gbaji wrote:
For this entire thread, it's been pretty darn obvious that every single person understood that this was about these kids losing their cars permanently.
Edited, Sep 12th 2011 8:18pm by lolgaxe
·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Ritzy Private school kids street racing
Ritzy Private school kids street racingFollow
The vehicles were impounded on the night (sorry), afternoon of August 31st. They were driven out of impound on September 8th. Which ... was a Thursday. But you know, those are just facts of the case. Don't let them get in the way of your rhetoric.
Edited, Sep 12th 2011 8:18pm by lolgaxe
Just for fun, citation of mine, please. I am part of "every single person," right?
Edited, Sep 12th 2011 8:18pm by lolgaxe
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
lolgaxe wrote:
The vehicles were impounded on the night (sorry), afternoon of August 31st. They were driven out of impound on September 8th. Which ... was a Thursday. But you know, those are just facts of the case. Don't let them get in the way of your rhetoric.
I'm responding to the story linked in the OP, which quite clearly is about the city attempting to seize permanently (that's what "forfeiture" means btw) the vehicles instead of releasing them from impound after 7 days as is the norm. This thread is about people discussing whether or not they should take their cars away (permanently). I'm not sure what other events have occurred since then with the case itself. My only interest is the question as to whether or not it's right to take people's cars away (permanently) in a case like this.
And also to point out that I don't think people would be cheering the proposed forfeiture of cars if the people involved weren't wealthy. Which I happen to think is incredibly petty.
Quote:
gbaji wrote:
For this entire thread, it's been pretty darn obvious that every single person understood that this was about these kids losing their cars permanently.
Did you (or anyone) make it obvious that the question we were debating was about anything other than permanent forfeiture of their cars? By all means show me were you leaped into the debate and insisted that these kids were getting off easy because they were going to get their cars back in a few days anyway. This is just bizarre. The whole conversation has been about them not getting their cars back (ever). Yet, it's only after nearly two whole pages of postings that someone suddenly jumps in and insists that this was never the case?
Um... Where the hell were all you guys back on page one? Where were you the first 5 times I made the point that permanent loss of a car was an unusual punishment? Strange that you waited until you'd run out of any reasonable response before suddenly pretending the entire topic never really existed in the first place.
Why do you think this topic exists?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Just because there's a particular streak of memory loss going on. Here's post number 4 in the thread:
Strange that the whole "But no one said they're losing them permanently" didn't show up until like 60 posts later. Creative re-interpretation of the topic, I guess?
Aripyanfar wrote:
Losing the cars permanently is going to BURN as badly as jail, ESPECIALLY if they are their parent's cars. OMG they are going to be in a world of trouble. Paying their parents back for the cars is REALLY going to hurt. Which if their parents have a lick of sense, they are going to make them do, no matter how much cash the parents have in the trust fund.
Strange that the whole "But no one said they're losing them permanently" didn't show up until like 60 posts later. Creative re-interpretation of the topic, I guess?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Apparently some people wanting harsher penalties and recommending a further investigation, but this not happening is the same as taking the cars away permanently, rather then the minimum penalty of 7 days.
You'd have a hard time finding historical cases though, seeing as these are newly established rules.
You'd have a hard time finding historical cases though, seeing as these are newly established rules.
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
gbaji wrote:
Just because there's a particular streak of memory loss going on. Here's post number 4 in the thread:
Strange that the whole "But no one said they're losing them permanently" didn't show up until like 60 posts later. Creative re-interpretation of the topic, I guess?
Aripyanfar wrote:
Losing the cars permanently is going to BURN as badly as jail, ESPECIALLY if they are their parent's cars. OMG they are going to be in a world of trouble. Paying their parents back for the cars is REALLY going to hurt. Which if their parents have a lick of sense, they are going to make them do, no matter how much cash the parents have in the trust fund.
Strange that the whole "But no one said they're losing them permanently" didn't show up until like 60 posts later. Creative re-interpretation of the topic, I guess?
So you're taking Ari, an Aussie, as an authority on Canadian Laws? Interesting. And don't give me that **** about not knowing where Ari's from, she's been here a long long time and has always been clear about it. Unless of course, you just ignore the facts put in front of you.
You're an "there's Americans and then everyone else in the world" type person, aren't you?
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
The vehicles were impounded on the night (sorry), afternoon of August 31st. They were driven out of impound on September 8th. Which ... was a Thursday. But you know, those are just facts of the case. Don't let them get in the way of your rhetoric.
gbaji wrote:
This thread is about people discussing whether or not they should take their cars away (permanently)
gbaji wrote:
I'm not sure what other events have occurred since then with the case itself. My only interest is the question as to whether or not it's right to take people's cars away (permanently) in a case like this.
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
For this entire thread, it's been pretty darn obvious that every single person understood that this was about these kids losing their cars permanently.
gbaji wrote:
By all means show me were you leaped into the debate and insisted that these kids were getting off easy because they were going to get their cars back in a few days anyway.
☑ Impounded for 7 Days
☑ Six Points on License
☠Fined minimum $398
So yeah, compared to normal people they got off comparatively easy.
Edited, Sep 12th 2011 8:52pm by lolgaxe
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
gbaji wrote:
The question is whether permanently confiscating the vehicles involved is a normal thing, or is an abnormal thing being done in this case because the people involved are wealthy.
Yeah... Please link a post where you decried the discrepancy between powder cocaine/crack cocaine possession punishments and we'll chat about "fair treatment based on income".
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Just because there's a particular streak of memory loss going on. Here's post number 4 in the thread:
Strange that the whole "But no one said they're losing them permanently" didn't show up until like 60 posts later. Creative re-interpretation of the topic, I guess?
Aripyanfar wrote:
Losing the cars permanently is going to BURN as badly as jail, ESPECIALLY if they are their parent's cars. OMG they are going to be in a world of trouble. Paying their parents back for the cars is REALLY going to hurt. Which if their parents have a lick of sense, they are going to make them do, no matter how much cash the parents have in the trust fund.
Strange that the whole "But no one said they're losing them permanently" didn't show up until like 60 posts later. Creative re-interpretation of the topic, I guess?
So you're taking Ari, an Aussie, as an authority on Canadian Laws?
Huh? Did IQs on this board take a dive or something?
I'm saying that she understood the story linked in the OP to mean that the city was attempting to permanently seize the cars. An understanding which I believed every single poster in this thread was acting on right up until suddenly out of the blue a couple posters started claiming that this had never been the case.
It's what the story in the OP is about, right? It's why we're even having a discussion, right? Some people were cheering the possibility that these rich kids will lose their cars. Others were saying that this is an unfair penalty for the crime. What thread have you been reading?
Edited, Sep 12th 2011 5:57pm by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
The vehicles were impounded on the night (sorry), afternoon of August 31st. They were driven out of impound on September 8th. Which ... was a Thursday. But you know, those are just facts of the case. Don't let them get in the way of your rhetoric.
Huh? I'm responding to what the story in the OP said. I'm respoding to multiple posters who seemed to think it was a great idea for those kids to lose their cars (permanently) because they were just bratty rich kids and it served them right.
If the city changed it's mind and let them have their cars back (did it? I haven't seen anything about it), then that's great. But it doesn't change the debate over whether it should have, right?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
It's what the story in the OP is about, right? It's why we're even having a discussion, right? Some people were cheering the possibility that these rich kids will lose their cars. Others were saying that this is an unfair penalty for the crime. What thread have you been reading?
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
gbaji wrote:
Huh? I'm responding to what the story in the OP said.
gbaji wrote:
I'm respoding to multiple posters who seemed to think it was a great idea for those kids to lose their cars (permanently) because they were just bratty rich kids and it served them right.
Edited, Sep 12th 2011 9:24pm by lolgaxe
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
If gbaji starts another post with "Huh?" I'm going to reach through this monitor and strangle him.
Nadenu wrote:
If gbaji starts another post with "Huh?" I'm going to reach through this monitor and strangle him.
It is easy to confuse a bunch of reckless kids getting the minimum sentence with the authorities being mean to rich people.
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
I'm under the impression suddenly that gbaji was on the page where cars were impounded permanently, and the majority of us were not.
Now it makes sense.
Now it makes sense.
gbaji wrote:
What thread have you been reading?
This one.
TBH I didn't really read this thread until earlier today, when I saw the debate going on and got all confused.
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
Nadenu wrote:
If gbaji starts another post with "Huh?" I'm going to reach through this monitor and strangle him.
Remember. When he didn't talk like this?
It was a golden age...
who won the race?
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.
rdmcandie wrote:
who won the race?
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
who won the race?
Recent Visitors: 371
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (371)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Ritzy Private school kids street racing
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC