SC bans death penalty for juvenile offenders

wrote in message
ps.com...

bobb wrote:
"Greegor" wrote in message
oups.com...
Bobb:
Aren't you concerned that FOREIGN PRESSURE
is deciding such policy, either way?

Do you want to pretend that we don't influence the domestic policies of
other nations?

It's supposed to be a two way street, greegor. "Reciprocity."

Where is THAT in our US Constitution?

Well, there IS a little section about the conduct of foreign relations,
greegor. Honest.

I love that you twits are constantly citing the constitution, but have
little knowledge of it.

Are you aware that ONE of the diplomatic tools open to us as a country,
WAR, is controlled by constitutional sanction?

Do you know that others are, such as tariffs, which can and have been
punitively against other nations?

But the question should by why are we attempting to punish other nations?




Such acknowledged influence on our policy
seems a bit Traitorial, contrary to our system
of government, unless it goes THROUGH the
people and their VOTE!

Oh dear. You still haven't figure out what a constitutionally mandated
republic is, have you?

We vote for our representatives. They, under pressures of various
kinds, create laws. And, greegor, bobber, THEY decide if and how we
respond to foreign pressures. And if you don't like how they do that,
you do what's built into a representative democracy.....rather a lot of
thing actually.

You call, write letters, complain publically in the media with letters
to the editor, you picket the state houses, local to federal. You
buttonhole your representative critters at their offices in your home
area, and their staff.


Hmm... seems like we are doing exactly that. CPS, broken borders, illegal
immigration, etc. However, it should be noted it was elected
legislators who either passed bills or put strange people in charge of some
thing or another. Many laws are either unfair or totally wrong.
Additionally,
we can no longer count on the supreme court to protect us from government
wrongs.

And in the end, if you don't like how they do things, you campaign for
and vote for someone else.

The choice sometimes come from the worse of the worst.. not from
the best and the brightest.


It's a lawful, successful (unless you think we are a not the most
successful country on this planet) method that seems to be working for
those of us that use it. YOU, for instance, don't have that little girl
to torture and frighten, precisely because we citizens voted for a
serious of representatives that made law to carry out our wishes to
protect children from such as you.

Unless you have noticed, as with CPS, laws often do more harm than
good. It's easy for legislators to act foolishly... but very difficult
to make corrections. People sit in jail for years and years waiting to
be vindicated... and many never live to see the day.



Kane actually JUSTIFIED such FOREIGN INFLUENCE.

Had I not I would be in denial of reality. When WE don't respond to the
pressures of foreign influence, guess what we get back? The trick is to
pick and choose when and how we respond. Apparently on this issue it
was chosen to respond as we did.

On the other hand, bobbsie and gregorypoo, "foreign" is not the only
"influence" that was and has been historically brought to bear on this
issue of the death penalty. (By the way, I am proponent of the death
penalty in certain cases, one of which is the murder of a child by
anyone, when the child is under 12......NO exceptions other than proven
long term mental illness).

You have a hard time in the real world, don't you, boys?

Actually, trials for murdering gang bangers as
adults did have a rather large impact. If statistics
say otherwise, then the stats LIE.

Oh brother.

So, tell us, greegor, from what incidences are you drawing such a
conclusion...that "trials for muderting gang bangers as adults have a
rather large impact?" What I've seen, right up close, having lived in
the hood, is that the number of gang related killings go up and down
independent of the death penalty (presumably what you are referring
to). It seems to be seasonal, and especially responsive to "turf"
invasions from distant cities.

Yah know, the LA gangs coming to a new town?

We have strayed far from constitutional provisions regardless of
outside
influences.

Oh dear. A lecture from our constitutional scholar, bobber the judge.

Although age is not mentioned we deny kids many of the constitution
provisions that USED to be recognized.

Oh. Which ones would those be?

And who is this "we" you are referring to? Parents? Teachers? CPS? The
cops? Your local farmers?

As a distinct group, parents are no longer constitutionally
protected...
and the traditional family is an endangered species.

Nonsense as to constitutional protection, and the reason for any
endangerment has nothing at all to do with the constitution and the
law, but with lifestyle changes. We are a 'successful' country in the
sense that OUR highest priority is "self."

We are, baby boomers being the obvious favored class, able to indulge
ourselves individualy like no one but kings and princes have been able
to in the past.

And we seem to chose, whereas others with more values placed on the
collective of community, family, state, etc. do not, to hold more
precious the idea that the individual is the highest value over all
other forms of life and living.

