In article ,
Dave Hinz wrote:

On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 14:42:44 GMT, Johan wrote:
In article ,
Dave Hinz wrote:

On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 23:26:35 GMT, Johan wrote:

I still like the idea of old-fashioned outlawry: Refuse to obey the law,
forfeit its protection as well.

Where're a few good Norsemen when you need 'em? Not a Thing to be had
anywhere!

Yes; my Viking ancestors would be disgusted at what we've done to their
"jury of 12 peers" concept.

Yea, verily!
And you didn't even groan at the Thing thing.

Nope, it was an accurate use of the word. If you meant humor as well,
I missed it, sorry to say.

Well, it's a pretty poor pun -- especially to someone who does know the
correct usage like yourself.


Dave

I missed the staff meeting but the minutes show Gunner
wrote back on Fri, 04 Mar 2005 06:00:00 GMT
in rec.crafts.metalworking :

I still like the idea of old-fashioned outlawry: Refuse to obey the law,
forfeit its protection as well.

Not a prayer of it happening in contemporary USA though.

Where're a few good Norsemen when you need 'em? Not a Thing to be had
anywhere!

Indeed. Buy Madagascar or someplace similar and simply turning the
convicts loose to fend for themselves, along with tools, concret and
whatnot, would cost us little money, take a hell of a load off the
taxpayers and be humane.

Better yet, get a small island somewhere. Issue them a tent, some
fishing gear, and a rifle with a few rounds. They just can't leave the
island for a set period of time.

This was the tribal form of "banishment", meted out in a tribal court
to two young delinquents, which was rather popular with the liberal press,
till someone figured out this could mean a slow death by starvation.
What ever happened to "diversity" and "respecting other's cultural
heritage"?

tschus
pyotr


--
pyotr filipivich.
as an explaination for the decline in the US's tech edge, James
Niccol wrote "It used to be that the USA was pretty good at
producing stuff teenaged boys could lose a finger or two playing with."

In article , pyotr filipivich
says...

What ever happened to "diversity" and "respecting other's cultural
heritage"?

Outlawed by neocons.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article ,
pyotr filipivich wrote:


What ever happened to "diversity" and "respecting other's cultural
heritage"?

Pardon my being totally "un-PC" (Or don't... see if I actually care...)
but as far as I see it, it's really quite simple:

You're in America now. Be an American. I don't give a damn about your
"cultural heritage". I care even less about "diversity". You're an
American now. Be one, or get the **** out! Learn the language we use
here (Most call it english, although I'd say that's only just barely
true anymore, what with the rise of "ebonics") and use it - both spoken
and written. Learn new "traditions" - the traditions of the country that
is now your home. If you want "the old country" and "the old
traditions", then go back to wherever "the old country" happens to be,
and we can all be happy. Otherwise, don't be at all surprised when
somebody gets ****ed off enough at you and your brand of whatever-it-is
to take action, perhaps violent, perhaps legal, perhaps a combination of
both, to make you stop inflicting your so-called "culture" on them..

--
Don Bruder - - New Email policy in effect as of Feb. 21, 2004.
Short form: I'm trashing EVERY E-mail that doesn't contain a password in the
subject unless it comes from a "whitelisted" (pre-approved by me) address.
See http://www.sonic.net/~dakidd/main/contact.html for full details.

On 4 Mar 2005 17:57:35 -0800, jim rozen wrote:
In article , pyotr filipivich
says...

What ever happened to "diversity" and "respecting other's cultural
heritage"?

Outlawed by neocons.

You know, Jim, we get along real well except when throwing labels like
this around. What the heck is a neocon anyway? I only see it as an
implied insult. But, if it means people on the right side of the aisle,
I don't think your assessment is fair. I am very interested in learning
about other cultures, and I don't care what someone else's religion
or preferences are, yet I'm on the right side of the aisle. Am I doing
it wrong, or maybe could you be overgeneralizing?

Dave "Mmmmmm, Belgian double abbey ale..." Hinz

In article ,
says...
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 14:00:49 -0500, Ned Simmons wrote:
In article ,


and if you're old enough to murder
someone you're damn well old enough to suffer the consequences.

6-1/2 years?

Can you show me a case where a 6 1/2 year old has been convicted of
murder and sentenced to death?

No, but if as you say above, the crime should determine the
penalty then we should ignore age entirely when sentencing
and 6 year olds are fair game.

Red herring. If you're convicted of murder, that means a specific set of
circumstances has happened. If, because of age, a murder conviction isn't
appropriate, it won't happen. So, my question stands.

Since the Supreme Court has previously ruled that murders committed
under the age of sixteen are not subject to the death penalty, your
question is moot-of course there have been no executions of 6 year olds.

Which is why your point is a red-herring, yes.

You're giving me way too much credit, Dave. I couldn't have
intentionally come up with something as distracting as that bit of
hyperbole apparently is to you. You've made a red herring of it by
fixating on it to the exclusion of the real issues.


You objected to the Court raising the age from 16 to 18,

Actually someone else brought that up here.

Really? So you agree with the Court's decision? Or are you just being
coy again?



If it's a murder conviction, it's appropriate. If it's a six year old, they
aren't being convicted of murder. I see no contradiction here.

If you do believe it's appropriate, then we're only arguing
about where to draw the line, and you've given no reasons for your
objection to the Court's action.

The line is - if the court that tries the case calls it murder, it's
murder, regardless of the age of the offender.

If you don't think age restrictions are
called for at all, and prefer to rely on the judgement of a jury in all
cases, then you need to be prepared for very young offenders to face the
death penalty. I'm not saying that's an illogical position, but if that
is your opinion, we're having the wrong conversation.

If there were any cases where your hypothetical 6 year old was convicted
of murder, we'd have something to discuss. But, it's the equivalent of
claiming that you plant a certain kind of tree, to keep elephants out of
your yard - sure, no elephants, but if you live in Alaska, have you
really accomplished anything? OK, that analogy sucked worse than most,
but what I'm saying is, we're arguing a non-point over a non-event.
Six year olds haven't been convicted of murder and executed.

Do you believe that minor children cannot be convicted of murder? That
just isn't so. If you have information to the contrary I'd love to see
it.


How about Lee Malvo? Do you think he was guilty of murder, and so you
think that he should be exempt from the penalty because he wasn't 18
when he did it?

