On Jul 14, 1:16*am, "DGDevin" wrote:
"harry" *wrote in message

...

However unlike in your nation Murdoch's company hasn't
been immune to criticism from politicians because all the parties are
afraid
to lose the support of the network--big difference.
So far as you know that is.

Wrong again sunshine. *The current President has openly (and correctly) said
Fox is the de facto publicity arm of the Republican Party, you couldn't
imagine a much better example of a politician speaking out against a news
organization than that. *That is in sharp contrast to what has happened in
your nation where politicians from all sides have been afraid of angering
Murdoch's media outlets even in the face of clear evidence of illegality.
You can wriggle all you like Harry, but it is painfully obvious your claim
"We hold ours to account" is complete nonsense. *Murdoch and the other press
thugs have been getting away with whatever they liked for many years, they
had the cops in their pocket too, your fairy tale to the contrary is
laughably unbelievable.

Murdoch is a naturalised US citizen, his son is a US citizen.
On the news this morning. The police here have discovered that NI/NC
has been hacking telephones/computers of 11/9 victims, many of them
American citizens. This has got US law enforcers interested as some
has apparently ocurred in the US. They are calling for an
investigation in America.
That seems to be the US connection at the moment

DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...

I admit that under Bush the federal debt zoomed. But we had two wars,
Katrina, and 9/11 to deal with.

Say, good point, a war of choice halfway around the world on grounds
that turned out to be fictional was a bad idea. I think 9/11 would
have happened if Gore had been President, and obviously Katrina
didn't care who was in office. But choosing to spend trillions of
dollars invading and occupying countries whose populations are
intensely hostile to being occupied doesn't seem to have worked out
too well given that Iraq is still a simmering stew of ethnic tension
and Afghanistan is still where empires go to die, same as it's always
been. I suppose you also don’t count the cost of wars started by
Bush against Obama, correct? Fat chance huh?
Further, I have no doubt that a robust economy - such as we had
during the first six years of the Bush administration (until the
Democrats took over Congress) - could have mitigated much of that
debt.

The housing bubble was expanding during the Bush years and Wall St.
was merrily making bets it couldn't cover with no adult supervision,
so your claim is like saying it doesn't matter who lit the fuse, it's
whoever was around when the dynamite exploded that gets the blame. And of
course the robust economy (during which the middle class was
losing ground and millions of jobs were moving to China) didn't cover
the massive increase in the debt which the White House and Republican
Congress happily approved, otherwise we wouldn't have had to borrow
five trillion dollars.
Conversely, the Obama administration matched the $800 billion Bush
years' deficit in their VERY FIRST MONTH in office. We are now,
what, $4 trillion more in debt than we were at the end of the Bush
administration?

You do get that TARP and the auto industry bailout were Bush policies,
right, that Obama was continuing what Bush started? And you're aware
that the CBO said stimulus spending saved millions of jobs that would
otherwise have gone, right? And you understand that the economic
calamity that manifested itself beginning in 2007 has reduced tax
revenues which makes everything that much worse, right? And what's
the Republican solution to the economy? Not taxing millionaires and
billionaires--yeah, that will turn things right around.

I don't hold up previous Republican congresses as models of fiscal
restraint.

No, you're just silent on their foolishness, you apparently are only
motivated to speak when Democrats do stupid things. What you don't
say is just as revealing as what you do say.

You should not hold up the current administration as the exemplar of
sound policy.

Quote me doing so. The Obama administration has displeased me on a
wide range of issues, from the President's poor leadership skills to
the continuation of misguided Bush policies on security (e.g. the
feds don't need no stinkin' warrants) and the big, clumsy mess of a
health care reform bill and so on and so forth--there are lots of
good reasons to criticize the Obama administration. Sadly a lot of
folks can't stick to the valid reasons, they have to babble about
birth certificates and commiecrats and similar nonsense. Oh well,
it's good for a certain amount of grim entertainment.

You make some excellent points. Except one. You said: "... the feds don't
need no stinkin' warrants". I presume you are referring to Administrative
Subpoenas (AS) and its cousin, a National Security Letter.

Actually, ASs are not new. They were originally implemented in 1978 to deal
with drug interdiction and money laundering. The problem was they listed
specific places where they could be used: banks, financial institutions, car
rental counters, storage sheds, and a few other places. What the Patriot Act
did was to expand the locations where an AS could be used to almost ANY
commercial institution or business.

There is, in point of fact, no expectation of privacy in a commercial
transaction. And, as a further correction, a warrant to disgorge information
from a hotel, Starbucks, or anywhere else would never be issued. If,
previously, a federal law enforcement official wanted to examine the credit
card records of a motel (and the owner declined to cooperate), the feds
would get a subpoena from a grand jury, not a warrant from a judge.

"harry" wrote in message
...

That seems to be the US connection at the moment

What does that have to do with the blatantly false claim, "We hold ours to
account"?

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...

You make some excellent points. Except one. You said: "... the feds don't
need no stinkin' warrants". I presume you are referring to Administrative
Subpoenas (AS) and its cousin, a National Security Letter.

Obama said during the campaign that if elected he would end the use of
security letters, instead he has continued their use and even apparently
sought to extend it--I hold that against him. If the feds want to open your
mail or listen to your phone calls or search your home etc., if they have a
good reason to do those things, then they should go before a judge and get a
warrant. I do not believe that "fishing expedition" searches that a judge
has not approved are a good idea and neither did the men who wrote the Bill
of Rights.

Actually, ASs are not new. They were originally implemented in 1978 to
deal with drug interdiction and money laundering.

Ah yes, the War On Drugs, helping to destroy your Constitutional rights for
over thirty years.

There is, in point of fact, no expectation of privacy in a commercial
transaction.

Except when there is. Your relationship with your doctor or lawyer is of a
commercial nature, and yet if either or those folks blabs about you they're
in trouble. If you're a renter your landlord can't enter your home (which
he owns) except in certain narrowly defined emergencies. If you buy or
lease many products you have to agree not to discover or communicate
proprietary information from those products--and so on. There are lots of
commercial transactions in which one or more parties have an expectation of
privacy--your blanket statement to the contrary is in error.

And, as a further correction, a warrant to disgorge information from a
hotel, Starbucks, or anywhere else would never be issued. If, previously,
a federal law enforcement official wanted to examine the credit card
records of a motel (and the owner declined to cooperate), the feds would
get a subpoena from a grand jury, not a warrant from a judge.

