degree. Also in the Bible it says "An eye for an eye" therefore a murderer deserves to be killed & the Bible doesn't say God is the only punisher in that instance (eye for eye).
  
  just my thoughts...
  reply report
3. 0
  Iðunnposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Mr. Torpey, in agreement.
  reply report
4. 63
  TheGlassSpiderposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Actually, the commandment in its original language says (translates to) "Thou shalt not murder." The Bible, if one is going to use it, clearly points out that "murder" and "killing" are two separate things. Murder is forbidden, but there might be a reason to kill.
  
  Just throwin' that in there for people to chew on.
  reply report
  82
  Rafiniposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  
  reply report
  0
  Madame Xposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Bravo GlassSpider! Very few people know that and it is a very important distinction. If it wasn't, every vet would be a murderer. Which they most certainly are not.
  reply report
  63
  TheGlassSpiderposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Thank you Just so. I think it's a very important detail as well. I wish believers would translate their Bibles!
  reply report
67
awareposted 14 years ago
im for the gallows
reply report
74
WriteAngledposted 14 years ago
Eye for an eye is a barbaric belief practised by a primitive people. Whatever wrong someone has done, I personally do not wish to take responsibility for giving them a painful death, or any death. Lock someone up for good if necessary to protect society, but acting violence towards such a person only breeds violence in generations to come.
reply report
1. 60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Is that brainwashed hogwash?
  So, you think (WriteAngled) it is primitive to believe in primal instinct, the core, and anything else that involves an absolute righteousness - outside of political affairs and the infamous 'violation of rights' propaganda?
  reply report
  74
  WriteAngledposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  What is "absolute righteousness"? Belief in that concept has brought many to the stake in the past.
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah, back in the past, we didn't have these murderous clowns getting "off the hook" for reasons such as: who had the most money to buy the best lawyer, etc. Or, they wouldn't be hanging out in a prison via tax payers money, either. I assume you remember the O.J. trials, in the past. Ha-ha! Yeah, that was funny how the "system" seemed to work...
  
  A person would have to be a fool, to not believe in fair punishment. I do, however, disagree with executing people after they have been in prison for several years. Hell, as slow as the justice system is, the criminals are often a different person by the time they get executed, if and when it actually happens - depending on state laws. I think it should be prompt, when enforced.
  Absolute righteousness = total fairness.
  What's your belief? Do ya like crookedness or something?
  reply report
  74
  WriteAngledposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I have no idea what you mean when you refer to O.J. trials. Orange juice?
  
  You're saying someone can change in prison so therefore it is better to kill them before they do change?
  
  I believe taking life is barbaric in any situation. I do not believe in a concept of justified killing. I believe wars and capital punishment degrade all of us.
  
  Yes, lock away someone who is a menace to society. Killing them demeans us and makes us as low or lower than they were.
  reply report
  0
  Madame Xposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  He's referring to the OJ Simpson trial in the 90's where it was obvious the guy was guilty of killing his wife and was found innocent because he was rich and a celebrity.
  
  I don't completely agree with you that killing is barbaric in any situation. An obvious (and over-used example- sorry) is that it would have been impossible to put all the Nazis in jail.
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Oh, you're not from America. You probably don't know about O.J. then.
  Ha-ha! Who would put orange juice on trial; that was an imbecilic gester, I suppose.
  Yeah, it is better to kill the bastard that killed. Many of us don't feel the need to sing 'grace' after being disgraced by murderous individuals. You can call it "being caught in the moment" if it makes you feel better. An act is of now, not to be freeze-framed for later consolidations of hospitalities.
  You promote torture of isolation, in your own belief. We are not separated, so deal with it. We are biologically attached to each other, and here you are thinking it is being more 'just' to lock someone up in a cement hole for the rest of their life, as opposed to doing what is fair. That sounds sick.
  If everybody thought like you, life would have no point.
  Lets just all lie in the floor and sing Kumbaya, shall we?
  reply report
82
Rafiniposted 14 years ago
I am thinking of An Eye For An Eye as a metaphorical statement meaning A Wrong For A Wrong, not necessarily an equal Wrong.
Which cost to society is greater? The cost to keep multiple criminals locked up for consecutive life sentances or the death penalty when warrented? Violent criminals have been known to escape, why take that chance?
reply report
79
Internetwriter62posted 14 years ago
Given the present conditions in our prisons, not to mention society. Stronger punishments for crime are definitely needed. In some societies they cut of your hand for stealing. I know that is harsh, but I am certain, stealing is not done a lot in those cultures. We are afraid to walk the streets at night and the crimes against children are being done more frequently. So maybe old sparky is not such a bad idea, if not, maybe we should try to find some other way to deter crime effectively.
reply report
60
qwarkposted 14 years ago
I've followed along and read all the responses.
Will someone pls convince me that we human creatures are not BARBARIC?
My goodness, look about you! The majority of humanity is suffering and busy dying in ways too disgusting to consider.
There are so many ways, if man was truly "civilized," that he could put to good use his "consciousness" that could and would preserve life! Instead, he dedicates his imagination and thought processes to the creation of more efficient ways to kill/murder others of his species...and in doing so, has invented a dynamic force that may, if used, wipe out the results of billions of years of evolved life and regress it to the beginning again.
So please stop using the word "civilized" when defining contemporary man!
We exist as the meanest, most violent, pugnacious and barbaric, creature that evolution has produced to date!
How can one degrade that which already exists as the vilest result of 4 billion years of evolution? Hmmm?
I challenge anyone who disagrees with me to PROVE me wrong!
reply report
1. 60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  If anyone does, the only ones that will disagree with you are the ones that still believe in the "tooth fairy" and the "Easter bunny" - come to think of it, those little bastards never visited me either, ha-ha!
  reply report
  60
  qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Obscure:
  lolol...nor I...:-)
  reply report
2. 82
  Rafiniposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Barbaric = primitive, savagely cruel
  
  primitive = early stage of evolution or civilization; simple or crude
  
  savagely cruel: Open to individual interpretation (sometimes)
  
  Modern Society is NOT Barbaric
  reply report
  60
  qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Rafini:
  Your opinion is absurd and not worthy of further consideration or response!
  Sheesh!! :-(
  reply report
  82
  Rafiniposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  
  why, because you don't agree?
  
  reply report
3. 60
  Pandoras Boxposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I probably can't prove you wrong, so I won't try.
  
  But I don't think we are as bad as you make it sound.
  
  And I think we should strive to suppress the bad within ourselves.
  
  Because of those beliefs of mine, I have to reject the idea that we should torture our criminals in the same manner or to the same extent which they tortured their victims.
  
  However, I don't think we should go to great lengths to make them comfortable either.
  
