On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 19:53:17 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"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.

http://www.globalclimate.org/Newsweek.htm
http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/news/freeze.html
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/a...ow/1034077.cms

On the other hand....

http://globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=901

btw...which parts of Ponte's article on Neocons do you disagree with?
Or are you simply trying to kill the messenger?

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 , Gunner says...

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

No no, we're the same as you. If it decides our way, it's
a *centrist* court. If it decides you way, it's a wildly
out of touch with reality (pick one) liberal, conservative
court. g

I just couldn't pass up the chance to point out that the
the conservatives who are hollering about this decision are
the ones who bought and paid for most of the justices who
handed it down.

Jim


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

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
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

It's roughly split. There have been some key 5:4 cases with this Court,
swinging either way.

That's not particularly bad, IMO, because the swing vote usually is not
ideological, but is based on either jurisprudence or a reasoned opinion. It
puts the ideologues on both sides to the test. There are ideologues on this
Court but its decisions are mostly non-ideological, as a result of the
split.


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.

Although I haven't yet read the case, it appears that the righties are
misusing the comment about world standards. The Court, as I understand it,
did not refer to those standards as a matter of law. They were using it to
reinforce the definition of "unusual." And that definition didn't disagree
with the preponderance of evidence from the states, it only added some
definitional weight to it.

But I want to read the case myself before I argue the point. I'm only
commenting on the brief analyses we've seen in the press. As we've often
seen here, you have to look at the decision yourself to actually know what
happened.

--
Ed Huntress

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
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.

I really doubt if there is a whit of evidence to show that executing minors,
or adults who committed murder when they were minors, has anything to do
with anything. If they were tried as adults and were thus liable to the
death penalty, they were liable to life in prison, or something close to it.

--
Ed Huntress

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Gunner says...

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

No no, we're the same as you. If it decides our way, it's
a *centrist* court. If it decides you way, it's a wildly
out of touch with reality (pick one) liberal, conservative
court. g

I just couldn't pass up the chance to point out that the
the conservatives who are hollering about this decision are
the ones who bought and paid for most of the justices who
handed it down.

Not to mention that it must have transmogrified since it decided Bush v.
Gore. g

--
Ed Huntress

On 6 Mar 2005 16:30:10 -0800, the inscrutable jim rozen
spake:

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?

I saw 5:4 in the news articles I read. Google #1:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2005Mar6.html
--snip--
Kennedy Reversal Swings Court Against Juvenile Death Penalty

By Charles Lane
Monday, March 7, 2005; Page A17

In banning capital punishment for juvenile offenders last week, the
Supreme Court once again demonstrated its pivotal role in domestic
and, indeed, world affairs.

The 5 to 4 ruling swept aside laws in 20 states that permitted juries
to sentence 16- or 17-year-old murderers to death, thus ending the
United States' status as the last country on Earth that sanctioned the
execution of those who commit crimes when they are younger than 18.
--snip--


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.

OK, you just volunteered for meds.


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.'

Recycle the former (Soylent Gray?) Amen to the latter.

================================================== ========
I drank WHAT? + http://www.diversify.com
--Socrates + Web Application Programming

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 19:53:17 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"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.

http://www.globalclimate.org/Newsweek.htm
http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/news/freeze.html
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/a...ow/1034077.cms

On the other hand....

http://globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=901

I'm not chasing your unexplained URLs all over the map with a 180 MHz
computer, even with cable. g Either tell us what you want to say, or
forget it.


btw...which parts of Ponte's article on Neocons do you disagree with?

You didn't post an article by Ponte about neocons. You posted such an
article by Max Boot.

It was a pretty good editorial, but Boot was right in the first place: he's
no neocon. He's a Heinz conservative, a mutt of about 57 varieties.

Or are you simply trying to kill the messenger?

Ponte, as a messenger, shot himself in the head about 30 years ago. Since
then he's had to retreat into being a right-wing talkshow mouthpiece. Those
audiences will forgive anything if you hate liberals enough and if you have
a big mouth.