Legally speaking, I believe he's guilty of murder and is exempted from
the death penalty by the Court's ruling. Personally, I think that's
reasonable. Reasonable people may disagree-see Justice OConnor's
dissent.

Ned Simmons

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On 4 Mar 2005 17:57:35 -0800, jim rozen wrote:
In article , pyotr
filipivich
says...

What ever happened to "diversity" and "respecting other's cultural
heritage"?

Outlawed by neocons.

You know, Jim, we get along real well except when throwing labels like
this around. What the heck is a neocon anyway? I only see it as an
implied insult. But, if it means people on the right side of the aisle,
I don't think your assessment is fair. I am very interested in learning
about other cultures, and I don't care what someone else's religion
or preferences are, yet I'm on the right side of the aisle. Am I doing
it wrong, or maybe could you be overgeneralizing?

If you're asking seriously what a "neocon" (neoconservative) is, it has a
specific meaning in the history of socio-political ideas, but it's grown to
cover a lot of territory.

People whose job it is to define and teach these things even give it a
specific time and attach the ideas to specific people: 1967, Norman
Podhoretz and Irving Kristol. The date is relevant because the negative
reaction on the part of these two, and of others who wrote at the time for
_Commentary_ magazine, to the US's equivocal reaction to the 1967
Arab-Israeli War was considered the precipitating event for the organization
of neoconservative ideas.

The neocon position that makes the term a pejorative to liberals,
libertarians, and traditional, mainstream conservatives alike is their
aggressive, militarist foreign policy. George W. Bush was still a
conservative when he said he was opposed to "nation building." Traditional
conservatives are moderately isolationist. After 9/11, he progressively
adopted neocon ideas, including the original one, which was to re-make the
Middle East in a western-democracy mold.

Everyone who's written definitions has a particular ax to grind, and focuses
on specific aspects of the evolution of neocon thought. So this is one of
the rare times that Wikepedia's democratic approach to defining things may
be the best way to explain it. You can find it he

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_(United_States)

The way they describe it won't make anyone who studies politics completely
happy, but it's probably as good as you'll find, among succinct definitions.

FWIW, I don't agree with Jim that neocons oppose diversity or respecting
others' heritage. That's the paleos, many of whom are members of the
religious right, but the term just refers to the old authoritarian strain of
American conservatism (not the mainstream of conservatism, but the old
*right*). They're the ones who oppose immigration from anywhere but Western
Europe, and who have a fit whenever they see a public sign written in
Spanish. g

The taxonomy of the American Left has become really boring and depressing.
The taxonomy of the American Right is getting very interesting. It's like
growing mushrooms: new ones crop up overnight. And with a few exceptions,
they're all conflicted hybrids, like Gunner with his "Republitarianism."

--
Ed Huntress

In article ,
says...
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 14:04:00 -0500, Ned Simmons
wrote:

In article ,
says...


One should further note..that murder has the lowest repeat rate of any
criminal behavior. Most murders are done in a "moment of passion" and
the repeat rate is nearly zero. We are not talking about gang members
or serial nut cases here.


In effect you're agreeing with court here. If you read the decision, one
point that's made is the the impulsive nature and poor judgement of
teens as a mitigating factor.

Ned Simmons

No..Im not stating my position on it one way or another except to say
Im not a fan of Capital punishment. I did want to set the record
straight however about the effects of the new ruling.


I didn't mean to imply you agree with the ruling. What I was saying is
that your theory that most murders are committed impulsively fits with
what seems to me to be one of the major arguments the Court considered
in making it's decision, i.e., that teenagers are impulsive by nature.

Ned Simmons

On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 23:40:01 -0500, the inscrutable Ned Simmons
spake:

I didn't mean to imply you agree with the ruling. What I was saying is
that your theory that most murders are committed impulsively fits with
what seems to me to be one of the major arguments the Court considered
in making it's decision, i.e., that teenagers are impulsive by nature.

I just wish it had been a 5:4 split the OTHER direction. There have
been just 22 cases since '76 where the teens have done something so
nasty they were tried as adults and given the death penalty. States
attorneys had fought for that because of the potential problem.
Look for a rise in extreme violent crime from youths now.

BTW, people, not just teens, are impulsive by nature. I wish those
5 Supremes (or at least one) realized that.


================================================== ========
Save the ||| http://diversify.com
Endangered SKEETS! ||| Web Application Programming
================================================== ========

In article , Ed Huntress says...

If you're asking seriously what a "neocon" (neoconservative) is, it has a
specific meaning in the history of socio-political ideas, but it's grown to
cover a lot of territory.

People whose job it is to define and teach these things even give it a
specific time and attach the ideas to specific people: 1967, Norman
Podhoretz and Irving Kristol. The date is relevant because the negative
reaction on the part of these two, and of others who wrote at the time for
_Commentary_ magazine, to the US's equivocal reaction to the 1967
Arab-Israeli War was considered the precipitating event for the organization
of neoconservative ideas.

I was thinking of, say, Wolfowitz.

The neocon position that makes the term a pejorative to liberals,
libertarians, and traditional, mainstream conservatives alike is their
aggressive, militarist foreign policy.

Umm. Yes.

FWIW, I don't agree with Jim that neocons oppose diversity or respecting
others' heritage. ....

The aggressive foreign policy seems to me to be at odds with
the 'respecting heritage' catagory there.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

You're in America now. Be an American. I don't give a damn about your
"cultural heritage". I care even less about "diversity". You're an
American now. Be one, or get the **** out!

....If the Ghost Dance had worked, You'd be gone.

In article , Larry Jaques says...

I just wish it had been a 5:4 split the OTHER direction.

Then try getting some justices appointed to the court besides
those done by right-wingers. Because 7 or the 9 were appointed
by republicans.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 23:40:01 -0500, the inscrutable Ned Simmons
spake:

I didn't mean to imply you agree with the ruling. What I was saying is
that your theory that most murders are committed impulsively fits with
what seems to me to be one of the major arguments the Court considered
in making it's decision, i.e., that teenagers are impulsive by nature.

I just wish it had been a 5:4 split the OTHER direction. There have
been just 22 cases since '76 where the teens have done something so
nasty they were tried as adults and given the death penalty. States
attorneys had fought for that because of the potential problem.
Look for a rise in extreme violent crime from youths now.