  I think there is a level of murder which ought to be punishable by death. It doesn't bother me if the most convenient method of making that happens causes some pain, degradation or terror for the criminal, but I don't think we need to -or should- go out of our way to make it bad for them.
  reply report
74
WriteAngledposted 14 years ago
No?
reply report
67
awareposted 14 years ago
heres the thing. life is not always peaches and cream. deterring horrible acts . requires the same. difference being one is senseless. that being the first act. the second act of capital punishment being a more hateful form of horrid .the death penalty is ugly for sure . but its a ugly id much rather live with than than the senseless.
reply report
1. 60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  English major? I'm lost...
  reply report
74
muley84posted 14 years ago
Quark I love how you like to set yourself up as THE great authority. I believe my first statement defines my position, "two wrongs never make a right". This is true whether the second wrong is done by an individual or the state. Also I believe your statement "I am a troglidyte" defines your position.
reply report
1. 60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  So..., if someone tied you to a chair, made you watch the kill, and butchered your spouse into tiny bits while slinging their heart out of their chest - into the air...as it flings into your face; blood is everywhere! Would you still think the same? Is it time to pat them on the back and forgive? Yeah, right! Get real! You'd want to kill! Ha-ha!
  reply report
2. 60
  qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Muley:
  Ty!
  I appreciate your opinion but you know that opinions are worth about a dime a dozen....mine are worth about the same...:-)
  reply report
60
K Partinposted 14 years ago
Boy that is a tough one with the price of electricity today! I pay a high enough bill. Anything cheaper??
reply report
1. 60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Rope! Like they did back in the western days. Hang 'em high, I suppose... Is that frugal enough for ya?
  reply report
  60
  K Partinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  that'll work! Cheap rope though but strong!
  reply report
  60
  bonny2010posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  you could always wrap them around a bull ants nest and lather them with honey - makes good work of dead snakes...if the subject is alive I reckon it would be kinda painful and a rather slow death
  reply report
67
steffsingsposted 14 years ago
I personally disagree with 'sparky'. But just a side note, its all very humane anyway. A few moments of emotional stress on the way to the chair/table/etc... is generally what they are actually being tortured with. I'm truly NOT suggesting stoning or slower more painful methods deaths. Just making a side point)
reply report
74
muley84posted 14 years ago
The important thing we are missing is that execution has never been a deterrent to heinous crime. The reason for this is most perpetrators of these crimes have very low self esteem, and most have a death wish. We should reinstate hard labor for these guilty people. The prospects of 25-life making big rocks into gravel for our highways, or something similar, would do more to dissuade people from committing these crimes, and be far more punishment, than killing them and being beasts ourselves.
reply report
1. 82
  Rafiniposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I agree with the idea of "hard labor" - it would help the economy, wouldn't it? But i still think some criminals should get the death penalty.
  reply report
2. 60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  The sad fact is, that a lot of these criminals did what they thought was right in their own mind. How are you going to psycho-analyze that?
  reply report
  82
  Rafiniposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  the criminally insane? Lock 'em up for life and require hard labor!
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You wouldn't do that in a fair perspective within naturalistic scenarios and you know it! You are following an economic approach, which is bull-s**t!
  reply report
  82
  Rafiniposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  lock 'em up for life and continue to pay for their upkeep? dont think so, that isn't fair to society.
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Huh? Just kill 'em and get it over with! I don't want to pay for their worthlessness. You must have the wrong guy or placed your comment in the wrong field?
  reply report
3. 61
  Friendlywordposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  That's the best idea anybody has had on this thread. Still, make murders crack rocks for the profit alone. There is no deterrent to murder. Never has been and never will be.
  
  Furthermore, Americans do not have the decency, judgement, or the morality needed to carry out the death penalty fairly. So let murderers crack rocks. This way we get some of our money back, and the innocent have a chance to be freed one day.
  reply report
67
awareposted 14 years ago
majoring in English . has worked well for you i see
reply report
1. 60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You got that right! It helps a whole hell of a lot. Just think, I'm really slobbering all over myself and am mentally challenged! And..., I've made it this far in the debate... Ha-ha! There is hope after all, for the majority of moronic doltish clusters of imbecilic beings that provide ignorance and asininity! Yes-yes! LOL!
  reply report
67
awareposted 14 years ago
now that i have your attention. hi nice to meet you.
reply report
1. 60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah, I'm from the south as well. It is all fun and games, down here. Ha-ha!
  reply report
  59
  tantrumposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  OH ?!
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Where in the hell is Qwark? Thanks, man! LOL!
  reply report
  60
  qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry Obscure:
  lolol..had to quit for dinner and a beer..:-)
  Settlin' in again for rush hour now..:-)
  I love asking these questions and rile'n folks up.
  Beats sittin' on my skinny arse watchin' TV....:-)
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  A beer? Oh sh*t, I've had multiples of that good stuff... Ha-ha! Join back on in. I think I've did well with the upkeep of your forum, while you was gone. What ya think?
  reply report
  60
  qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Shite Obscure:
  How'n the hell should I know? I've had a couple'a Canadian beers ('bout 15%) and ain't feelin' no pain..thank god...oops god? ..mistake! thank goodness I'm sittin' down....lol
  Just kiddin' I know ya did a fine job holdin' onto the fort in my absence...now load them muskets and back to the wall..them damned injuns will attack at sunrise!! >-)
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You got a point there, ha-ha-ha! ...But, we'll be ready at sunset!
  reply report
  60
  qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Obscure:
  I'm countin' on ya!
  Fire when ya see the whites of them "redskins" eyes!
  Hey Ob...yer not taking none'a this serious are ya....lolol
  First "redskin" ya capture, I got "old Sparky" warmed up!
  How'd you like yers? reglar or Crispy?....:-)
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Of course I'm takin' it seriously... Just so it is fried! Ha-ha!
  reply report
  60
  qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Obscure:
  You gittem' I'll fry em! fair?
  Set the table!
  One fried redskin comin' up with a side'a jiblet stuffin' and slaw!
  fightin' these here 2 fisted "forum" bad asses has made me hungry!!! Bring it on!
  I needa cuppa coffee...brb
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  What's your roundabout, circuitous whereabouts of demographics? I need to know the rendezvous point, ya know? At least give me the right country for this futuristic grub-down of fried waste material. I'm from Tennessee, U.S., unfortunately... LOL!
  reply report
  60
  qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Texas ma boy!..the Lone Star State.
  I've wandered around Tennessee. Gotta admit I liked it. If I remember right Dolly has a theme park there in eastern Tenn. Took my son there many moons ago..close to Gatlinburg I think.
  Spent time camping in "Cades Cove."...lotsa skunks there...lol
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You are more native than I hoped. Excellent! Do you remember the Grand ol' Theme Park we used to have? If you're from Texas, then you took kindly to my "hang 'em high" remarks...ha-ha!
  