I don't remember Ponte being so vehemently anti-liberal before he made an
ass of himself and became such a joke. You may not remember that. He was
down for the count but rose from the mat when he found an audience that
didn't really know who he was, and which had little inclination to find out.

--
Ed Huntress

In article , Ed Huntress says...


It's roughly split. There have been some key 5:4 cases with this Court,
swinging either way.

That's not particularly bad, IMO, because the swing vote usually is not
ideological, but is based on either jurisprudence or a reasoned opinion. It
puts the ideologues on both sides to the test. There are ideologues on this
Court but its decisions are mostly non-ideological, as a result of the
split.

The trouble is, ideologues don't like jurisprudence. The end always
justifies the means in their minds.

Is rehnquist still participating in decisions?

Jim


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

In article , Ed Huntress says...

I just couldn't pass up the chance to point out that the
the conservatives who are hollering about this decision are
the ones who bought and paid for most of the justices who
handed it down.

Not to mention that it must have transmogrified since it decided Bush v.
Gore. g

Like my legal eagle (ms. Mulligan) says, "buyer's remorse."

She swears that's why so many of the oldesters are hanging
on.

Jim


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

On Sat, 5 Mar 2005 23:09:47 -0500, Ned Simmons wrote:
In article ,
says...
On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 23:24:46 -0500, Ned Simmons wrote:

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.

In other words, you're intentionally wasting your and my time with your
6-year-old non-point. Gotcha.

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.

Then don't mis-state my points for me. It makes the flaws in your
point of view that much more evident, when you have to lie about
what your opponent has said, y'see.

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?

So you concede that your "6 year old" comment was a red herring. Thank
you.

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.

Great. Bye, Ned.

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 07:34:17 GMT, the inscrutable Gunner
spake:

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.

g Read the article. It cofirms my suspicions that SCOTUS has
been infected by Eurothought, Kennedy in particular, and that
it is a liberal court after all. (+ "four justice liberal bloc")
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2005Mar6.html

Scalia's thoughts on the matter agree with mine. (And that goes for
drunks and druggies who accidentally kill people.)


================================================== ========
I drank WHAT? + http://www.diversify.com
--Socrates + Web Application Programming

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


It's roughly split. There have been some key 5:4 cases with this Court,
swinging either way.

That's not particularly bad, IMO, because the swing vote usually is not
ideological, but is based on either jurisprudence or a reasoned opinion.
It
puts the ideologues on both sides to the test. There are ideologues on
this
Court but its decisions are mostly non-ideological, as a result of the
split.

The trouble is, ideologues don't like jurisprudence. The end always
justifies the means in their minds.

Is rehnquist still participating in decisions?

Apparently he did in this one. I haven't read anything about it but this
case must have been heard when he was still present on the bench.

--
Ed Huntress

On 7 Mar 2005 06:20:16 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

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

No no, we're the same as you. If it decides our way, it's
a *centrist* court. If it decides you way, it's a wildly
out of touch with reality (pick one) liberal, conservative
court. g

I just couldn't pass up the chance to point out that the
the conservatives who are hollering about this decision are
the ones who bought and paid for most of the justices who
handed it down.

Jim

Say what? Didnt take your meds this morning? Skipped your coffee?

"The four most liberal justices had already gone on record in 2002,
calling it "shameful" to execute juvenile killers. Those four, joined
by Kennedy, formed Tuesday's decision: Justices John Paul Stevens,
David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, Justice Clarence Thomas and
Scalia, as expected, voted to uphold the executions. They were joined
by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor."


* The Chief Justice - William Rehnquist - was appointed a Supreme
Court judge in 1971 and became Chief Justice in 1986 in the presidency
of Ronald Reagan. He is considered "solid and highly conservative" and
is 77 years of age.
* John Paul Stevens was appointed in 1975 by President Ford and is
considered a moderate. He is 82 years old.
* Sandra Day O’Connor is the first female Supreme Court judge.
Appointed in 1981 by Reagan, she is considered a conservative who does
not wish to overturn precedents. She is 72.
* Antonio Scalia was appointed in 1986 by Reagan and is considered
a "solid conservative". He is 66 years old.
* Anthony Kennedy was appointed in 1987 by Reagan and he is
considered a legal conservative. He is 65 years of age.
* David Souter was appointed in 1990 by President Bush and is
considered to be a legal conservative. He is 62 years old.
* Clarence Thomas is considered a conservative and was appointed
in 1991 by Bush.
* Ruth Bader Ginsburg was Clinton’s first appointment in 1993. The
second female justice who is considered to be a moderate liberal. She
is 69 years old.
* Stephen Breyer was appointed by Clinton in 1994. He is
considered to middling to conservative in his legal approach. He is 63
years old.