There's no clear evidence either way of a correlation between the death
penalty and murder rates, Larry. In fact, the states that use the death
penalty tend to have high murder rates, but there are too many uncontrolled
variables to draw a conclusion about it.


BTW, people, not just teens, are impulsive by nature. I wish those
5 Supremes (or at least one) realized that.

I think they realize it. They also realize that every country in the world
except for the US and Somalia realize that younger murderers are less
capable of judging the significance of what they've done. Somalia has a
better excuse.

--
Ed Huntress

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Ed Huntress says...

If you're asking seriously what a "neocon" (neoconservative) is, it has a
specific meaning in the history of socio-political ideas, but it's grown
to
cover a lot of territory.

People whose job it is to define and teach these things even give it a
specific time and attach the ideas to specific people: 1967, Norman
Podhoretz and Irving Kristol. The date is relevant because the negative
reaction on the part of these two, and of others who wrote at the time
for
_Commentary_ magazine, to the US's equivocal reaction to the 1967
Arab-Israeli War was considered the precipitating event for the
organization
of neoconservative ideas.

I was thinking of, say, Wolfowitz.

He's a bull-goose neocon, all right. He was a student of Strauss, and
apparently was in awe of him.


The neocon position that makes the term a pejorative to liberals,
libertarians, and traditional, mainstream conservatives alike is their
aggressive, militarist foreign policy.

Umm. Yes.

FWIW, I don't agree with Jim that neocons oppose diversity or respecting
others' heritage. ....

The aggressive foreign policy seems to me to be at odds with
the 'respecting heritage' catagory there.

Ok, if you see a connection. I think it's a pretty remote one. Neocons are
not necessarily conservative on social or fiscal issues. At least, that's
the way the pur sang neocons are supposed to think. But the real neocons are
all mutts to some degree. You're as unlikely today to find a pure-blood
neocon as you are to find a pure-blood libertarian.

--
Ed Huntress

I missed the staff meeting but the minutes show jim rozen
wrote back on 4 Mar 2005 17:57:35 -0800 in
rec.crafts.metalworking :
In article , pyotr filipivich
says...

What ever happened to "diversity" and "respecting other's cultural
heritage"?

Outlawed by neocons.

Good googley moogly, when did they accomplish that? Here I thought
that the various transgenedered groups were "progressive", but they're
really neocons?
Amazing. And the various Speech Codes on campuses were implemented by
them too?

Hillary is right - there really is a vast right wing conspiracy. And
it is run by the Jews too. Farm out, man. This must be progress, the Jews
have gone from being the boogieman of the Right, to being the Boogieman of
the left.

Totally weird.

And still, what one group is still open to public mockery and disdain?
White Christian men. Why is that? Is there no tolerance for cultural
heritage and religious sensibilities of others? Or only for certain
selected designated victim groups?
--
pyotr filipivich.
as an explaination for the decline in the US's tech edge, James
Niccol wrote "It used to be that the USA was pretty good at
producing stuff teenaged boys could lose a finger or two playing with."

I missed the staff meeting but the minutes show Don Bruder
wrote back on Sat, 05 Mar 2005 03:13:05 GMT in
rec.crafts.metalworking :
In article ,
pyotr filipivich wrote:


What ever happened to "diversity" and "respecting other's cultural
heritage"?

Pardon my being totally "un-PC" (Or don't... see if I actually care...)
but as far as I see it, it's really quite simple:

You're in America now. Be an American. I don't give a damn about your
"cultural heritage". I care even less about "diversity". You're an
American now. Be one, or get the **** out! Learn the language we use
here (Most call it english, although I'd say that's only just barely
true anymore, what with the rise of "ebonics") and use it - both spoken
and written. Learn new "traditions" - the traditions of the country that
is now your home. If you want "the old country" and "the old
traditions", then go back to wherever "the old country" happens to be,
and we can all be happy. Otherwise, don't be at all surprised when
somebody gets ****ed off enough at you and your brand of whatever-it-is
to take action, perhaps violent, perhaps legal, perhaps a combination of
both, to make you stop inflicting your so-called "culture" on them..

Hmmm, so then it is perfectly acceptable to denounce as "insensitive"
someone who says that women can have it all, career, home life and
children?
--
pyotr filipivich.
as an explaination for the decline in the US's tech edge, James
Niccol wrote "It used to be that the USA was pretty good at
producing stuff teenaged boys could lose a finger or two playing with."

On 5 Mar 2005 08:42:11 -0800, the inscrutable jim rozen
spake:

In article , Larry Jaques says...

I just wish it had been a 5:4 split the OTHER direction.

Then try getting some justices appointed to the court besides
those done by right-wingers. Because 7 or the 9 were appointed
by republicans.

I'd consider that a liberal ruling vs. a conservative one. Pass.


================================================== ========
Save the ||| http://diversify.com
Endangered SKEETS! ||| Web Application Programming
================================================== ========

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Ed Huntress says...

Ok, if you see a connection. I think it's a pretty remote one. Neocons
are
not necessarily conservative on social or fiscal issues. At least, that's
the way the pur sang neocons are supposed to think. But the real neocons
are
all mutts to some degree. You're as unlikely today to find a pure-blood
neocon as you are to find a pure-blood libertarian.

But wait, isn't Gunner.....

....a cross between a golden retriever and a bulldog.

--
Ed Huntress

On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 23:24:46 -0500, Ned Simmons wrote:
In article ,
says...
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 14:00:49 -0500, Ned Simmons wrote:
In article ,

Which is why your point is a red-herring, yes.

You're giving me way too much credit, Dave. I couldn't have
intentionally come up with something as distracting as that bit of
hyperbole apparently is to you. You've made a red herring of it by
fixating on it to the exclusion of the real issues.

YOU are the one who brought up 6 year olds, Ned, not me. I point
out that it's not relevant, and now _I_ am the one fixating on
something you brought up? C'mon, you can do better than that.

You objected to the Court raising the age from 16 to 18,

Actually someone else brought that up here.

Really? So you agree with the Court's decision? Or are you just being
coy again?

You say "you objected to the...", when I have not objected to that
specific point here. Your statement was wrong. My position
is consistant, that the conviction should dictate the punishment,
regardless of age.

If it's a murder conviction, it's appropriate. If it's a six year old, they
aren't being convicted of murder. I see no contradiction here.