  On a change of subject: What's wrong with them Mormon freaks? Do you think we should drop on over to their forum and cause a little disruption or should we let them eat their own selves in stupidity?
  report
  60
  qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Obscure:
  They are pitifully funny arent they?
  I think that there should be mandatory classes which all people should take that would bring alive the idiocy of joseph Smith and his claim of receiving golden tablets in Palmya NY...and of brigham young, his many marriages and the sillyness of his life etc etc...on and on....no "thinking person would take it seriously.
  report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I've just fired a missile into the crazed "mormon forum" so get your ass over, at your next convenience, and deploy some bombs onto their crazy asses! Ha-ha!
  report
  60
  qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Obscure:
  Sorry, I was making coffee...I'll drop by and see whats goin' on..:-)
  report
67
awareposted 14 years ago
hi tant
reply report
1. 59
  tantrumposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Are you aware of this Old sparky ?
  I think qwark should try it once, and see how much he likes it
  reply report
67
awareposted 14 years ago
that degree . was it a on line school. i mean ... dang.
reply report
1. 60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Why did we have to turn these forum threads into a philosophy that favored the 'redneck haven' of insanity? Or...perhaps, I'm being bias?
  reply report
67
awareposted 14 years ago
im in fla old sparky was our chair
reply report
0
A Texanposted 14 years ago
Why waste the electricity on a scumbag? Just put two in the back of the head and be done with it!
reply report
1. 60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Save the gunpowder; add the rope!
  reply report
  0
  A Texanposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Drowm em in a toilet for all I care.
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  That reminds me of a porno I once watched: Roco S. shoved a babe's head in the toilet while he was bangin' her from behind. It was nice footage, but she did comply ever-so gracefully, ha-ha!
  reply report
  0
  A Texanposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah...I'm not up on the latest porn stars, but thanks for the info.
  reply report
  82
  Rafiniposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  SICK!!
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah, tell 'em Rafini! LOL!
  reply report
  82
  Rafiniposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  um, no, that was meant for u
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Umm, yeah, duh? It was a joke; don't be so lame. By the way, what you call sick, I call joy. What you may think is profanity, I may call poetry! Ha-ha!
  reply report
  82
  Rafiniposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  don't be so rude!! LOL
  ya know - online jokes are usually a joke on the joker
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Oh, you determine what is the jest of a cyber-joke and what isn't. Nice...
  reply report
  82
  Rafiniposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
2. 0
  Madame Xposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Why waste one?
  reply report
81
manlypoetrymanposted 14 years ago
Deff...Ol' Sparky with a bag of Jif'e Pop Popcorn in each hand...for the ones that did maliciously plan or humilate or enjoy or were merciless...in their deed...that way you can serve refreshments at a party in celebration that they have left the planet...Oh...did I type that out loud...Whoops!

But really...that's just out of anger for some of the needless and awful murders that I hear of day to day on the news. I think a civil society should have a quick lethal method. And by quick...I feel like the judge should be able to say: Get a rope! Of course that would have to take place after the final appeal...as one person has said...you wouldn't want to hang an innocent person...by no means.
reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

Should "Old Sparky" Be Reinstated?

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

Should "Old Sparky" Be Reinstated?

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies