Is that so? Can you tell me which part of the Union Jack incorporates this particular banner, then:

I’m personally thrilled to see that Presidential Campaigns have basically become stupid social media adds featuring “funny” bits of pre-washed cotton. This is a great sign for the future.

Amy Schumer is my comedy everything! This douche needs a punch in the chode.

Coopers? You must be in Funky Town. Listen, try all these places. The list is old, but they’re all still good. Try Hard Eight in Carrollton, too . . . just don’t wear anything you don’t want to smell like smoke for the rest of the year. Pecan Lodge is the teets and Slow Bone will always do you right (ha!), but I’m…

EXACTLY! You win the comments today.

You filthy fucking communist fucking pinko piece of shit.

Shrayber would’ve made this about weird fetishes where ice cream is eaten out of animal anuses, so you’re wrong. As long as Shrayber exists, no dude can be worse.

I am from Corpus Christi and, therefore, an expert. Bill Miller’s is EXCEPTIONALLY over-rated, and the only reason you like it is because it reminds you of home. I mean, I’m in Dallas now and the fact that we don’t have an amazeballz BBQ joint on every corner of this city should be considered a crime against humanity,…

You are wrong and bad and don’t know anything, poop head!

Appeal denied. If you can’t spell judgment, you don’t get an appeal.

Your cohort keeps saying that it’s very well documented, yet exactly ZERO evidence has been provided. I happen to be an attorney who worked on death penalty projects in law school and can tell you that even the most ardent death penalty critics will tell you that this argument was made up in the 1970s with no support,…

“Well known fact,” huh? So far no one has been able to support it, except for saying it’s a “well known fact.” And I don’t need sources. That’s not how it works. You’re putting forth an argument (“imposing the death penalty is more costly than imprisoning a convicted murderer for life”), so you have to support it.…

This stands (sort of) for the proposition that cases in which the death penalty is sought cost more than cases in which it is not - regardless of the actual imposition of the death penalty, which is awesome, I guess, but is not at all relevant to the discussion we’re having here. The government sought the death…

Did you even read the article you linked? It doesn’t stand for your proposition in the least. But I guess that’s cool . . . just keep saying it’s true and maybe it’ll become so.

You’re a moron. This has been up to the SCOTUS many times, and every time they’ve found it Constitutional. But you’re Joe Finn and they’re only the preeminent legal minds and final arbiters of the Constitution . . . so I’m sure you’re right.

You’ve got a source for that, I’m sure. I’ll wait patiently to review it . . .

Not really. There will be years and years of appeal.

And yes, it will cost us millions to kill him.

So this means we have another decade of appeals to look forward to, right?

I’m not sure what that has to do with the fact that most people in MA are against the death penalty, in general and in this case, including at least some people directly affected by the bombings.