Absence of response to key point noted.

If you do believe it's appropriate, then we're only arguing
about where to draw the line, and you've given no reasons for your
objection to the Court's action.

The line is - if the court that tries the case calls it murder, it's
murder, regardless of the age of the offender.

And again.

If there were any cases where your hypothetical 6 year old was convicted
of murder, we'd have something to discuss. But, it's the equivalent of
claiming that you plant a certain kind of tree, to keep elephants out of
your yard - sure, no elephants, but if you live in Alaska, have you
really accomplished anything? OK, that analogy sucked worse than most,
but what I'm saying is, we're arguing a non-point over a non-event.
Six year olds haven't been convicted of murder and executed.

Do you believe that minor children cannot be convicted of murder? That
just isn't so.

Don't try to speak for me, Ned, you're barely capable of speaking for
yourself. Now you're twisting "6 year olds" into "minor children"?
Amazing.

If you have information to the contrary I'd love to see
it.

Your red herring, _you_ address it. Or not.

How about Lee Malvo? Do you think he was guilty of murder, and so you
think that he should be exempt from the penalty because he wasn't 18
when he did it?

Legally speaking, I believe he's guilty of murder and is exempted from
the death penalty by the Court's ruling. Personally, I think that's
reasonable. Reasonable people may disagree-see Justice OConnor's
dissent.

Me, I think he should be executed. I'd be honored to do it, given
the chance. By refusing to punish him as the laws were when he
did the crime and was convicted, the SCOTUS is cheapening all those
deaths. That's offensive.

In article ,
says...
On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 23:24:46 -0500, Ned Simmons wrote:
In article ,
says...
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 14:00:49 -0500, Ned Simmons wrote:
In article ,

Which is why your point is a red-herring, yes.

You're giving me way too much credit, Dave. I couldn't have
intentionally come up with something as distracting as that bit of
hyperbole apparently is to you. You've made a red herring of it by
fixating on it to the exclusion of the real issues.

YOU are the one who brought up 6 year olds, Ned, not me. I point
out that it's not relevant, and now _I_ am the one fixating on
something you brought up?

Well it's not me that keeps harping on it. So far I've agreed with you
that no six-year-olds have been executed, and then admitted to stooping
to the use of gasp hyperbole. What's next, scourging? (Oh no, more
hyperbole.) If it's not relevant, don't continue to be distracted by it.

C'mon, you can do better than that.

Not unless you give me something better to work with.


You objected to the Court raising the age from 16 to 18,

Actually someone else brought that up here.

Really? So you agree with the Court's decision? Or are you just being
coy again?

You say "you objected to the...", when I have not objected to that
specific point here. Your statement was wrong. My position
is consistant, that the conviction should dictate the punishment,
regardless of age.

Yes, tediously, mind-numbingly consistent. I'm sure everybody gets it.


If it's a murder conviction, it's appropriate. If it's a six year old, they
aren't being convicted of murder. I see no contradiction here.

Absence of response to key point noted.

Not relevant. Remember?


If you do believe it's appropriate, then we're only arguing
about where to draw the line, and you've given no reasons for your
objection to the Court's action.

The line is - if the court that tries the case calls it murder, it's
murder, regardless of the age of the offender.

And again.

If there were any cases where your hypothetical 6 year old was convicted
of murder, we'd have something to discuss. But, it's the equivalent of
claiming that you plant a certain kind of tree, to keep elephants out of
your yard - sure, no elephants, but if you live in Alaska, have you
really accomplished anything? OK, that analogy sucked worse than most,
but what I'm saying is, we're arguing a non-point over a non-event.
Six year olds haven't been convicted of murder and executed.

Do you believe that minor children cannot be convicted of murder? That
just isn't so.

Don't try to speak for me, Ned, you're barely capable of speaking for
yourself. Now you're twisting "6 year olds" into "minor children"?
Amazing.

If you have information to the contrary I'd love to see
it.

Sing along with the chorus now..

Your red herring, _you_ address it. Or not.

I choose, umm, ummm...not! See ya.

Ned Simmons

In article , Ed Huntress says...

But wait, isn't Gunner.....

...a cross between a golden retriever and a bulldog.

Seriously, I think he's probably as good a representation
of a 'libertarian' as one can find. I forget if that's
small l or large L.

I know what you think of libertarians as a third party
(what *would* that dog do if he actually CAUGHT the car
he was chasing...) and tend to agree for the most part.

However I admit their platform has its bright sides, and
he goes along with the platform I think, in general.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , Larry Jaques says...

I'd consider that a liberal ruling vs. a conservative one. Pass.

Umm - I disagree. It was a conservative ruling because it was
generated by conservative-appointed justices.

My point was if you think that's a liberal ruling then you are
doomed to disapointent on the issue - sure you can trash
the other two justices but even a court full of conservative
appointees is going to probably decide the way they just did.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Ed Huntress says...

But wait, isn't Gunner.....

...a cross between a golden retriever and a bulldog.

Seriously, I think he's probably as good a representation
of a 'libertarian' as one can find.

I'll take your word for it. g

I forget if that's small l or large L.

Small l.


I know what you think of libertarians as a third party
(what *would* that dog do if he actually CAUGHT the car
he was chasing...) and tend to agree for the most part.

However I admit their platform has its bright sides, and
he goes along with the platform I think, in general.

All platforms have bright sides. The bright sides are the only sides they
ever talk about.

The "platform" you're speaking of may be that of the capital-L Libertarians,
who are a real party (founded in 1972, IIRC) and who have a real platform.
As for small-l libertarians, they usually can't agree on anything long
enough to form a platform.

Small-l libertarianism is an attitude, a few bromides, and some slogans. It
is not the basis of a platform, nor of a program. Gunner has the attitude
and the slogans down pat, if that's what you mean.

--
Ed Huntress

On 5 Mar 2005 21:28:33 -0800, the inscrutable jim rozen
spake:

In article , Larry Jaques says...

I'd consider that a liberal ruling vs. a conservative one. Pass.

Umm - I disagree. It was a conservative ruling because it was
generated by conservative-appointed justices.

Conservative-on-the-whole justices can err, making a liberal ruling
or two. The question is: Is the SCOTUS becoming infected with PC
and liberal Euro- or world-views, or just biased by them?