The point is of course that the feds couldn't just order someone to cough up
information on you on their own say-so, either a judge or a grand jury had
to okay it. But now all they have to do is send a letter and your ISP rolls
over and tells them whatever they want to know. But it's for
"security"--which apparently means that the Constitution is now more a
collection of guidelines than the supreme law of the land.

Like the man said: Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a
little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

In article ,
"DGDevin" wrote:



Except when there is. Your relationship with your doctor or lawyer is of a
commercial nature, and yet if either or those folks blabs about you they're
in trouble. If you're a renter your landlord can't enter your home (which
he owns) except in certain narrowly defined emergencies. If you buy or
lease many products you have to agree not to discover or communicate
proprietary information from those products--and so on. There are lots of
commercial transactions in which one or more parties have an expectation of
privacy--your blanket statement to the contrary is in error.

WHich are specific and written into the law. There are also many (for
instance a mortgage) which HAVE to be entered into a public record.
With the exception of a few that have been specifically codified, there
is no blanket expectation.





And, as a further correction, a warrant to disgorge information from a
hotel, Starbucks, or anywhere else would never be issued. If, previously,
a federal law enforcement official wanted to examine the credit card
records of a motel (and the owner declined to cooperate), the feds would
get a subpoena from a grand jury, not a warrant from a judge.

The point is of course that the feds couldn't just order someone to cough up
information on you on their own say-so, either a judge or a grand jury had
to okay it. But now all they have to do is send a letter and your ISP rolls
over and tells them whatever they want to know. But it's for
"security"--which apparently means that the Constitution is now more a
collection of guidelines than the supreme law of the land.

Like the man said: Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a
little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
m...

WHich are specific and written into the law. There are also many (for
instance a mortgage) which HAVE to be entered into a public record.
With the exception of a few that have been specifically codified, there
is no blanket expectation.

I didn't claim there was, I merely noted that there are commercial
transactions in which there is an expectation of privacy. HeyBub was the
one who made a blanket statement, not me.

DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...

You make some excellent points. Except one. You said: "... the feds
don't need no stinkin' warrants". I presume you are referring to
Administrative Subpoenas (AS) and its cousin, a National Security
Letter.

Obama said during the campaign that if elected he would end the use of
security letters, instead he has continued their use and even
apparently sought to extend it--I hold that against him. If the feds
want to open your mail or listen to your phone calls or search your
home etc., if they have a good reason to do those things, then they
should go before a judge and get a warrant. I do not believe that
"fishing expedition" searches that a judge has not approved are a
good idea and neither did the men who wrote the Bill of Rights.

I agree with what you've said, but hear this: Administrative Subpoenas (AS)
are not substitutes for search warrants. An (AS) will not issue to search
your house or tap your phone. When you voluntarily disclose information to
someone, that information, in general, loses the privacy protection. If you
give your credit card to a hotel, that transaction is NOT, in any way,
privileged, nor can the hotel raise the claim.


There is, in point of fact, no expectation of privacy in a commercial
transaction.

Except when there is. Your relationship with your doctor or lawyer
is of a commercial nature, and yet if either or those folks blabs
about you they're in trouble. If you're a renter your landlord can't
enter your home (which he owns) except in certain narrowly defined
emergencies. If you buy or lease many products you have to agree not
to discover or communicate proprietary information from those
products--and so on. There are lots of commercial transactions in
which one or more parties have an expectation of privacy--your
blanket statement to the contrary is in error.

I'll say it again: There is no expectation of privacy in a commercial
transaction. What you SAY to your doctor or lawyer or clergyman may be
privileged, but what you PAY them is not.


And, as a further correction, a warrant to disgorge information from
a hotel, Starbucks, or anywhere else would never be issued. If,
previously, a federal law enforcement official wanted to examine the
credit card records of a motel (and the owner declined to
cooperate), the feds would get a subpoena from a grand jury, not a
warrant from a judge.

The point is of course that the feds couldn't just order someone to
cough up information on you on their own say-so, either a judge or a
grand jury had to okay it. But now all they have to do is send a
letter and your ISP rolls over and tells them whatever they want to
know. But it's for "security"--which apparently means that the
Constitution is now more a collection of guidelines than the supreme
law of the land.

Almost correct. For example, the ISP cannot divulge the contents of emails,
but can divulge their source and destination.


Like the man said: Those who would give up Essential Liberty to
purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor
Safety.

It was Ben Franklin. He's dead.

Security vs. Liberty has always been a balancing test. During times of
stress, security takes precedence. When the threat recedes, liberty returns.
There were the Alien & Sedition Acts enacted under President John Adams.
President Lincoln suspended habeas corpus. Roosevelt interred the Japanese.

In each of these cases, our betters believed the continued existence of the
country took precedence over whether someone's feelings got hurt.

"HeyBub" wrote:

DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...

snip

I'll say it again: There is no expectation of privacy in a commercial
transaction. What you SAY to your doctor or lawyer or clergyman may be
privileged, but what you PAY them is not.

Not quite true at least as regards doctors and by extension hospitals.
Those persons and institutions are specifically forbidden from
disclosing even such minor information as who they have treated or in
the case of hospitals whether a specific person has been admitted or
not. This protection doesn't extend to payment but only in so far as
it is necessary to process claims etc and then those (usually)
insurance companies are also have a non-disclosure obligation.
Obviously there is conflict between the MD's duty to report things
such as gunshot wounds but I doubt it's a blanket dispensation.

Security vs. Liberty has always been a balancing test. During times of
stress, security takes precedence. When the threat recedes, liberty returns.
There were the Alien & Sedition Acts enacted under President John Adams.
President Lincoln suspended habeas corpus. Roosevelt interred the Japanese.

I presume you mean "interned" although indirectly he probably did
inter quite a few.

In each of these cases, our betters believed the continued existence of the
country took precedence over whether someone's feelings got hurt.

They're not our "betters" except perhaps in their own mind. It's
really just expediency.

wrote:
Security vs. Liberty has always been a balancing test. During times
of stress, security takes precedence. When the threat recedes,
liberty returns. There were the Alien & Sedition Acts enacted under
President John Adams. President Lincoln suspended habeas corpus.
Roosevelt interred the Japanese.

I presume you mean "interned" although indirectly he probably did
inter quite a few.