Although I agree the death penality should not apply to young
children I
beleive the Supreme County is on a slippery slope when they
determined a
child's brain is not fully developed as a reason for not executing
children.

Oh?

Care to explain how that works? Defend the execution of someone for
acting without the capacity for decision making that others have, and
show how this slippery slope works and where you expect it to take us?

The constitution makes no such allowances.


The supreme court has toyed with the death penality in many various
ways and
I doubt they will ever get it right.

"Toyed?"

Well, the states have "toyed" with it for some time now, about 300
years in this country, and the fact they have such diversity between
the states in how they apply, who they apply to, and what they apply
for, that the Supreme Court has been called on many times to deal with
this issue.

I believe that IS the intent of the supreme court..and if you intend on
actually having something happen, rather than just listen to the rocks
in a hollow gourd sound your head is making, you will have to look to
the supreme court to doing it.

"Cruel and unusual" are subjective terms yet they continue to define
with
some degree of specificity was it, and what is not.


Bobber, you are a riot. Objectivity and subjectively aren't much bound
up in specific words, but refer to interpretations by observers and
actors upon such "terms."

If I see someone cut off someone else's head, I can say with assurance
that I am accurate and objective, "that was a cruel and unusual act,"
can I not?


We are talking about the state imposing cruel and unusual punishments.
Chopping off one's head was not considered cruel... nor
unusual... as a way of the state carrying out an execution.



I'm not living in a land where this is common...so it would be
"unusual," right?

And last I heard removal of one's head is considered, in my culture,
and I suspect, even where it is practice, "cruel." In fact that is the
point...to do something so cruel and unusual that it shocks and
terrifies.

Hanging, electrocution, firing squad, have all been toyed with over the
years as has lethal injection. We have given much more attention as
to how executions are carried out than the reason for execution.

If a person is entitled to a comfortable death I should think he
probably should not be exectuted in the first place. That he/she
suffers a bit of pain the last few seconds of life would otherwise
be quite just, if not deserving.





Gosh, I wonder if you think "terrorist" is then a subjective term, or
could it, under some circumstances be and objective interpretation?

For sure, terrorist is also a subjective term. In fact, even today,
the government has adopted policy to punish those might be able,
though not capable, of commiting a terrorist act. Under the broad
scope of the term 'terrorist' many innocents acts are
becomig criminal in nature. A sitting federal judge was fined $750.00
for carrying a pen knife on an airplane.

In fact, hy-jacking an airplane may not always be a terrorist act.
We have lost sight of 'intent'. There are those who irrationally
use air transportation to escape the confines of their country...
or have you forgotten?

If an arab committs a bank robbery could that, too, be seen
as a terrorist act?

There are many so called hate crimes that are committed to
instill terror in the hearts and minds of others. Certainly the
KKK was a terrorist group. Anti-abortion advocates are
terrorist groups. Under current law, carrying a rope or a scapel
subjects one to arrest as a 'terrorist'... just as the federal judge
for carrying a pen knife. The next 'terrorist' act will be the
unlawful possession of a cigarette lighter and matches on
airplanes.

I would mind if the airline imposed rules and regulations in
order to fly on their airliners... even naked.. but I strongly
object to the state imposing these silly, and often, unconstitutional
rules.




I think it's cruel to send someone to prison for life, or even 20
years,
because he/she comitted a non-violent crime but it is no longer
unusual.

Yep. Now please fit that into your prior claims.

The constitution is suppposed to protect us from government but more
and
more we are seeing legislators designing government as a
protection
agency.

And you are either a liar, or stupid as mush.

Please define "protection agency."

Is that so hard to understand? Car seat belts, child seats, OSHA,
national fire codes and CPS. Where do we find these in the
federal consitution?

There are matters best left to the states... not federal government.



If we look to foreign government their people have enjoyed the most
freedoms.

Oh?

What countries would you be referring to? I don't know of one that
doesn't have some minority group or another, just like the minority
group of phony balony CPS reformers (mostly child abusers that got
caught), that would disagree with you.

It's already been determined that civil right laws passed expressly for
minority groups were, and always have been, unconstitional.


In the last 30 years or so, it is the U.S. government that has
influenced and extended the reach of even foreign government.

This appears to be similar to your "explanation" of the difference
between "composite" and "profile" in LE investigative work.

It's interesting to note which foreign governments are influencing
ours.

Hmmm....I can hardly wait for this revelation.

In
the African countries property is valued far beyond life.. and
vigilante
justice is common-place. Steal a man's property it's instant death.
Kill a
another person 'unlawfully' and the jail sentence is measured in
weeks.