My point was if you think that's a liberal ruling then you are
doomed to disapointent on the issue - sure you can trash
the other two justices but even a court full of conservative
appointees is going to probably decide the way they just did.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Maybe I'm biased, having
grown up fairly conservative with the old-style conservative views of
my parents where personal responsibility reigned. But the "It's not
their fault, they were raised wrongly." or "They're not mature enough
to know better, so let's throw your money at them." feels an awful lot
like a liberal concept to me. While many of my own views have turned
from the conservative side, I still don't embrace the liberal side.

Old enough to do the crime, old enough to do the time (or lose your
life if you took another.) For the thumpers, it's "An eye for an eye."

An aside, I'm now 2/3 of the way through "An Island in a Sea of Time"
where the liberal nuts stole a ship and went to "save the poor
Indians." The cannibals they met killed and ate most of them while the
mumps bugs from the "saviors" quietly started killing most of them.
What a perfect segue for this discussion. The SCOTUS decision seems
like fiction right now, too.


================================================== ========
Save the ||| http://diversify.com
Endangered SKEETS! ||| Web Application Programming
================================================== ========

In article ,
pyotr filipivich wrote:

I missed the staff meeting but the minutes show Don Bruder
wrote back on Sat, 05 Mar 2005 03:13:05 GMT in
rec.crafts.metalworking :
In article ,
pyotr filipivich wrote:


What ever happened to "diversity" and "respecting other's cultural
heritage"?

Pardon my being totally "un-PC" (Or don't... see if I actually care...)
but as far as I see it, it's really quite simple:

You're in America now. Be an American. I don't give a damn about your
"cultural heritage". I care even less about "diversity". You're an
American now. Be one, or get the **** out! Learn the language we use
here (Most call it english, although I'd say that's only just barely
true anymore, what with the rise of "ebonics") and use it - both spoken
and written. Learn new "traditions" - the traditions of the country that
is now your home. If you want "the old country" and "the old
traditions", then go back to wherever "the old country" happens to be,
and we can all be happy. Otherwise, don't be at all surprised when
somebody gets ****ed off enough at you and your brand of whatever-it-is
to take action, perhaps violent, perhaps legal, perhaps a combination of
both, to make you stop inflicting your so-called "culture" on them..

Hmmm, so then it is perfectly acceptable to denounce as "insensitive"
someone who says that women can have it all, career, home life and
children?

Idunno what you're trying to say with that sentence. It doesn't parse to
anything sensible for me. In fact, it SEEMS, at least to my reading, to
completely contradict itself. Care to try again?

--
Don Bruder - - New Email policy in effect as of Feb. 21, 2004.
Short form: I'm trashing EVERY E-mail that doesn't contain a password in the
subject unless it comes from a "whitelisted" (pre-approved by me) address.
See http://www.sonic.net/~dakidd/main/contact.html for full details.

In article , Larry Jaques says...

Conservative-on-the-whole justices can err, making a liberal ruling
or two. The question is: Is the SCOTUS becoming infected with PC
and liberal Euro- or world-views, or just biased by them?

No, they're appointed for life. The folks who set up the
government realized that the court would make decisions
that would be unpopular to some segment of the population.
Because they're appointed for life they can feel free to
do this, because they believe the decision is truly the
right thing to do.


My point was if you think that's a liberal ruling then you are
doomed to disapointent on the issue - sure you can trash
the other two justices but even a court full of conservative
appointees is going to probably decide the way they just did.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Maybe I'm biased, having
grown up fairly conservative with the old-style conservative views of
my parents where personal responsibility reigned. But the "It's not
their fault, they were raised wrongly." or "They're not mature enough
to know better, so let's throw your money at them." feels an awful lot
like a liberal concept to me. While many of my own views have turned
from the conservative side, I still don't embrace the liberal side.

But the decision was a *conservative* one. It was handed down
by a conservative court. Their view of conservative and yours
don't coincide!

Old enough to do the crime, old enough to do the time (or lose your
life if you took another.) For the thumpers, it's "An eye for an eye."

I'm not entirely sure I agree with the decision myself. But it
is now the law of the land. It's a complicated question, and I
think if the experts disagree on this one then it probably makes
sense to not do anything irretrieveable. When the state kills
somebody, that's irretrievable. So puttem behind bars.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On 5 Mar 2005 21:28:33 -0800, the inscrutable jim rozen
spake:

In article , Larry Jaques
says...

I'd consider that a liberal ruling vs. a conservative one. Pass.

Umm - I disagree. It was a conservative ruling because it was
generated by conservative-appointed justices.

Conservative-on-the-whole justices can err, making a liberal ruling
or two. The question is: Is the SCOTUS becoming infected with PC
and liberal Euro- or world-views, or just biased by them?


My point was if you think that's a liberal ruling then you are
doomed to disapointent on the issue - sure you can trash
the other two justices but even a court full of conservative
appointees is going to probably decide the way they just did.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Maybe I'm biased, having
grown up fairly conservative with the old-style conservative views of
my parents where personal responsibility reigned. But the "It's not
their fault, they were raised wrongly." or "They're not mature enough
to know better, so let's throw your money at them." feels an awful lot
like a liberal concept to me. While many of my own views have turned
from the conservative side, I still don't embrace the liberal side.

Old enough to do the crime, old enough to do the time (or lose your
life if you took another.) For the thumpers, it's "An eye for an eye."

Darned right. If you put them in prison for life with no hope of parole, how
will they ever learn, anyway? It's better to put them to death and really
impress them. That'll teach the punk.

--
Ed Huntress

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Larry Jaques
says...

Conservative-on-the-whole justices can err, making a liberal ruling
or two. The question is: Is the SCOTUS becoming infected with PC
and liberal Euro- or world-views, or just biased by them?

No, they're appointed for life. The folks who set up the
government realized that the court would make decisions
that would be unpopular to some segment of the population.
Because they're appointed for life they can feel free to
do this, because they believe the decision is truly the
right thing to do.


My point was if you think that's a liberal ruling then you are
doomed to disapointent on the issue - sure you can trash
the other two justices but even a court full of conservative
appointees is going to probably decide the way they just did.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Maybe I'm biased, having
grown up fairly conservative with the old-style conservative views of
my parents where personal responsibility reigned. But the "It's not
their fault, they were raised wrongly." or "They're not mature enough
to know better, so let's throw your money at them." feels an awful lot
like a liberal concept to me. While many of my own views have turned
from the conservative side, I still don't embrace the liberal side.