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 Mon, 7 Mar 2005 10:11:19 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Gunner says...

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

No no, we're the same as you. If it decides our way, it's
a *centrist* court. If it decides you way, it's a wildly
out of touch with reality (pick one) liberal, conservative
court. g

I just couldn't pass up the chance to point out that the
the conservatives who are hollering about this decision are
the ones who bought and paid for most of the justices who
handed it down.

Not to mention that it must have transmogrified since it decided Bush v.
Gore. g

It never did. decide that.

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 Mon, 7 Mar 2005 10:09:51 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
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.

I really doubt if there is a whit of evidence to show that executing minors,
or adults who committed murder when they were minors, has anything to do
with anything. If they were tried as adults and were thus liable to the
death penalty, they were liable to life in prison, or something close to it.

ah...Ed? Recidivism? Or did I spell it improperly? The rate at
which criminals will get out and commit a second or more crimes.

Im pretty sure that if they are executed..the rate at which they
commit further crimes is a value somewhat smaller than null.....

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)

"Gunner" wrote in message
...

"The four most liberal justices had already gone on record in 2002,
calling it "shameful" to execute juvenile killers. Those four, joined
by Kennedy, formed Tuesday's decision: Justices John Paul Stevens,
David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, Justice Clarence Thomas and
Scalia, as expected, voted to uphold the executions. They were joined
by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor."


* The Chief Justice - William Rehnquist - was appointed a Supreme
Court judge in 1971 and became Chief Justice in 1986 in the presidency
of Ronald Reagan. He is considered "solid and highly conservative" and
is 77 years of age.

Good description.

* John Paul Stevens was appointed in 1975 by President Ford and is
considered a moderate. He is 82 years old.

Phffft. He's a liberal.

* Sandra Day O'Connor is the first female Supreme Court judge.
Appointed in 1981 by Reagan, she is considered a conservative who does
not wish to overturn precedents. She is 72.

And doesn't look a day over 71! Madame Stare Decisis.

* Antonio Scalia was appointed in 1986 by Reagan and is considered
a "solid conservative". He is 66 years old.

They forgot "arrogant, overbearing, and sarcastic."

* Anthony Kennedy was appointed in 1987 by Reagan and he is
considered a legal conservative. He is 65 years of age.

Finally maturing into a complete human being.

* David Souter was appointed in 1990 by President Bush and is
considered to be a legal conservative. He is 62 years old.

Moderate.

* Clarence Thomas is considered a conservative and was appointed
in 1991 by Bush.

They forgot "incompetent toady."

* Ruth Bader Ginsburg was Clinton's first appointment in 1993. The
second female justice who is considered to be a moderate liberal. She
is 69 years old.

Phffft. Liberal.

* Stephen Breyer was appointed by Clinton in 1994. He is
considered to middling to conservative in his legal approach. He is 63
years old.

Moderate.

So, your source says we have seven conservatives on the Court and no real
liberals. Good grief. Who was that source again?

--
Ed Huntress

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 10:09:51 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
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.

I really doubt if there is a whit of evidence to show that executing
minors,
or adults who committed murder when they were minors, has anything to do
with anything. If they were tried as adults and were thus liable to the
death penalty, they were liable to life in prison, or something close to
it.

ah...Ed? Recidivism? Or did I spell it improperly? The rate at
which criminals will get out and commit a second or more crimes.

Ok, so tell us how many juvenile offenders who were eligible for the death
penalty, but didn't get it, then wound up committing another crime. It must
be tough, since most of them are serving long prison terms.