Your point?

In the middle-east reputation, honor, or sense of family is all
important. Screw with an unmarried daughter or sister regarless of
age and
death is instant.

Yes, they are known even to kill their females when the female was
raped. Tsk. What has this to do with the banning of the death penalty
for minors in the US?

In both these instances.. it is not the government that imposes the
death
penality.. it is the people. Governments rarely execute except for
crimes
against the state and even those are rare.

And you propose.........?

At another level, sometimes contradictory, we attempt to impose our
'moral'
values on European countries through bribes and threats forgetting,
once
again, the people should be protected from government and not
subject to
additional sanctions.

Yep. It's a problem for people that consider themselves to be moral.
What do you think. Are the ayatollahs or us the more rightful heirs to
the title "moral?"

Well then, you need a better understanding of 'moral'. Your
one-shoe-fits-all
mentality suggests where you are coming from. My way or no way.

bobb


bobb

Gee, bobb, and greegor, this has been swell. You guys should be invited
to speak at graduate seminars on political science. I'll see if I can
arrange something. Greegor, bring along your Motion, and that wonderful
testimony to the House Ways & Means committee. That'll wow 'em!

Kane

"Kane" wrote in message
oups.com...
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050301/D88IBA1G2.html

[[[ We finally make a step toward civilization in this matter ]]]


Another subject where you and I are going to have to agree to disagree.

This decision was a travisty, and totally unfounded by the court. Reversing
their own decision of a few years back.

Ron

"bobb" bob@somewhere wrote in message
...
I have to agree with Kane... but for much different reasons except to say
the death penalty has never been a deterent... even for adults.

Your right, its not, except in Texas. Where they don't waste time, energy,
or money sending them to what they deserve.

Ron

I do have to wonder if this isn't the begining of a trend. Life
imprisonment might be reserved for the worse kinda killers with lesser
sentences for other killings.

bobb

bobb wrote:
wrote in message
ps.com...

bobb wrote:
"Greegor" wrote in message
oups.com...
Bobb:
Aren't you concerned that FOREIGN PRESSURE
is deciding such policy, either way?

Do you want to pretend that we don't influence the domestic
policies of
other nations?

It's supposed to be a two way street, greegor. "Reciprocity."

Where is THAT in our US Constitution?

Well, there IS a little section about the conduct of foreign
relations,
greegor. Honest.

I love that you twits are constantly citing the constitution, but
have
little knowledge of it.

Are you aware that ONE of the diplomatic tools open to us as a
country,
WAR, is controlled by constitutional sanction?

Do you know that others are, such as tariffs, which can and have
been
punitively against other nations?

But the question should by why are we attempting to punish other
nations?

For the same reason they do it to us, to influence us to favor them.

Are you so naive that you think this planet is Utopia, already?

Such acknowledged influence on our policy
seems a bit Traitorial, contrary to our system
of government, unless it goes THROUGH the
people and their VOTE!

Oh dear. You still haven't figure out what a constitutionally
mandated
republic is, have you?

We vote for our representatives. They, under pressures of various
kinds, create laws. And, greegor, bobber, THEY decide if and how we
respond to foreign pressures. And if you don't like how they do
that,
you do what's built into a representative democracy.....rather a
lot of
thing actually.

You call, write letters, complain publically in the media with
letters
to the editor, you picket the state houses, local to federal. You
buttonhole your representative critters at their offices in your
home
area, and their staff.


Hmm... seems like we are doing exactly that.

Insufficiently. That's why I try to encourage you. I like having worthy
opponents. You pricks make me laugh.

CPS, broken borders, illegal
immigration, etc.

You are insufficient in your arguments and numbers and energy. You are
easily defeated. It's just that simple.

It's folks that actually DO something that have the upper hand. Always
have, always will.

Babbling and whining on a ng isn't doing something. It's doing nothing
with a vengence.

However, it should be noted it was elected
legislators who either passed bills or put strange people in charge
of some
thing or another. Many laws are either unfair or totally wrong.

And when the public decides in sufficient numbers and with sufficient
energy, just as in the past, they will change those laws, and remove
those "strange people." What, by the way is a "something or other?" And
why would we care?

"Many laws?" Well, many are not unfair or totally wrong.

Many are just not liked by those with low morals, poorly developed
consciences, and with criminal thinking patterns they would love to act
on and not be caught and punished for.

Additionally,
we can no longer count on the supreme court to protect us from
government
wrongs.