Eek! You're right. Thanks for the correction!

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

I agree with what you've said, but hear this: Administrative Subpoenas
(AS) are not substitutes for search warrants. An (AS) will not issue to
search your house or tap your phone.

Not yet. But the list of things ASs are used for continues to grow, there
are now over 300 areas in which federal agencies may use this approach
instead of going before a judge. The Dept. of Labor Wage and Hour Division
is allowed to use ASs even in the absence of probable cause, so make sure
you pay your landscaping crew on time, HeyBub.

I'll say it again: There is no expectation of privacy in a commercial
transaction. What you SAY to your doctor or lawyer or clergyman may be
privileged, but what you PAY them is not.

How about what you pay them for? Clearly the issues you discuss with your
doctor or lawyer are privileged, and it doesn't matter how much you paid.
And your landlord still can't walk into your apartment whenever he pleases
despite that he owns the place. Clearly there are commercial transactions
with an expectation of privacy, and it is ridiculous to try to split a visit
to your doctor into commercial and non-commercial segments.

Almost correct. For example, the ISP cannot divulge the contents of
emails, but can divulge their source and destination.

And everything else they know about you including who you are and where you
live and how you pay and when you were online and so on and so forth--all
without a judge agreeing the LEA has a legitimate need to poke its nose into
your affairs.

Like the man said: Those who would give up Essential Liberty to
purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor
Safety.

It was Ben Franklin. He's dead.

As are all the Founding Fathers, is that a good reason to ignore what they
said and wrote?

Security vs. Liberty has always been a balancing test. During times of
stress, security takes precedence. When the threat recedes, liberty
returns.

You hope. And if it doesn't, oh well, it's not like the govt. would ever
turn its newfound powers on you, no way.

There were the Alien & Sedition Acts enacted under President John Adams.

Which were instantly used not to defend the nation but to suppress political
opponents of the administration. Gee, who could have imagined such a thing
would happen?

President Lincoln suspended habeas corpus.

Ah yes, again to allow the administration of the day to do what it wanted
even if the people disagreed and even if the courts said the act was
illegal--what could be seen as wrong there?

Roosevelt interred the Japanese.

Oh, you must mean Americans of Japanese descent, as opposed to Americans of
German descent or Americans of Italian descent who were not locked up unless
they were citizens of a hostile power. And then the 442 became the most
decorated unit in the Army despite that the friends and relations of the
Japanese-American soldiers in that unit were behind barbed wire in the
desert. Still, can't be too careful, those Ornamentals are notoriously
untrustworthy.

In each of these cases, our betters believed the continued existence of
the country took precedence over whether someone's feelings got hurt.

Let's lock you up in a desert camp under primitive conditions for a few
years on the basis of the ethnic origins of your family and see if you
describe the experience as merely having your feelings hurt. As always
you're happy to trivialize the suffering of other people, there is no doubt
your story would be different if you were the one with the boot on your
neck.

DGDevin wrote:

Roosevelt interred the Japanese.

Oh, you must mean Americans of Japanese descent, as opposed to
Americans of German descent or Americans of Italian descent who were
not locked up unless they were citizens of a hostile power. And then
the 442 became the most decorated unit in the Army despite that the
friends and relations of the Japanese-American soldiers in that unit
were behind barbed wire in the desert. Still, can't be too careful,
those Ornamentals are notoriously untrustworthy.



"Kill Japs. Kill Japs. Kill more Japs"


In each of these cases, our betters believed the continued existence
of the country took precedence over whether someone's feelings got
hurt.

Let's lock you up in a desert camp under primitive conditions for a
few years on the basis of the ethnic origins of your family and see
if you describe the experience as merely having your feelings hurt. As
always you're happy to trivialize the suffering of other people,
there is no doubt your story would be different if you were the one
with the boot on your neck.

Yes, no doubt I would. But how is my personal feeling relevant to
establishing national policy? A country should not pass a law based on how a
particular individual "feels" about it.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...


Let's lock you up in a desert camp under primitive conditions for a
few years on the basis of the ethnic origins of your family and see
if you describe the experience as merely having your feelings hurt. As
always you're happy to trivialize the suffering of other people,
there is no doubt your story would be different if you were the one
with the boot on your neck.

Yes, no doubt I would. But how is my personal feeling relevant to
establishing national policy? A country should not pass a law based on how
a particular individual "feels" about it.

"Feelings" have nothing to do with it. Citizens are rounded up and without
even being accused of a crime much less convicted of one they are confined
behind barbed wire for years while their hard-earned property is seized and
sold off so when they are eventually released they discover their land and
property gone--exactly where is the American dream in that nightmare
scenario? I don't give a crap if it was legal, slavery was legal in America
at one time too which didn't stop it from being unjust, wicked and just
plain wrong. Liberty isn't supposed to be just a bumper sticker slogan,
it's supposed to mean something. In the end either everyone has the same
rights or nobody's rights are safe. You're so willing to **** away the
rights of others that you'd better hope poetic justice doesn't come looking
for you one day, say if your city decides to seize your real estate not for
some public project of pressing value but merely for commercial development
which the Supreme Court said a few years ago is perfectly legal. I would
rage against that too, not out of regard for your feelings, but because it
is wrong.

DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...


Let's lock you up in a desert camp under primitive conditions for a
few years on the basis of the ethnic origins of your family and see
if you describe the experience as merely having your feelings hurt.
As always you're happy to trivialize the suffering of other people,
there is no doubt your story would be different if you were the one
with the boot on your neck.

Yes, no doubt I would. But how is my personal feeling relevant to
establishing national policy? A country should not pass a law based
on how a particular individual "feels" about it.

"Feelings" have nothing to do with it. Citizens are rounded up and
without even being accused of a crime much less convicted of one they
are confined behind barbed wire for years while their hard-earned
property is seized and sold off so when they are eventually released
they discover their land and property gone--exactly where is the
American dream in that nightmare scenario?

Your point is well-taken, but you forget that individuals can be "rounded
up" and placed in detention/jail without being crimnals. Here are a few:
* Juveniles
* Those standing in civil contempt
* Infectious disease carriers
* Illegal aliens
* Those judeged, or felt to be, mentally incompetent
* Unlawful enemy combatants

Point is, one does not have to be a criminal - or charged with being a
criminal - to be jailed.