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 10:26:55 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:



btw...which parts of Ponte's article on Neocons do you disagree with?

You didn't post an article by Ponte about neocons. You posted such an
article by Max Boot.

Correct. I realized my typo after Id hit send and even tried a
cancel..shrug.

It was a pretty good editorial, but Boot was right in the first place: he's
no neocon. He's a Heinz conservative, a mutt of about 57 varieties.

Good.

Or are you simply trying to kill the messenger?

Ponte, as a messenger, shot himself in the head about 30 years ago. Since
then he's had to retreat into being a right-wing talkshow mouthpiece. Those
audiences will forgive anything if you hate liberals enough and if you have
a big mouth.

Oh..like Al Franken or Michael Moore?.. Right there next to Jimmy
Carter on the DNC podium too...most interesting.....

I don't remember Ponte being so vehemently anti-liberal before he made an
ass of himself and became such a joke. You may not remember that. He was
down for the count but rose from the mat when he found an audience that
didn't really know who he was, and which had little inclination to find out.

Like Howard Dean! Of course!

http://www.americanpolicy.org/more/a...atemongers.htm

Gunner

Ed Huntress


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...

g Read the article. It cofirms my suspicions that SCOTUS has
been infected by Eurothought, Kennedy in particular, and that
it is a liberal court after all.

Well there it is. That ultra-liberal president, Reagan,
appointed him. So he's an ultraliberal.

Why don't those guys try to get some *conservative* justices
appointed for a change? Every time they try, they fall flat
on their faces. Might be better if they just abolished the
supreme court, then the president could decide those pesky
cases on his own!

Jim


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

In article , Gunner says...

* Anthony Kennedy was appointed in 1987 by Reagan and he is
considered a legal conservative. He is 65 years of age.

Umm Gunner, your boy kennedy wrote the majority opinion
on this case.

Jim


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

In article , Ed Huntress says...

* The Chief Justice - William Rehnquist - was appointed a Supreme
Court judge in 1971 and became Chief Justice in 1986 in the presidency
of Ronald Reagan. He is considered "solid and highly conservative" and
is 77 years of age.

Good description.

You know life's interesting when you tell yourself, "my god,
too bad he's retiring, they might appoint a real right-winger."

Nixon used to call him "Wrenchburg" because he couldn't
remember his name.

Jim


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

On 7 Mar 2005 07:38:12 -0800, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Ed Huntress says...

I just couldn't pass up the chance to point out that the
the conservatives who are hollering about this decision are
the ones who bought and paid for most of the justices who
handed it down.

Not to mention that it must have transmogrified since it decided Bush v.
Gore. g

Like my legal eagle (ms. Mulligan) says, "buyer's remorse."

Remind me again how anything the SCOTUS did change the number of
votes that Gore didn't get? I mean, the count, the recount, the
rerecount, the rererecount, and the rerererecount done by the press
all had Bush on top, after all. The only thing the SCOTUS said
was "Sorry, Gore, you don't get your selective recount in just heavily
democratic counties".

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 10:26:55 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

Ponte, as a messenger, shot himself in the head about 30 years ago. Since
then he's had to retreat into being a right-wing talkshow mouthpiece.
Those
audiences will forgive anything if you hate liberals enough and if you
have
a big mouth.

Oh..like Al Franken...

That's a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Franken failed at hate
radio because liberals (and us moderates) don't go for that crap. That's the
province of the resentful right, the malcontents who know that their
miserable lives must be *somebody's* fault, and the talk shows feed their
bitterness with perfect pitch. It's like mother's milk to them.

....or Michael Moore?..

Like Franken, he used to be funny. Now he's not, and, as with Franken, he's
finding that the politics of resentment has no legs with the left.

--
Ed Huntress

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On 7 Mar 2005 07:38:12 -0800, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Ed Huntress says...

I just couldn't pass up the chance to point out that the
the conservatives who are hollering about this decision are
the ones who bought and paid for most of the justices who
handed it down.

Not to mention that it must have transmogrified since it decided Bush v.
Gore. g

Like my legal eagle (ms. Mulligan) says, "buyer's remorse."

