overwhelming support for keeping Boston bomber alive - why?

Because he is a patsy "convicted" in a Stalinesque Show Trial.

tazern wrote:

All online discussions show the same trend where most people do not think America should kill the bomber. Why is that? I expected all logical people to be glad that we are going to remove him?

http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/367bfj/richard_dawkins_the_boston_bomber_is_a/?sort=top&limit=500

Because libtards have a hard time sucking off a dead terrorist. At least if he is alive all these libtard "males" can give this murdering ba$tard "conjugal" visits.

True story

A significant minority opposes the death penalty. Most of the rest of us are resigned to the notion that it will be abolished by the courts one way or another.

Tsarnaev will never be executed.

alanson wrote:

A significant minority opposes the death penalty. Most of the rest of us are resigned to the notion that it will be abolished by the courts one way or another.

Tsarnaev will never be executed.

He will be put down before his 30th bday.

Libtard males, you better get in that conjugal visit line now.

True story

Read the Boston.com article on what his life would be like in prison.

It sounds like a helluva lot more pain and suffering than having a nice last meal and then going to sleep forever.

That's why.

Have you noticed yet that you're living in an utterly insane society?

Hell on Earth wrote:

Read the Boston.com article on what his life would be like in prison.

It sounds like a helluva lot more pain and suffering than having a nice last meal and then going to sleep forever.

That's why.

Yeah that POS is fckd either way, but seeing how it is Libtard Central in MA he will probably be isolated for the rest of its existence.

-Frogman

Smooth Daddy wrote:

Have you noticed yet that you're living in an utterly insane society?

True, that is why it is a Constitutional and Natural RKBA.

1. I don't think the state should be in the business of taking life.

2. It's much cheaper--like an order of magnitude cheaper--to keep this asshole alive and imprisoned for 70 years, compared to the *total* cost to execute him.

3. I want his punishment to last and last and last.

4. I want him NOT to be a martyr. Anyone heard much about this guy lately?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirhan_Sirhan

He's been in jail for going-on a half-century now, and most of the last few decades he's been anonymous--just another felon who's been prevented from hurting the general public and from reproducing himself (the two main benefits of imprisonment).

When we give them publicity and pay them attention, the terrorists win--those are *exactly* what they're after.

tazern wrote:

All online discussions show the same trend where most people do not think America should kill the bomber. Why is that? I expected all logical people to be glad that we are going to remove him?

http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/367bfj/richard_dawkins_the_boston_bomber_is_a/?sort=top&limit=500

The discussion you linked should answer your question. Most people opposing the death penalty for the Boston bomber oppose the death penalty in general, and therefore they are being consistent with views they held before the bombings.

You mean until he gets to Gen Pop

monkey in the middle wrote:

You mean until he gets to Gen Pop

Gen pop is the death penalty for this murdering Libtard. And it would save millions in legal proceedings to have this turd put down. Makes one wonder, is MA banking on inmates slaughtering this liberal monster?

Hmmm?

Frogman wrote:

tazern wrote:

All online discussions show the same trend where most people do not think America should kill the bomber. Why is that? I expected all logical people to be glad that we are going to remove him?

http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/367bfj/richard_dawkins_the_boston_bomber_is_a/?sort=top&limit=500

Because libtards have a hard time sucking off a dead terrorist. At least if he is alive all these libtard "males" can give this murdering ba$tard "conjugal" visits.

True story

Hi pogue warrior!

Ribbit ribbit

Exodus 20:13

formerly present wrote:

1. I don't think the state should be in the business of taking life.

2. It's much cheaper--like an order of magnitude cheaper--to keep this asshole alive and imprisoned for 70 years, compared to the *total* cost to execute him.

3. I want his punishment to last and last and last.

4. I want him NOT to be a martyr. Anyone heard much about this guy lately?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirhan_Sirhan

He's been in jail for going-on a half-century now, and most of the last few decades he's been anonymous--just another felon who's been prevented from hurting the general public and from reproducing himself (the two main benefits of imprisonment).

When we give them publicity and pay them attention, the terrorists win--those are *exactly* what they're after.

Either way the Libtard in question is going to hell. Hell on earth is where it resides for now.

I could not think of a more fitting demise for an American Hating Libtard.

True Story

No way he is ever near gen pop

formerly present wrote:

1. I don't think the state should be in the business of taking life.

2. It's much cheaper--like an order of magnitude cheaper--to keep this asshole alive and imprisoned for 70 years, compared to the *total* cost to execute him.

3. I want his punishment to last and last and last.

4. I want him NOT to be a martyr. Anyone heard much about this guy lately?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirhan_Sirhan

He's been in jail for going-on a half-century now, and most of the last few decades he's been anonymous--just another felon who's been prevented from hurting the general public and from reproducing himself (the two main benefits of imprisonment).

When we give them publicity and pay them attention, the terrorists win--those are *exactly* what they're after.

Charles Manson has been in jail for a long time and people still remember him.

Counter anecdote!

Doapan wrote:

No way he is ever near gen pop

Gen pop = death sentence

Only with a much greater degree of brutality.