I don't give a crap if it
was legal, slavery was legal in America at one time too which didn't
stop it from being unjust, wicked and just plain wrong. Liberty
isn't supposed to be just a bumper sticker slogan, it's supposed to
mean something. In the end either everyone has the same rights or
nobody's rights are safe. You're so willing to **** away the rights
of others that you'd better hope poetic justice doesn't come looking
for you one day, say if your city decides to seize your real estate
not for some public project of pressing value but merely for
commercial development which the Supreme Court said a few years ago
is perfectly legal. I would rage against that too, not out of regard
for your feelings, but because it is wrong.

But, but, but... didn't the government do exactly that when it freed the
slaves?

Oh, and I agree with you, but you are the one who brought up the argument
"How would you feel...?"

On 7/15/2011 10:12 PM, HeyBub wrote:
DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...


Let's lock you up in a desert camp under primitive conditions for a
few years on the basis of the ethnic origins of your family and see
if you describe the experience as merely having your feelings hurt.
As always you're happy to trivialize the suffering of other people,
there is no doubt your story would be different if you were the one
with the boot on your neck.

Yes, no doubt I would. But how is my personal feeling relevant to
establishing national policy? A country should not pass a law based
on how a particular individual "feels" about it.

"Feelings" have nothing to do with it. Citizens are rounded up and
without even being accused of a crime much less convicted of one they
are confined behind barbed wire for years while their hard-earned
property is seized and sold off so when they are eventually released
they discover their land and property gone--exactly where is the
American dream in that nightmare scenario?

Your point is well-taken, but you forget that individuals can be "rounded
up" and placed in detention/jail without being crimnals. Here are a few:
* Juveniles
* Those standing in civil contempt
* Infectious disease carriers
* Illegal aliens
* Those judeged, or felt to be, mentally incompetent
* Unlawful enemy combatants

Point is, one does not have to be a criminal - or charged with being a
criminal - to be jailed.

I don't give a crap if it
was legal, slavery was legal in America at one time too which didn't
stop it from being unjust, wicked and just plain wrong. Liberty
isn't supposed to be just a bumper sticker slogan, it's supposed to
mean something. In the end either everyone has the same rights or
nobody's rights are safe. You're so willing to **** away the rights
of others that you'd better hope poetic justice doesn't come looking
for you one day, say if your city decides to seize your real estate
not for some public project of pressing value but merely for
commercial development which the Supreme Court said a few years ago
is perfectly legal. I would rage against that too, not out of regard
for your feelings, but because it is wrong.

But, but, but... didn't the government do exactly that when it freed the
slaves?

Oh, and I agree with you, but you are the one who brought up the argument
"How would you feel...?"



There were some interesting cases of people being imprisoned without
criminal charges here in Alabamastan. You mentioned disease carriers;
there was a problem with some ex-cons who would not take their
medication to keep their tuberculosis infections in check or cured.
The state had to lock them back up to protect the population even
though those folks were not violent criminals to start with. The poor
fellows wound up in prison because they did something stupid not violent
so not taking their medication for a serious disease demonstrated how
mentally ill they were. The mental illness alone should have kept them
confined somewhere and there has been a trend to put the mentally ill
in prison rather than a mental institution where they really belonged
in the first place.

TDD

The Daring Dufas wrote:

There were some interesting cases of people being imprisoned without
criminal charges here in Alabamastan. You mentioned disease carriers;
there was a problem with some ex-cons who would not take their
medication to keep their tuberculosis infections in check or cured.
The state had to lock them back up to protect the population even
though those folks were not violent criminals to start with. The poor
fellows wound up in prison because they did something stupid not
violent so not taking their medication for a serious disease
demonstrated how mentally ill they were. The mental illness alone
should have kept them confined somewhere and there has been a trend
to put the mentally ill in prison rather than a mental institution
where they really belonged in the first place.


Yep. Some years ago, the ACLU got all exercised about state mental
institutions. It is now the standard that a person may not be confined if
his mental illness does not present a threat to himself or others. No longer
can one be locked away because he smells funny.

Just this week a city actually MOVED a bus stop because a homeless woman
camped nearby was the source of a ghastly odor!

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:


Yep. Some years ago, the ACLU got all exercised about state mental
institutions. It is now the standard that a person may not be confined if
his mental illness does not present a threat to himself or others. No longer
can one be locked away because he smells funny.
It wasn't the ACLU's fault (although it pains me deeply to come to
their defense). This goes all the way back to JFK's administration and
an act requiring "least restrictive environment". Although they did push
a suit where the Supremes found a constitutional right to refuse
medications (setting up the revolving door where we get them tuned up on
meds, release them, they stop their meds, get readmitted, etc). I call
it a Psych Miranda Warning: You have a right to remain crazy.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

On 7/16/2011 7:07 AM, HeyBub wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:

There were some interesting cases of people being imprisoned without
criminal charges here in Alabamastan. You mentioned disease carriers;
there was a problem with some ex-cons who would not take their
medication to keep their tuberculosis infections in check or cured.
The state had to lock them back up to protect the population even
though those folks were not violent criminals to start with. The poor
fellows wound up in prison because they did something stupid not
violent so not taking their medication for a serious disease
demonstrated how mentally ill they were. The mental illness alone
should have kept them confined somewhere and there has been a trend
to put the mentally ill in prison rather than a mental institution
where they really belonged in the first place.


Yep. Some years ago, the ACLU got all exercised about state mental
institutions. It is now the standard that a person may not be confined if
his mental illness does not present a threat to himself or others. No longer
can one be locked away because he smells funny.

Just this week a city actually MOVED a bus stop because a homeless woman
camped nearby was the source of a ghastly odor!



Back in the early 1970's I was living in Tuscaloosa, AL where the state
mental hospital, the VA mental facility and a hospital for the
criminally insane were located. This was the time when the government
ordered that a lot of people be released from mental institutions.
There were a lot of folks who were more than a bit la la wandering
around town. One of them wound up at a busy intersection directing
traffic during rush hour and business in the area were having to deal
with the slightly bonkers people wandering into their businesses plus
it caused a lot of extra work for law enforcement agencies. The whole
idea of letting those people out was nuts.