Remind me again how anything the SCOTUS did change the number of
votes that Gore didn't get? I mean, the count, the recount, the
rerecount, the rererecount, and the rerererecount done by the press...

Oh, so today you believe the press as gospel truth?

--
Ed Huntress

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

g Read the article. It cofirms my suspicions that SCOTUS has
been infected by Eurothought, Kennedy in particular, and that
it is a liberal court after all.

Well there it is. That ultra-liberal president, Reagan,
appointed him. So he's an ultraliberal.

Why don't those guys try to get some *conservative* justices
appointed for a change?

According to Gunner, seven of them already are conservatives. Maybe he
should compare notes with Larry. g

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 11:32:17 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 10:09:51 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
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.

I really doubt if there is a whit of evidence to show that executing
minors,
or adults who committed murder when they were minors, has anything to do
with anything. If they were tried as adults and were thus liable to the
death penalty, they were liable to life in prison, or something close to
it.

ah...Ed? Recidivism? Or did I spell it improperly? The rate at
which criminals will get out and commit a second or more crimes.

Ok, so tell us how many juvenile offenders who were eligible for the death
penalty, but didn't get it, then wound up committing another crime. It must
be tough, since most of them are serving long prison terms.

Because they eventually do get out. Unless the sentence is changed to
life without the possiblity of parole.

Btw..the average time spend in the joint on a life sentence?
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/vospats.txt

12yrs.


http://www.dc.state.fl.us/pub/recidi...3/results.html



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 Mon, 7 Mar 2005 11:29:14 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .

"The four most liberal justices had already gone on record in 2002,
calling it "shameful" to execute juvenile killers. Those four, joined
by Kennedy, formed Tuesday's decision: Justices John Paul Stevens,
David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, Justice Clarence Thomas and
Scalia, as expected, voted to uphold the executions. They were joined
by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor."


* The Chief Justice - William Rehnquist - was appointed a Supreme
Court judge in 1971 and became Chief Justice in 1986 in the presidency
of Ronald Reagan. He is considered "solid and highly conservative" and
is 77 years of age.

Good description.

* John Paul Stevens was appointed in 1975 by President Ford and is
considered a moderate. He is 82 years old.

Phffft. He's a liberal.

* Sandra Day O'Connor is the first female Supreme Court judge.
Appointed in 1981 by Reagan, she is considered a conservative who does
not wish to overturn precedents. She is 72.

And doesn't look a day over 71! Madame Stare Decisis.

* Antonio Scalia was appointed in 1986 by Reagan and is considered
a "solid conservative". He is 66 years old.

They forgot "arrogant, overbearing, and sarcastic."

* Anthony Kennedy was appointed in 1987 by Reagan and he is
considered a legal conservative. He is 65 years of age.

Finally maturing into a complete human being.

* David Souter was appointed in 1990 by President Bush and is
considered to be a legal conservative. He is 62 years old.

Moderate.

* Clarence Thomas is considered a conservative and was appointed
in 1991 by Bush.

They forgot "incompetent toady."

* Ruth Bader Ginsburg was Clinton's first appointment in 1993. The
second female justice who is considered to be a moderate liberal. She
is 69 years old.

Phffft. Liberal.

* Stephen Breyer was appointed by Clinton in 1994. He is
considered to middling to conservative in his legal approach. He is 63
years old.

Moderate.

So, your source says we have seven conservatives on the Court and no real
liberals. Good grief. Who was that source again?


Where did you pick up that bit?

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 Mon, 7 Mar 2005 11:58:49 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote:
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

Remind me again how anything the SCOTUS did change the number of
votes that Gore didn't get? I mean, the count, the recount, the
rerecount, the rererecount, and the rerererecount done by the press...

Oh, so today you believe the press as gospel truth?

Not even the liberal press could make Gore come out on top. What do
_you_ think the SCOTUS did for the election, exactly?

On 7 Mar 2005 08:44:46 -0800, the inscrutable jim rozen
spake:

In article , Larry Jaques says...

g Read the article. It cofirms my suspicions that SCOTUS has
been infected by Eurothought, Kennedy in particular, and that
it is a liberal court after all.

