• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


pepper last won the day on February 11 2007

pepper had the most liked content!

About pepper

  • Rank


  • Location
    White Marsh
  • Interests
    child,wife,violent pc games,knives,news
  • Occupation
    production control
  • Gender
  1. I don't know the attendance numbers, but it sounds like smart business to make the stadium attractive off season to events that bring tens of thousands downtown. The tax collected on expensive ticket sales and merchandise, along with the money generated by the foot traffic is significant. Thats a nice video thank you from the band.
  2. Seems your equating the cost involved in stealing content with the cost of obtaining that content legally. You're not paying for the content, but you feel you're paying for it with your paid membership and effort. Do you really spend ten hours a week searching for new movies to download? I admit I'm not that into movies, but I know most if the new releases are on On Demand not long after the theater run. I guess I don't get the strong desire to see the latest blockbuster before it's legally available for 5.99. Sorry to be disrespectful, but I thought you were old school, from the way you post.
  3. Terrell doesn't care at all what you or I think, and he doesn't care about the kid he killed. He does not fear jail or even death. It's amazing he even lived to the old age of 28. Still good news. C4 has been hammering this since it happened. He'll have the police on his show at 12:15 today.
  4. I don't know, but whatever it is isn't enough. I'd say 1 year first offense, maybe 5-10 for a repeat violent offender. But the sentence should be served fully. This 15 year old should be tried as an adult before he kills someone, which if left unchecked, is almost a certainty. (IMO) I think part of the problem is that some lawmakers and well meaning citizens believe a 15 year old is a 15 year old, just a kid, like we all were at 15. I bet this kid is harder, and has seen more than most 30 year olds.
  5. With respect, I disagree. It's not politically correct, and it's not a word I'd use, but the definition certainly applies. The problem is that people too often equate cognitive disability with being stupid. I agree it's more often meant as a slur, and the council woman should apologize because she doesn't think Trump has a cognitive disability, she thinks he's a moron.
  6. Really, the story is more about the people filming and being callous than it is the addict. The drugged out person is under the influence, and crazy behavior is to be expected. The people filming and mocking are actually more messed up than she is. She's on hard drugs, whats their excuse?
  7. If not for the use of "retard" as slang, the word retarded is an apt description by definition. It's not PC, but it means exactly the same as mentally challenged, which at some point will be an unacceptable term, if it's not already. I'm guessing this woman is older, and likely grew up with "retard" or "retarded" as part of the lexicon. The fact that she throws that out as a cheap rip in 2017, from her position, shows shes not very astute, and it's an insult to everyone actually dealing with mental disability.
  8. Thats terrible, and the lack of empathy is amazing, but I guess if you see enough of this, it chips away at your humanity, especially easy if you're a loser yourself, like the people filming and taunting her.. Gives them a chance to feel better about themselves and their own crappy station in life. Those that would see this happening, and not call 911 to help, or would taunt and ridicule, are actually, IMO, more messed up than the addict herself. I do not understand how such people comfortably sleep at night.
  9. I wonder what the Rabbi means when he says " these crimes...this is not for this generation" ? It seems for a few it really is right for them. And you are correct Workerbee, but I'd also add the reality that none of these types of kids envision a long life. Things like jobs, a wife, family, watching the kids grow...none of this has any meaning, add the incredible lack of self worth for themselves, or anyone else, and zero ethics or values, and yes, being dumber than a sack of hammers. These are some scary teens.
  10. I'm not surprised or shocked anymore, this stuff barely registers. To be truly affected would be maddening. It's the steady drum beat of 90 year olds, then 3 year olds, then a nun or elderly couple...repeated regularly, with variations on the same depraved theme, no value for Human life, regardless. The loss of potential is staggering.
  11. Unless you're an insane cop, you probably would rather take the guy without incident, rather than shooting him. I've read that for the cops that are forced to kill a suspect, theres often serious mental health repercussions. Probably not real healthy to be on the scene when someone shoots themselves in the head either, even if they are a killer. Not saying it shouldn't be done, it should, and the restraint shown by most cops as is is impressive. The victim is everyone's grand dad, thats especially sad. I admit I'm ok with the suspects end.
  12. Hi Guido I know you get it, but just for perspective I have to throw in that this is easily explainable and perfectly normal Human development. We're all born a blank slate as far as worldview and perspective, social norms, whats acceptable, etc...Beyond hard wired survival stuff, everything else has to be learned, and things like self worth, the value of a Human life, and especially ethics, are best learned from consistent examples. Probably like you and I had at some points. This is a very predictable outcome with so many babies born and left to make decisions based on consistent bad examples. Examples very likely set by their parents, who were raised the same inefficient way. I'm a believer in the idea that the individual is responsible for the act, and ultimately owns and owes the debt. But theres a part of my thinking that says it's not completely fair to label the suspect(s) as animals or somehow less than Human. Yea, they're the downside of Human nature, but IMO they're a pretty logical downside. It defines Human. And think, we actually created this monster that feeds itself now! Short sighted but well intentioned liberals and a political structure that thrived on fears and segregation. So now we have a ton of messed up people confined to geographically very small areas, The man in the house rule legacy lives on in ways never imagined, and this will not end. I wonder how some communities will be able to handle the loss of the older folk, some of who took on the task of trying to raise grandkids. These older folks will take a lot of wisdom with them and I don't see them being easily replaced. We as a society and our legislators, do not have the honesty, integrity or intelligence to deal with the root cause. The system seems set up to intentionally deny a fix after a few decades.
  13. I don't really care about the deterant aspect, because I don't think anything could possibly deter someone bent on killing. Like most people, you and I don't refrain from killing or stealing cars because we worry about the penalty. Normal people don't really need a deterant. It's a punitive measure, for those folks that have shown themselves to be the worst of the worst. It's become useless because it's not used. I have no problem taking it off the books because it's terribly wasteful cost wise, and terrible for the victims family.
  14. The story mentions no argument in favor of a rape suspect getting parental rights. Why is this even an issue? The story implies a male bias, but I'm a male, and I don't understand the problem. Parental rights shouldn't be an issue, since in my world, the rapist should be under a restraining order that absolutely refers to the rape victim and the child. I respect Del. Dumais' efforts, but how common is it that a felony convicted rapist goes to court to seek parental rights? What judge or state agency would agree with such a thing?
  15. I feel she shouldn't have been able to occupy public office. Oaks is a perfect example of someone that took advantage of his constituents feelings on redemption, and went on to abuse that sentiment. Will Dixon do the same if given a position? Maybe not, but why even take the risk? There is no shortage of up and comers and thats a good thing, even if it only changes the names on the blotter. Sadly, the new council's first move was a silly proclamation against Trump (deserved, but not worth the time maybe?) but to me it's an indication of maybe future foolishness and nonsense that achieves nothing. I hope I'm dead wrong. I've heard a few of the new members on the C4 show, and they seem seriously invested in helping the city.