TDD

The Daring Dufas wrote:

Back in the early 1970's I was living in Tuscaloosa, AL where the
state mental hospital, the VA mental facility and a hospital for the
criminally insane were located. This was the time when the government
ordered that a lot of people be released from mental institutions.
There were a lot of folks who were more than a bit la la wandering
around town. One of them wound up at a busy intersection directing
traffic during rush hour and business in the area were having to deal
with the slightly bonkers people wandering into their businesses plus
it caused a lot of extra work for law enforcement agencies. The whole
idea of letting those people out was nuts.


Not just then.

My current squeeze is an intake clinician at a (small) mental health
hospital. She interviews from three to six patients a night, (some for the
twentieth time).

Here's the way it usually works: Someone swears to a judge (there's a form
for this) that the named individual is a threat to himself or others. The
judge signs a commitment warrant. The fool is then put away for up to three
days for evaluation. Almost always the person can be sufficiently zonked out
with medication so that the original reason for confinement no longer
exists.

He or she is then discharged or sent back to the group home.

Eventually the medicine wears off.

Rinse. Repeat.

-----

Advice:

If you're ever committed to a mental institution, be aware that you have the
opportunity at some point in the process to VOLUNTARILY admit yourself. If
you do, the original official involuntary commitment is voided.

Exact same outcome save one:

If involuntarily committed, you forever lose your right to own a firearm! If
you voluntarily enter the institution, there is no future restriction on gun
ownership.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...


Your point is well-taken, but you forget that individuals can be "rounded
up" and placed in detention/jail without being crimnals. Here are a few:
* Juveniles
* Those standing in civil contempt
* Infectious disease carriers
* Illegal aliens
* Those judeged, or felt to be, mentally incompetent
* Unlawful enemy combatants

Point is, one does not have to be a criminal - or charged with being a
criminal - to be jailed.

I'm sorry, I missed the category of belonging to a particular ethnic group,
did you forget to list that one? And since when are illegal aliens not
committing a crime? Nor are juveniles rounded up simply for being
juveniles, they have to be doing something like breaking curfew and then
they are turned over to their parents, not confined for years on end. Those
in contempt have been found by a judge to be disrespectful of a court's
authority--they have done something to justify being confined. Infectious
disease carriers pose a public health risk, the mentally incompetent are a
danger to themselves or others, unlawful combatants or POWs have engaged in
combat against U.S. forces--they have *done something* to justify being
confined. So what exactly did someone born to parents originally from Japan
do to justify being locked up in tarpaper shacks in the desert for several
years?

Oh, and I agree with you, but you are the one who brought up the argument
"How would you feel...?"

If you were properly convicted of a crime you had committed and were
imprisoned you'd feel bad but that is part of the point of sending people to
prison. However if you had not committed the crime the issue wouldn't be
your feelings, it would be the injustice. Americans of German or Italian
descent were locked up in WWII if they retained German or Italian
citizenship--hundreds of German-Americans returned to Germany to join the
military prior to America joining the war, and groups like the
German-American Bund openly supported Nazi goals, so there was some
legitimate cause for concern. But Americans of Japanese descent were locked
up simply because of where their parents came from rather than because of
their actions--that was an injustice.

DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...


Your point is well-taken, but you forget that individuals can be
"rounded up" and placed in detention/jail without being crimnals.
Here are a few: * Juveniles
* Those standing in civil contempt
* Infectious disease carriers
* Illegal aliens
* Those judeged, or felt to be, mentally incompetent
* Unlawful enemy combatants

Point is, one does not have to be a criminal - or charged with being
a criminal - to be jailed.

I'm sorry, I missed the category of belonging to a particular ethnic
group, did you forget to list that one? And since when are illegal
aliens not committing a crime?

Most illegal aliens are handled in the civil courts system.

Nor are juveniles rounded up simply
for being juveniles, they have to be doing something like breaking
curfew and then they are turned over to their parents, not confined
for years on end.

Four years ago, I think, two teen-agers broke into a boat shed in Maine
during the night. Their plan was to steal radios from some of the boats.
Part way through their escapade they noticed the security cameras.

Nothing for it but to burn the boat shed down!

Of course the recording apparatus was located nowhere near the shed and it
took the local cops about five minutes to identify the culprits.

One of the boys was seventeen and handled as an adult. He got a five year
probated sentence plus restitution.

The other boy was fifteen. The Secret Service nabbed him. Oh, did I neglect
to mention one of the destroyed boats was owned by George H.W. Bush? Anyway,
charged in federal court with "Terroristic Destruction" or some such, he was
ordered confined until he was twenty-one at the only maximum security
federal facility for juvenilies in Pennsylvania.

So, he will be locked up, with 250 other high-risk juveniles (mostly drunk
Indians), for six years.



Those in contempt have been found by a judge to be
disrespectful of a court's authority--they have done something to
justify being confined. Infectious disease carriers pose a public
health risk, the mentally incompetent are a danger to themselves or
others, unlawful combatants or POWs have engaged in combat against
U.S. forces--they have *done something* to justify being confined. So what
exactly did someone born to parents originally from Japan do
to justify being locked up in tarpaper shacks in the desert for
several years?


Your observation is spot-on. Since the early '60s, the Supreme Court has
knocked down almost all laws of "status." That is, it is no longer a crime
to "be" something (drug addict, prostitute, vagrant, etc.), you must DO
something. However, in 1942, laws regarding status were not uncommon.

However, all this does not mitigate the fact that you got exercised over
people being locked up without being judged guilty of a crime. I was simply
making the point that people CAN be locked up where no crime is involved.
And if there is no crime involved, those people are not entitled to the
constitutional protections afforded criminals (indictment by a grand jury,
legal representation, procurement of witnesses, right to remain silent, and
so forth).



Oh, and I agree with you, but you are the one who brought up the
argument "How would you feel...?"

If you were properly convicted of a crime you had committed and were
imprisoned you'd feel bad but that is part of the point of sending
people to prison. However if you had not committed the crime the
issue wouldn't be your feelings, it would be the injustice. Americans of
German or Italian descent were locked up in WWII if they
retained German or Italian citizenship--hundreds of German-Americans
returned to Germany to join the military prior to America joining the
war, and groups like the German-American Bund openly supported Nazi
goals, so there was some legitimate cause for concern. But Americans
of Japanese descent were locked up simply because of where their
parents came from rather than because of their actions--that was an
injustice.

Flash: The Americans of Japanese descent living in Hawaii were not locked up
(or at least not many).

I agree with you - there was certainly something wrong regarding the
treatment of the Japanese. But I still say how I or anybody else would
"feel" about ANY situation is irrelevant. Not only are "feelings"
irrelevant, they should NEVER be the touchstone regarding whether justice is
being served.

Secondly: There was no "injustice" in locking up the Japanese - at least not
in the legal sense. The president's executive order (# 9066) was issued in
February 1942. It remained on the books for over 30 years until it was
rescinded by President Ford in 1966. Executive Order 9066 was never
challenged in court.

On 7/16/2011 7:28 PM, HeyBub wrote:
(snip)
Secondly: There was no "injustice" in locking up the Japanese - at least not
in the legal sense. The president's executive order (# 9066) was issued in
February 1942. It remained on the books for over 30 years until it was
rescinded by President Ford in 1966. Executive Order 9066 was never
challenged in court.


Actually, yes it was, but SCOTUS rolled over and went along with the
racist politics of the time, as well as not wanting to challenge the
legitimacy of anything the military did. See Korematsu v. United
States (No. 22) 140 F.2d 289, affirmed.

Many echoes of that period show up in the debates about Gitmo. Funny how
blond and blue-eyed folk are seldom held without trial and locked up
without recourse, no matter what sins they are suspected of.

--
aem sends....

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...


Most illegal aliens are handled in the civil courts system.

I repeat, since when are illegal aliens not committing a crime?

Four years ago, I think, two teen-agers broke into a boat shed in Maine
during the night. Their plan was to steal radios from some of the boats.
Part way through their escapade they noticed the security cameras.

So they did something, they were not rounded up for being teenagers
(although I'm not necessarily against that).

Your observation is spot-on. Since the early '60s, the Supreme Court has
knocked down almost all laws of "status." That is, it is no longer a crime
to "be" something (drug addict, prostitute, vagrant, etc.), you must DO
something. However, in 1942, laws regarding status were not uncommon.

As I said, legal or not it was still wrong just as legal slavery was wrong.

However, all this does not mitigate the fact that you got exercised over
people being locked up without being judged guilty of a crime. I was
simply making the point that people CAN be locked up where no crime is
involved.

You are still missing the point, people locked up without committing a crime
are still being confined for a good reason, e.g. a deranged person who is a
danger to himself or others, and due process will be involved.

Flash: The Americans of Japanese descent living in Hawaii were not locked
up (or at least not many).

Ironic considering that the only case I know of where a Japanese-American
actually aided the enemy took place in the Hawaiian Islands.

I agree with you - there was certainly something wrong regarding the
treatment of the Japanese. But I still say how I or anybody else would
"feel" about ANY situation is irrelevant. Not only are "feelings"
irrelevant, they should NEVER be the touchstone regarding whether justice
is being served.

In trying to represent my case as focusing on how injustices make people
feel you are being somewhat disingenuous.

Secondly: There was no "injustice" in locking up the Japanese - at least
not in the legal sense. The president's executive order (# 9066) was
issued in February 1942. It remained on the books for over 30 years until
it was rescinded by President Ford in 1966. Executive Order 9066 was never
challenged in court.

Again, slavery was once legal--that did not make it right.

aemeijers wrote:
On 7/16/2011 7:28 PM, HeyBub wrote:
(snip)
Secondly: There was no "injustice" in locking up the Japanese - at
least not in the legal sense. The president's executive order (#
9066) was issued in February 1942. It remained on the books for over
30 years until it was rescinded by President Ford in 1966. Executive
Order 9066 was never challenged in court.


Actually, yes it was, but SCOTUS rolled over and went along with the
racist politics of the time, as well as not wanting to challenge the
legitimacy of anything the military did. See Korematsu v. United
States (No. 22) 140 F.2d 289, affirmed.

Ah, you're right! I completely forgot about Korematsu. Shows what relying on
memory instead of the internet will do.

Still, as Nixon said, "If the president orders it, it is legal" is the
foundation of Article II of the Constitution. As one appellate judge said:
"If the country doesn't like a decision of the president, he can be replaced
at the next election."


Many echoes of that period show up in the debates about Gitmo. Funny
how blond and blue-eyed folk are seldom held without trial and locked
up without recourse, no matter what sins they are suspected of.

Racist! You're implying that non-Aryans are the source of all evil!

DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...


Most illegal aliens are handled in the civil courts system.

I repeat, since when are illegal aliens not committing a crime?

When they are handled by the civil courts or administrative magistrates.
Ninety-nine percent of illegal immigrants are handled civilly. They are NOT
criminals, they are NOT charged with a crime.


Four years ago, I think, two teen-agers broke into a boat shed in
Maine during the night. Their plan was to steal radios from some of
the boats. Part way through their escapade they noticed the security
cameras.

So they did something, they were not rounded up for being teenagers
(although I'm not necessarily against that).

Yes. I was responding your your assertion that juveniles are not locked up,
but are counseled and returned to the loving arms of their parents. I spent
five years as a deputy sheriff in the Juvenile Division and can tell you
that, for sure, some juveniles are locked up and the key thrown away.


Your observation is spot-on. Since the early '60s, the Supreme Court
has knocked down almost all laws of "status." That is, it is no
longer a crime to "be" something (drug addict, prostitute, vagrant,
etc.), you must DO something. However, in 1942, laws regarding
status were not uncommon.

As I said, legal or not it was still wrong just as legal slavery was
wrong.
However, all this does not mitigate the fact that you got exercised
over people being locked up without being judged guilty of a crime.
I was simply making the point that people CAN be locked up where no
crime is involved.

You are still missing the point, people locked up without committing
a crime are still being confined for a good reason, e.g. a deranged
person who is a danger to himself or others, and due process will be
involved.

I'm not missing the point. I concur those locked up did something wrong. I
was responding to " In the end either everyone has the same rights or
nobody's rights are safe."

Not so. Criminals have MORE rights that juveniles, infectious disease
carriers, those guilty of civil contempt, etc. Specifically, CRIMINALS (but
not others), are constitutionally guaranteed a lawyer, indictment by a grand
jury, compulsory process for obtaining witnesses, and the right to remain
silent. These "rights" are NOT constitutionally available to the mentally
handicapped, unlawful enemy combatants, and others.

Flash: The Americans of Japanese descent living in Hawaii were not
locked up (or at least not many).