Well there it is. That ultra-liberal president, Reagan,
appointed him. So he's an ultraliberal.

Uh, where's your wink or grin for that facetiousity, hmmm?


Why don't those guys try to get some *conservative* justices
appointed for a change? Every time they try, they fall flat
on their faces. Might be better if they just abolished the
supreme court, then the president could decide those pesky
cases on his own!

Careful what you wish for, Jim. The're trying now.


================================================== ========
I drank WHAT? + http://www.diversify.com
--Socrates + Web Application Programming

In article , Larry Jaques says...

Well there it is. That ultra-liberal president, Reagan,
appointed him. So he's an ultraliberal.

Uh, where's your wink or grin for that facetiousity, hmmm?

I thought it was probably understood....

:^)

Jim


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

On 7 Mar 2005 08:44:46 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Larry Jaques says...

g Read the article. It cofirms my suspicions that SCOTUS has
been infected by Eurothought, Kennedy in particular, and that
it is a liberal court after all.

Well there it is. That ultra-liberal president, Reagan,
appointed him. So he's an ultraliberal.

Why don't those guys try to get some *conservative* justices
appointed for a change? Every time they try, they fall flat
on their faces. Might be better if they just abolished the
supreme court, then the president could decide those pesky
cases on his own!

Jim

Everytime we try to get some conservative judges..the Left has an orgy
of fliabustering.. Estrada and others are perfect examples.
For some reason...the Left simply HATEs minoritys who are
conservatives...I guess its that inherent racism that so plagues the
Left.

Unfortunatly..the Left has prolonged it far to long..hence th Nuclear
option will be used shortly.

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 7 Mar 2005 08:46:33 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

* Anthony Kennedy was appointed in 1987 by Reagan and he is
considered a legal conservative. He is 65 years of age.

Umm Gunner, your boy kennedy wrote the majority opinion
on this case.

Jim

My boy? Since when is a moderate My Boy?

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 Mon, 7 Mar 2005 11:57:07 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 10:26:55 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

Ponte, as a messenger, shot himself in the head about 30 years ago. Since
then he's had to retreat into being a right-wing talkshow mouthpiece.
Those
audiences will forgive anything if you hate liberals enough and if you
have
a big mouth.

Oh..like Al Franken...

That's a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Franken failed at hate
radio because liberals (and us moderates) don't go for that crap. That's the
province of the resentful right, the malcontents who know that their
miserable lives must be *somebody's* fault, and the talk shows feed their
bitterness with perfect pitch. It's like mother's milk to them.


Odd..you mean Air America is no longer on the air?

...or Michael Moore?..

Like Franken, he used to be funny. Now he's not, and, as with Franken, he's
finding that the politics of resentment has no legs with the left.

So when does the Left kick him out of their bed? They seem to love
licking his ass.

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 , Gunner says...

My boy? Since when is a moderate My Boy?

Since your boy reagan appointed him....

Jim


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

Larry Jaques wrote:


Uh, where's your wink or grin for that facetiousity, hmmm?



Larry, Where DO you come up with those words? I'd swear you
are trying to out do Bill Buckley. :-)
...lew...

I missed the staff meeting but the minutes show Don Bruder
wrote back on Sun, 06 Mar 2005 16:39:13 GMT in
rec.crafts.metalworking :
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?

Why?

The fact remains, that "diversity" has come to meaning any race,
gender, orientation or nationality is accept, as long as your politics are
acceptable.. And "tolerance" means that you can espouse any kind of life
style, save that of a monogamous male and female couple who intend to raise
children themselves.


From the Wall Street Journal's website comes this little clip from the Best
of the Web Feature (for monday the 7th of March)

[Lockstep Diversity
["WE WELCOME DIVERSITY" proclaims the Web site of Ocean Haven, an Oregon
inn. "Respecting the interdependence & diversity of all life."
[
[Well, maybe not all life. The homepage offers some qualifications:
[
[FOR REASONS OF HEALTH & SAFETY OCEAN HAVEN CANNOT ACCOMMODATE SMOKERS,
PETS, FOLKS TRAVELING IN A HUMMER, OR FOLKS WHO VOTED FOR BUSH & HIS NATURE
DESTRUCTIVE POLICIES
[
[Wow, this place sounds almost as diverse as a college campus!
--
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 Gunner
wrote back on Mon, 07 Mar 2005 17:05:59 GMT in
rec.crafts.metalworking :

Ok, so tell us how many juvenile offenders who were eligible for the death
penalty, but didn't get it, then wound up committing another crime. It must
be tough, since most of them are serving long prison terms.

Because they eventually do get out. Unless the sentence is changed to
life without the possiblity of parole.

Btw..the average time spend in the joint on a life sentence?
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/vospats.txt

12yrs.

About ten years ago, now, I read an interesting stat. the actual
sentenced served per murder committed was between two and three years.
Between plea bargains, time off for good behavior, etc, seems that a
murderer serves at most 36 months.

Of course, that was before "3 strikes and your in" proved so popular.
--
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 Sun, 06 Mar 2005 16:39:13 GMT in
rec.crafts.metalworking :
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:
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?


Again, from the "best of the Web" for March 3, 2005
=====
Pink vs. Green
You may remember her from such movies as "A Low Down Dirty Shame" and
"Woo." Call Jada Pinkett Smith's latest production "Heteronormative Hell."
The Harvard Crimson reports the actress appeared on campus recently as part
of the 20th annual Cultural Rhythms show, and what she had to say was quite
inflammatory:

"Women, you can have it all--a loving man, devoted husband, loving
children, a fabulous career," she said. "They say you gotta choose. Nah,
nah, nah. We are a new generation of women. We got to set a new standard of
rules around here. You can do whatever it is you want. All you have to do
is want it."

"To my men, open your mind, open your eyes to new ideas. Be open," she
added.

This didn't quite provoke fainting spells, like Larry Summers's recent
remarks, but the Crimson reports that "some students were offended" and
that "the Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Transgender, and Supporters Alliance
(BGLTSA) and the Harvard Foundation for Intercultural and Race Relations
have begun working together to increase sensitivity toward issues of
sexuality at Harvard."

In case you're one of those backward types who don't understand why what
Smith said is so horrible, the Crimson spells it out:

BGLTSA Co-Chair Jordan B. Woods '06 said that, while many BGLTSA members
thought Pinkett Smith's speech was "motivational," some were insulted
because they thought she narrowly defined the roles of men and women in
relationships.

"Some of the content was extremely heteronormative, and made BGLTSA members
feel uncomfortable," he said.

Calling the comments heteronormative, according to Woods, means they
implied that standard sexual relationships are only between males and
females.

"Our position is that the comments weren't homophobic, but the content was
specific to male-female relationships," Woods said.

Now first of all, maybe the BGLTSA guys (and gals, etc.) would feel more
comfortable if they had a nice big soft chair instead of one made of
"Woods."

=====

So again, I'll ask, what is so horrible about promoting the option of a
man and a woman getting married and having children in a manner considered
traditional in the rest of the world?

And why is there so little tolerance for those who feel a moral scruple
against deviating from such a tradition?


tschus
pyotr


--
pyotr filipivich
The two oldest cliches in the book are "The Good Old Days were
better." and "After all, these are Modern TImes."

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 23:11:26 GMT, the inscrutable Lew Hartswick
spake:

Larry Jaques wrote:

Uh, where's your wink or grin for that facetiousity, hmmm?

Larry, Where DO you come up with those words? I'd swear you
are trying to out do Bill Buckley. :-)
...lew...

That one I made up. And thank you, lew. I try harder!

LJ--a Buckley fan.


================================================== ========
I drank WHAT? + http://www.diversify.com
--Socrates + Web Application Programming

On 7 Mar 2005 14:01:49 -0800, the inscrutable jim rozen
spake:

In article , Gunner says...

My boy? Since when is a moderate My Boy?

Since your boy reagan appointed him....

C'mon, Jim. Ronnie was entitled to ONE mistake, eh?


================================================== ========
I drank WHAT? + http://www.diversify.com
--Socrates + Web Application Programming