But the decision was a *conservative* one. It was handed down
by a conservative court. Their view of conservative and yours
don't coincide!

Old enough to do the crime, old enough to do the time (or lose your
life if you took another.) For the thumpers, it's "An eye for an eye."

I'm not entirely sure I agree with the decision myself. But it
is now the law of the land. It's a complicated question, and I
think if the experts disagree on this one then it probably makes
sense to not do anything irretrieveable. When the state kills
somebody, that's irretrievable. So puttem behind bars.

That's the easy way out. To answer this question for ourselves, for each of
us individually, we first have to decide *why* we execute people. By that I
mean, what the purpose of executing them is -- where the line is drawn
between revenge, and all of the other reasons we give for legal punishment,
sophistic or not. Then decide if the reasons for execution apply to minors.

Decide those questions for yourself, and you can conclude whether it's right
or wrong -- not because experts disagree and therefore we don't want to
commit an irrevocable execution, but because we accept the reasons for or
against the death penalty and have concluded that it does or does not apply
to minors.

IMO, it does not.

--
Ed Huntress

In article , Ed Huntress says...

Decide those questions for yourself, and you can conclude whether it's right
or wrong -- not because experts disagree and therefore we don't want to
commit an irrevocable execution, but because we accept the reasons for or
against the death penalty and have concluded that it does or does not apply
to minors.

The experts *do* disagree. The decision wasn' wasn't 9-0.

I guess I was getting at the idea that I'm not entirely sure
the government should be in the killing folks business at *all*
given their track record on killing innocent folks. Is it
better to have one innocent put to death so that all the rest
of the truly guilty can be executed? Tough call. One only
has to ask *your* question (kids OK too?) if you answer the
first question the right way.

IMO, it does not.

You're in good company ed. There were seven of the justices
who felt the same way.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Ed Huntress says...

Decide those questions for yourself, and you can conclude whether it's
right
or wrong -- not because experts disagree and therefore we don't want to
commit an irrevocable execution, but because we accept the reasons for or
against the death penalty and have concluded that it does or does not
apply
to minors.

The experts *do* disagree. The decision wasn' wasn't 9-0.

The dissent was based on narrow, legalistic grounds, Jim. At least, that's
the summary I've read, because I haven't read the case yet. I will, and if
there's anything to add I'll say so.

But the majority decided on moral grounds, and the minority defended its
position on the basis of states' rights, if what I've read is correct. That
doesn't decide the moral issue. It says that the moral issue was
constitutionally irrelevant at the federal level, that the states get to
decide what is "cruel and unusual."

I guess I was getting at the idea that I'm not entirely sure
the government should be in the killing folks business at *all*
given their track record on killing innocent folks. Is it
better to have one innocent put to death so that all the rest
of the truly guilty can be executed? Tough call. One only
has to ask *your* question (kids OK too?) if you answer the
first question the right way.

If you don't answer the first question, your position becomes a technical
one that leaves the first question assumed in the affirmative. In other
words, if executing minors is morally wrong, the practicalities don't enter
the decision and your question will never come up. If it's morally right,
then the next round of questions, which is the one you're addressing here,
may reverse the moral position you've taken in the first. It assumes that it
is morally right to execute a murderer even if he was a minor at the time.
To me, that's the question itself.

My question, in other words, is whether it's morally right or wrong to
execute minors for murder, when we say they don't even have the maturity of
judgment to drink alcohol or to vote. We even make their actions subservient
to the will of their parents, and their parents responsible for their
childrens' actions, in many legal cases.

So how can we say they have the maturity of judgment that deserves the death
penalty should they make a horrifically bad judgment? It's logically
contradictory. I find the moral sophistry that says a kid doesn't have the
quality of judgment to be responsible with alcohol, but that he does have
the quality of judgment to deserve death if he commits murder, to be both
sloppy thinking and morally repugnant.

--
Ed Huntress

In article , Ed Huntress says...

The dissent was based on narrow, legalistic grounds, Jim. At least, that's
the summary I've read, because I haven't read the case yet. I will, and if
there's anything to add I'll say so.

But the majority decided on moral grounds, and the minority defended its
position on the basis of states' rights, if what I've read is correct. That
doesn't decide the moral issue. It says that the moral issue was
constitutionally irrelevant at the federal level, that the states get to
decide what is "cruel and unusual."

Courts don't "do" morality. They do legality which is not
quite exactly the same thing.

Honestly I don't see *that* much of a contradiction if one were
to decide, kids can't drink booze or buy smokes, but they be
drafted and sent to war.

Granted that's not the same thing as, can the state execute them,
but as I've said, it's not clear to me that the state should be
executing anyone, regardless of age.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On 6 Mar 2005 10:28:29 -0800, the inscrutable jim rozen
spake:

In article , Larry Jaques says...

Conservative-on-the-whole justices can err, making a liberal ruling
or two. The question is: Is the SCOTUS becoming infected with PC
and liberal Euro- or world-views, or just biased by them?

No, they're appointed for life. The folks who set up the
government realized that the court would make decisions
that would be unpopular to some segment of the population.
Because they're appointed for life they can feel free to
do this, because they believe the decision is truly the
right thing to do.

4 out of 9 justices and many in the public disagree.


But the decision was a *conservative* one. It was handed down
by a conservative court. Their view of conservative and yours
don't coincide!

Is it time for your medication or mine, Jim? Herr Shrub says he's
a Republican, too, but that doesn't make him one in actuality. His
actions speak strongly against that possibility.


Old enough to do the crime, old enough to do the time (or lose your
life if you took another.) For the thumpers, it's "An eye for an eye."

I'm not entirely sure I agree with the decision myself. But it
is now the law of the land. It's a complicated question, and I
think if the experts disagree on this one then it probably makes
sense to not do anything irretrieveable. When the state kills
somebody, that's irretrievable. So puttem behind bars.

Is when the murderer kills someone any different? Well, once the
prison population gets above 50% here in the USA, maybe those 5
Justices will think differently. Now that our new AG is going after
smut, too, the prison ranks are sure to swell quickly. (Look out,
Jimmy Swaggart, etc. They're coming after you next!)