Ironic considering that the only case I know of where a
Japanese-American actually aided the enemy took place in the Hawaiian
Islands.
I agree with you - there was certainly something wrong regarding the
treatment of the Japanese. But I still say how I or anybody else
would "feel" about ANY situation is irrelevant. Not only are
"feelings" irrelevant, they should NEVER be the touchstone regarding
whether justice is being served.

In trying to represent my case as focusing on how injustices make
people feel you are being somewhat disingenuous.

You were the one who brought up the notion of "How would you feel..." I'm
just pointing out that should not even be on the list of reasons for judging
a law's worth.


Secondly: There was no "injustice" in locking up the Japanese - at
least not in the legal sense. The president's executive order (#
9066) was issued in February 1942. It remained on the books for over
30 years until it was rescinded by President Ford in 1966. Executive
Order 9066 was never challenged in court.

Again, slavery was once legal--that did not make it right.

And again, I agree. I am contesting your claim of "injustice," not moral
exactitude.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...

I repeat, since when are illegal aliens not committing a crime?

When they are handled by the civil courts or administrative magistrates.
Ninety-nine percent of illegal immigrants are handled civilly. They are
NOT criminals, they are NOT charged with a crime.

I didn't ask how the state chooses to handle their cases, I asked since when
it is not a crime to be in the county illegally. If your landscaper cuts
your head off with a Weed Whacker they might decide not to prosecute him
because he's mentally incompetent to stand trial, but that doesn't mean
killing you wasn't a crime.

So they did something, they were not rounded up for being teenagers
(although I'm not necessarily against that).

Yes. I was responding your your assertion that juveniles are not locked
up, but are counseled and returned to the loving arms of their parents.
I spent five years as a deputy sheriff in the Juvenile Division and can
tell you that, for sure, some juveniles are locked up and the key thrown
away.

For violating curfew? The only obvious example of teens being "rounded up"
I could think of was curfew violations for which the cops will sometimes do
sweeps in particular areas, that's why I singled it out.

I'm not missing the point. I concur those locked up did something wrong. I
was responding to " In the end either everyone has the same rights or
nobody's rights are safe."

Actually you are still missing the point, as the law requires that everyone
in the same situation has the same rights, not that people in wildly
different situations have the same rights. That's why a student wearing an
offensive t-shirt to school can be sent home without first getting legal
counsel etc., it isn't a criminal matter so the students doesn't have the
same rights as someone charged with a crime. However there would be a valid
legal challenge if it could be shown that not all students were treated the
same in the same situation. See the difference? Your argument that a crazy
person picked up by the cops doesn't have the right to remain silent (and
thus that equality before the law is meaningless) is irrelevant since he
isn't being prosecuted for a crime, the point is that everyone charged with
a crime has the same right to remain silent. You are comparing apples to
oranges.

DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...

I repeat, since when are illegal aliens not committing a crime?

When they are handled by the civil courts or administrative
magistrates. Ninety-nine percent of illegal immigrants are handled
civilly. They are NOT criminals, they are NOT charged with a crime.

I didn't ask how the state chooses to handle their cases, I asked
since when it is not a crime to be in the county illegally. If your
landscaper cuts your head off with a Weed Whacker they might decide
not to prosecute him because he's mentally incompetent to stand
trial, but that doesn't mean killing you wasn't a crime.



It is NOT a crime to be in the U.S. without the country's permission, i.e.,
a proper visa. The only "penalty" for such a situation is expulsion, which
is handled civilly. CRIMINAL charges against "illegal" aliens are brought
when some other aggravating circumstance exists, such as transporting
narcotics.



Yes. I was responding your your assertion that juveniles are not
locked up, but are counseled and returned to the loving arms of
their parents. I spent five years as a deputy sheriff in the
Juvenile Division and can tell you that, for sure, some juveniles
are locked up and the key thrown away.

For violating curfew? The only obvious example of teens being
"rounded up" I could think of was curfew violations for which the
cops will sometimes do sweeps in particular areas, that's why I
singled it out.

Who said anything about "rounded up?" I've busted teen-agers for murder,
armed robbery, burglary, car theft, and the entire gamut of crimes visited
upon adults. These little snowflakes are put away.

I'm not missing the point. I concur those locked up did something
wrong. I was responding to " In the end either everyone has the same
rights or nobody's rights are safe."

Actually you are still missing the point, as the law requires that
everyone in the same situation has the same rights, not that people
in wildly different situations have the same rights. That's why a
student wearing an offensive t-shirt to school can be sent home
without first getting legal counsel etc., it isn't a criminal matter
so the students doesn't have the same rights as someone charged with
a crime. However there would be a valid legal challenge if it could
be shown that not all students were treated the same in the same
situation. See the difference? Your argument that a crazy person
picked up by the cops doesn't have the right to remain silent (and
thus that equality before the law is meaningless) is irrelevant since
he isn't being prosecuted for a crime, the point is that everyone
charged with a crime has the same right to remain silent. You are
comparing apples to oranges.

Oh, fudge! Change the goalposts, why don't you? You were the one who said
"In the end either everyone has the same rights or nobody's rights are
safe."

All I'm pointing out is that not everyone has the same rights, even though
the consequences might be the same (locked away for the duration plus six
months or something similar).

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...

It is NOT a crime to be in the U.S. without the country's permission,
i.e., a proper visa. The only "penalty" for such a situation is expulsion,
which is handled civilly. CRIMINAL charges against "illegal" aliens are
brought when some other aggravating circumstance exists, such as
transporting narcotics.

Oh, really?

Then why do The U.S. Sentencing Guidelines list a variety of sentences that
can be imposed for various forms of Unlawfully Entering Or Remaining In The
United States? Committing felonies rapidly adds to the sentences available,
but it remains that being in the country illegally is an offense in itself.
That the nation often chooses to deport rather than add to the prison
population doesn't mean there is no offense.

Who said anything about "rounded up?"

I first used the phrase in reference to Japanese-Americans during WWII. You
then repeated the phrase:

"Your point is well-taken, but you forget that individuals can be "rounded
up" and placed in detention/jail without being crimnals. Here are a few:
* Juveniles"

So if you didn't mean "rounded up" then your choice of words was poor.

I've busted teen-agers for murder, armed robbery, burglary, car theft, and
the entire gamut of crimes visited upon adults. These little snowflakes
are put away.

Which brings us back to Japanese-Americans who were not individually
arrested for specific crimes, but because of who their parents were. Can
you describe any cases in which you arrested underage American citizens for
the offense of being the children of someone unpopular?

Oh, fudge! Change the goalposts, why don't you? You were the one who said
"In the end either everyone has the same rights or nobody's rights are
safe."

Oh get real, nobody not suffering oxygen deprivation thought I meant that
someone with an overdue library book has the same set of rights as someone
accused of murder.

All I'm pointing out is that not everyone has the same rights, even though
the consequences might be the same (locked away for the duration plus six
months or something similar).

Everyone does have the same rights, i.e. everyone picked up by the cops for
a 72 hour psych eval has the same rights, everyone accused of murder has the
same rights to remain silent etc., everyone entering the juvenile justice
system has the same rights and so on. Nobody claimed that juveniles have
the same rights as adults, obviously a ten-year-old can't vote but that is
because the law sets the age at which citizens can vote and everyone of that
age has the same right unless they have lost it via due process. But all
citizens have the same right to vote subject to the same conditions, that is
the equality the law demands. Yet the law would not allow citizens of
Japanese ancestry to be denied the right to vote based on their
heritage--see the difference?

In article ,
Suga Moto Soy copied and pasted more horse****:


snip

Off ****ing topic, ****wad. Take it somewhere else.

I did but your wife told me to post it here,since you spend so much
time in your garage sorrounded by your cheap HF tools.Get a life teabagger go
play with your guns.Wow, what a douche. I think you might have small dick
syndrome. l-) l-)
What about this bambi killer,in Texas kills five,what do do you say
to that paranoid coward
GRAND PRAIRIE, Texas (AP) €” A gunman opened fire at a child's birthday
celebration at a Texas roller rink, killing five people, wounding four
others and then killing himself as the private party turned to panic
and some fled screaming in their skates, police and witnesses say.

What says you,NRA activists?

YUMA (Arizona) - A man embittered by a divorce case shot dead five people
including a lawyer and family members in Arizona before killing himself.

Carey Dyess, 73, shot dead a woman, whose body was found in a yard, before
driving a rented car to various locations to kill three more people on
Thursday.

He then drove to the central area of the city of Yuma, where he shot dead a
lawyer at his office, before driving out of the town and turning the gun on
himself.

Police said the lawyer, Mr Jerrold Shelley, had represented the gunman's
ex-wife in their divorce. Some of the other victims were friends and
relatives of the gunman, according to Mr Alan Krieger, Mayor of the city.

A judge issued an order of protection against Dyess in 2006 which a court
clerk said stemmed from his wife divorcing him.

Mr Krieger said the gunman's motive was not entirely clear but that he was
believed to be upset over the divorce case.

and Now this,lock these paranoid cowards up.
GRAND PRAIRIE, Texas (AP) €” A gunman opened fire at a child's
birthday celebration at a Texas roller rink, killing five people,
wounding four others and then killing himself as the private party
turned to panic and some fled screaming in their skates, police and
witnesses say.

Darn shame the party goers were unarmed.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


GRAND PRAIRIE, Texas (AP) ?" A gunman opened fire at a
child's
birthday celebration at a Texas roller rink, killing five
people,
wounding four others and then killing himself as the private
party
turned to panic and some fled screaming in their skates,
police and
witnesses say.

Darn shame, that all those people were unarmed.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..



YUMA (Arizona) - A man embittered by a divorce case shot
dead five people
including a lawyer and family members in Arizona before
killing himself.

Carey Dyess, 73, shot dead a woman, whose body was found
in a yard, before
driving a rented car to various locations to kill three
more people on
Thursday.

He then drove to the central area of the city of Yuma,
where he shot dead a
lawyer at his office, before driving out of the town and
turning the gun on
himself.

Police said the lawyer, Mr Jerrold Shelley, had
represented the gunman's
ex-wife in their divorce. Some of the other victims were
friends and
relatives of the gunman, according to Mr Alan Krieger,
Mayor of the city.

A judge issued an order of protection against Dyess in
2006 which a court
clerk said stemmed from his wife divorcing him.

Mr Krieger said the gunman's motive was not entirely clear
but that he was
believed to be upset over the divorce case.

On Jul 24, 2:49*pm, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
Darn shame the party goers were unarmed.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
*www.lds.org
.

* GRAND PRAIRIE, Texas (AP) ?" A gunman opened fire at a
child's
birthday celebration at a Texas roller rink, killing five
people,
wounding four others and then killing himself as the private
party
turned to panic and some fled screaming in their skates,
police and
witnesses say.

Yeah. Could have had fifty killed if they had been. I hope they were
all Mormons.

On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 12:29:02 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:

On Jul 24, 2:49*pm, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
Darn shame the party goers were unarmed.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
*www.lds.org
.

* GRAND PRAIRIE, Texas (AP) ?" A gunman opened fire at a
child's
birthday celebration at a Texas roller rink, killing five
people,
wounding four others and then killing himself as the private
party
turned to panic and some fled screaming in their skates,
police and
witnesses say.

Yeah. Could have had fifty killed if they had been. I hope they were
all Mormons.

You mean like that bastion of gun-lovers, Norway?

" wrote in
:

On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 12:29:02 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

On Jul 24, 2:49*pm, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
Darn shame the party goers were unarmed.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
*www.lds.org
.

* GRAND PRAIRIE, Texas (AP) ?" A gunman opened fire at a
child's
birthday celebration at a Texas roller rink, killing five
people,
wounding four others and then killing himself as the private
party
turned to panic and some fled screaming in their skates,
police and
witnesses say.

A similar incident just happened yesterday in the Orlando area,in a black
neighborhood,at a teen's birthday party.


Yeah. Could have had fifty killed if they had been. I hope they were
all Mormons.

You mean like that bastion of gun-lovers, Norway?


FYI,Wikipedia has a fairly informative page on the Oslo attacks.
good detail.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

On Jul 24, 2:29*pm, harry wrote:

snip

Yeah. Could have had fifty killed if they had been. I hope they were
all Mormons.

My, my...
I used to believe that Brits were an enlightened and civilized
society.

Joe

Joe wrote:
On Jul 24, 2:29 pm, harry wrote:

snip

Yeah. Could have had fifty killed if they had been. I hope they were
all Mormons.

My, my...
I used to believe that Brits were an enlightened and civilized
society.

Joe
I dont know about the society, but a lot of them
people are.(civilized,friendly).