================================================== ========
Save the ||| http://diversify.com
Endangered SKEETS! ||| Web Application Programming
================================================== ========

On 4 Mar 2005 17:57:35 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , pyotr filipivich
says...

What ever happened to "diversity" and "respecting other's cultural
heritage"?

Outlawed by neocons.

Jim

"The greatest variety (of diversity of opinion) would also come from
selecting professors with a wide variety of social, political and
other views. How much “diversity” exists in the typical university
faculty that includes a Lesbian Marxist, an Hispanic Marxist, a
transgender Marxist, a feminist Marxist and a black Marxist? The
monolithic, leftist faculty on today’s campuses makes a mockery of
what both “diversity” and the “university” are supposed to be."
Lowell Ponte


**** Jim...you really believe what you wrote? You the great supporter
of Political Correctness?

Gunner

It's better to be a red person in a blue state
than a blue person in a red state. As a red
person, if your blue neighbors turn into a mob
at least you have a gun to protect yourself.
As a blue person, your only hope is to appease
the red mob with herbal tea and marinated tofu.

(Phil Garding)

On 5 Mar 2005 03:54:58 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

On 4 Mar 2005 17:57:35 -0800, jim rozen wrote:
In article , pyotr filipivich
says...

What ever happened to "diversity" and "respecting other's cultural
heritage"?

Outlawed by neocons.

You know, Jim, we get along real well except when throwing labels like
this around. What the heck is a neocon anyway?


What the Heck Is a Neocon?
by Max Boot
Wall Street Journal
December 30, 2002

I have been called many names in my career -- few of them printable --
but the most mystifying has to be "neocon." I suppose I get labeled
thus because I am associated, in a small way, with the Weekly
Standard, which is known as a redoubt of "neoconservatism."

But what the heck is a neocon anyway in 2003? A friend of mine
suggests it means the kind of right-winger a liberal wouldn't be
embarrassed to have over for cocktails. That's as good a definition as
any, since the term has clearly come unmoored from its original
meaning.

'Mugged by Reality'

The original neocons were a band of liberal intellectuals who rebelled
against the Democratic Party's leftward drift on defense issues in the
1970s. At first the neocons clustered around Sen. Henry "Scoop"
Jackson, a Democrat, but then they aligned themselves with Ronald
Reagan and the Republicans, who promised to confront Soviet
expansionism. The neocons, in the famous formulation of one of their
leaders, Irving Kristol, were "liberals mugged by reality."

Well, I haven't been mugged lately. I haven't even been accosted. I
like to think I've been in touch with reality from day one, since I've
never been a Trotskyite, a Maoist or even a Democrat. There's no "neo"
in my conservatism. I don't deserve much credit for this, I might add,
since I grew up in the 1980s, when conservatism was cool. Many of the
original neocons, by contrast, grew up in the days when Republicans
were derided as "the stupid party." Some of them remain registered
Democrats. But I've always identified with the Grand Old Party. The
same might be said of the other Standard-bearers, even those (like
Bill Kristol and John Podhoretz) who are the offspring of famous
neocons. They, too, have been right from the start.

So why do I, and others of my ilk, get tagged as "neocons"? Some of
the labelers have obvious ulterior motives. Patrick Buchanan, for one,
claims that his views represent the true faith of the American right.
He wants to drive the neocon infidels from the temple (or, more
accurately, from the church). Unfortunately for Mr. Buchanan, his
version of conservatism -- nativist, protectionist, isolationist --
attracts few followers, as evidenced by his poor showings in
Republican presidential primaries and the scant influence of his
inaptly named magazine, the American Conservative. Buchananism isn't
American conservatism as we understand it today. It's
paleoconservatism, a poisonous brew that was last popular when Father
Charles Coughlin, not Rush Limbaugh, was the leading conservative
broadcaster in America.

When Buchananites toss around "neoconservative" -- and cite names like
Wolfowitz and Cohen -- it sometimes sounds as if what they really mean
is "Jewish conservative." This is a malicious slur on two levels.
First, many of the leading neocons aren't Jewish; Jeane Kirkpatrick,
Bill Bennett, Father John Neuhaus and Michael Novak aren't exactly
menorah lighters. Second, support for Israel -- a key tenet of
neoconservatism -- is hardly confined to Jews; its strongest
constituency in America happens to be among evangelical Christians.

So is "neoconservatism" worthless as a political label? Not entirely.
In social policy, it stands for a broad sympathy with a traditionalist
agenda and a rejection of extreme libertarianism. Neocons have led the
charge to combat some of the wilder excesses of academia and the arts.
But there is hardly an orthodoxy laid down by Neocon Central. I, for
one, am not eager to ban either abortion or cloning, two hot-button
issues on the religious right. On economic matters, neocons -- like
pretty much all other Republicans, except for Mr. Buchanan and his
five followers -- embrace a laissez-faire line, though they are not as
troubled by the size of the welfare state as libertarians are.

But it is not really domestic policy that defines neoconservatism.
This was a movement founded on foreign policy, and it is still here
that neoconservatism carries the greatest meaning, even if its
original raison d'être -- opposition to communism -- has disappeared.

Pretty much all conservatives today agree on the need for a strong,
vigorous foreign policy. There is no constituency for isolationism on
the right, outside the Buchananite fever swamps. The question is how
to define our interventionism.

One group of conservatives believes that we should use armed force
only to defend our vital national interests, narrowly defined. They
believe that we should remove, or at least disarm, Saddam Hussein, but
not occupy Iraq for any substantial period afterward. The idea of
bringing democracy to the Middle East they denounce as a mad,
hubristic dream likely to backfire with tragic consequences. This
view, which goes under the somewhat self-congratulatory moniker of
"realism," is championed by foreign-policy mandarins like Henry
Kissinger, Brent Scowcroft and James Baker III.

Many conservatives think, however, that "realism" presents far too
crabbed a view of American power and responsibility. They suggest that
we need to promote our values, for the simple reason that liberal
democracies rarely fight one another, sponsor terrorism, or use
weapons of mass destruction. If we are to avoid another 9/11, they
argue, we need to liberalize the Middle East -- a massive undertaking,
to be sure, but better than the unspeakable alternative. And if this
requires occupying Iraq for an extended period, so be it; we did it
with Germany, Japan and Italy, and we can do it again.

The most prominent champions of this view inside the administration
are Vice President Dick Cheney and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul
Wolfowitz. Their agenda is known as "neoconservatism," though a more
accurate term might be "hard Wilsonianism." Advocates of this view
embrace Woodrow Wilson's championing of American ideals but reject his
reliance on international organizations and treaties to accomplish our
objectives. ("Soft Wilsonians," a k a liberals, place their reliance,
in Charles Krauthammer's trenchant phrase, on paper, not power.) Like
Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan, "hard
Wilsonians" want to use American might to promote American ideals.

The Good Fight

This is, in case you haven't guessed, my own view too. So I guess that
makes me a neocon. It's a designation I'm willing -- nay, honored --
to accept, if it comes with a caveat: Neoconservatism -- like other
political descriptions, such as "liberal" and "conservative" -- has
entirely lost its original meaning. It no longer means that you're a
Johnny-come-lately to the good fight, and -- contrary to Mr.
Buchanan's aspersions -- neocons are no less conservative than anyone
else on the right.

Actually that's an understatement. Neocons are closer to the
mainstream of the Republican Party today than any competing faction.
During the 2000 campaign, President Bush sounded very much like a
realist, with his suspicions of "nation building" and his warnings
about American hubris. Then along came 9/11. The National Security
Strategy that he released in September -- which calls for "encouraging
free and open societies on every continent" -- sounds as if it could
have come straight from the pages of Commentary magazine, the neocon
bible.

I suppose that makes George W. Bush a neocon. If it's good enough for
the president, it's good enough for me."
It's better to be a red person in a blue state
than a blue person in a red state. As a red
person, if your blue neighbors turn into a mob
at least you have a gun to protect yourself.
As a blue person, your only hope is to appease
the red mob with herbal tea and marinated tofu.

(Phil Garding)

In article , Gunner says...

**** Jim...you really believe what you wrote? You the great supporter
of Political Correctness?

LOL. I think I'm pretty un-PC. However the world's pretty
big so respect for other folks is important. Part of that
is understanding the heritage of others. From comments you
write here, I think you do not subscribe to the plane jane,
vanilla, we're all the same viewpoint. This means you understand
and respect other cultures.

That doesn't make you PC.

Right?

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 18:32:49 GMT, pyotr filipivich
wrote:


And still, what one group is still open to public mockery and disdain?
White Christian men. Why is that?

Because, of all the groups, subgroups and sub-sub groups...white
middle class males are the only group that cannot be victims. Its the
law.

Gunner

It's better to be a red person in a blue state
than a blue person in a red state. As a red
person, if your blue neighbors turn into a mob
at least you have a gun to protect yourself.
As a blue person, your only hope is to appease
the red mob with herbal tea and marinated tofu.

(Phil Garding)

In article , Larry Jaques says...

4 out of 9 justices and many in the public disagree.

Hmm. I thought it was 7-2 actually. Is Rehnquist participating
at the moment?

Is it time for your medication or mine, Jim? Herr Shrub says he's
a Republican, too, but that doesn't make him one in actuality. His
actions speak strongly against that possibility.

Nah, he's the apex of republicanism! He's got the mandate from
the us citizenry to be the ultimate one.

sense to not do anything irretrieveable. When the state kills
somebody, that's irretrievable. So puttem behind bars.

Is when the murderer kills someone any different? Well, once the
prison population gets above 50% here in the USA, maybe those 5
Justices will think differently.

More walls, more bars. But first get rid of that moronic 'war on
drugs.'

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On 4 Mar 2005 17:57:35 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , pyotr filipivich
says...

What ever happened to "diversity" and "respecting other's cultural
heritage"?

Outlawed by neocons.

Jim

"The greatest variety (of diversity of opinion) would also come from
selecting professors with a wide variety of social, political and
other views. How much "diversity" exists in the typical university
faculty that includes a Lesbian Marxist, an Hispanic Marxist, a
transgender Marxist, a feminist Marxist and a black Marxist? The
monolithic, leftist faculty on today's campuses makes a mockery of
what both "diversity" and the "university" are supposed to be."
Lowell Ponte

You have a real knack for finding the biggest bozos on the planet for your
sources of "information," Gunner. g

Lowell Ponte, in his 1976 book _The Cooling_, demonstrated his wisdom and
insight thusly:

"The cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people in poor
nations. . . . If it continues, and no strong measures are taken to deal
with it, the cooling will cause world famine, world chaos, and probably
world war, and this could all come by the year 2000."

Whoops. Hang on to your bear skin rug.

--
Ed Huntress

On 6 Mar 2005 10:28:29 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:


But the decision was a *conservative* one. It was handed down
by a conservative court. Their view of conservative and yours
don't coincide!

I wish you Lefties would make up your minds about the makup of
Scotus..if it decides your way...its a liberal court. If it decides
anyway but your way..its a Conservative court. Ive heard at least 200
differing opinions about this subject as to whether or not tis Lib
Conservative

Old enough to do the crime, old enough to do the time (or lose your
life if you took another.) For the thumpers, it's "An eye for an eye."

I'm not entirely sure I agree with the decision myself. But it
is now the law of the land. It's a complicated question, and I
think if the experts disagree on this one then it probably makes
sense to not do anything irretrieveable. When the state kills
somebody, that's irretrievable. So puttem behind bars.

Jim

I rather think personally..that using current European standards of
justice to decide how US justice is handled...is a bit much. Christ
knows the last time anything good came out of European justice..was
Blackstone.

Gunner


It's better to be a red person in a blue state
than a blue person in a red state. As a red
person, if your blue neighbors turn into a mob
at least you have a gun to protect yourself.
As a blue person, your only hope is to appease
the red mob with herbal tea and marinated tofu.

(Phil Garding)

On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 13:38:39 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


Old enough to do the crime, old enough to do the time (or lose your
life if you took another.) For the thumpers, it's "An eye for an eye."

Darned right. If you put them in prison for life with no hope of parole, how
will they ever learn, anyway? It's better to put them to death and really
impress them. That'll teach the punk.

--
Ed Huntress

Wont teach em anything.

However..the recidivism rate really drops off fast.

Gunner

It's better to be a red person in a blue state
than a blue person in a red state. As a red
person, if your blue neighbors turn into a mob
at least you have a gun to protect yourself.
As a blue person, your only hope is to appease
the red mob with herbal tea and marinated tofu.

(Phil Garding)