Citations please. It's not that I disagree with you, but I can't keep
guessing at so many things in a single post, as I must with you, Doug,
greegor, Furneal and the many sock puppets present.

It's just pointless for me to try. Be specific please.

And in the end, if you don't like how they do things, you campaign
for
and vote for someone else.

The choice sometimes come from the worse of the worst.. not from
the best and the brightest.

bobber, I've tried to be patient, as the cliche is a vulnerable and
sometimes useful tradition in english composition, but enough is
enough. Please try for some originality.

A good cliche SAYS something. You not only abused the cliche you simply
lied.

There are good and bright people in political office. Rather a lot of
them. Some are even politically the opposite of my preferences. A
few...R R R R

Why must you be so much of a misanthrope? Everything but the ugly,
evil, and even criminal, is bad by your reckoning, apparently. You seem
to gravitate toward those nasty things with lust and hunger for them.

Have you ever given any consideration to seeing a shrink?

It's a lawful, successful (unless you think we are a not the most
successful country on this planet) method that seems to be working
for
those of us that use it. YOU, for instance, don't have that little
girl
to torture and frighten, precisely because we citizens voted for a
serious of representatives that made law to carry out our wishes to
protect children from such as you.

Unless you have noticed, as with CPS, laws often do more harm than
good.

Well, here I go again..having to guess at your meaning. (I notice you
haven't as yet provided, at my polite request, the definition of
"composite" and "profile" that shows they are different
things....wearing me down is the strategy then, right after dogpilin'
me?).

So, what do you mean by "Unless you have noticed?" "Noticed" what?

No, CPS laws do not do more harm than good. That is a propagandist, and
I believe a very sick and mentally questionable instability perpetrated
in this ng much of the time. I genuinely consider you folks mentally
ill to a degree.

At least socially misfit and dysfunctional. You want chaos, apparently,
and you'll make it if it's not there.

The vast majority of CPS cases, regardless of findings and outcomes,
are righteous. The claims about removal of children are bogus. Most
removals CPS doesn't even do. Much are adjunctive to criminal activity
they were found on the site of. They are placed for safety.

It's easy for legislators to act foolishly... but very difficult
to make corrections.

Yes, we know. We also have a body of law the majority of which works
very well. So well that we are rarely conscious of them. That is until
they are broken. And we personally are affected.

People sit in jail for years and years waiting to
be vindicated... and many never live to see the day.

Yes. The law, like all social institutions, requires constant vigilance
and tuning. What are YOU doing other than babbling about it?

I don't see any suggestions. Well, none that sound sane. You appear to
want to make it legal for adults to **** kids, because they do it, and
some kids think it's okay. Really bobber, really.

You seem to think sentences are too long, but fail to look at the
offenses they are attached to. Rape of a child, regardless of the lack
of physical injury and even of the child's willing participation seems
to be as nothing to you.

Why is that I wonder.

Kane actually JUSTIFIED such FOREIGN INFLUENCE.

Had I not I would be in denial of reality. When WE don't respond to
the
pressures of foreign influence, guess what we get back? The trick
is to
pick and choose when and how we respond. Apparently on this issue
it
was chosen to respond as we did.

On the other hand, bobbsie and gregorypoo, "foreign" is not the
only
"influence" that was and has been historically brought to bear on
this
issue of the death penalty. (By the way, I am proponent of the
death
penalty in certain cases, one of which is the murder of a child by
anyone, when the child is under 12......NO exceptions other than
proven
long term mental illness).

You have a hard time in the real world, don't you, boys?

Actually, trials for murdering gang bangers as
adults did have a rather large impact. If statistics
say otherwise, then the stats LIE.

Oh brother.

So, tell us, greegor, from what incidences are you drawing such a
conclusion...that "trials for muderting gang bangers as adults have
a
rather large impact?" What I've seen, right up close, having lived
in
the hood, is that the number of gang related killings go up and
down
independent of the death penalty (presumably what you are referring
to). It seems to be seasonal, and especially responsive to "turf"
invasions from distant cities.

Yah know, the LA gangs coming to a new town?

We have strayed far from constitutional provisions regardless of
outside
influences.

Oh dear. A lecture from our constitutional scholar, bobber the
judge.

Although age is not mentioned we deny kids many of the
constitution
provisions that USED to be recognized.

Oh. Which ones would those be?

And who is this "we" you are referring to? Parents? Teachers? CPS?
The
cops? Your local farmers?

As a distinct group, parents are no longer constitutionally
protected...
and the traditional family is an endangered species.

Nonsense as to constitutional protection, and the reason for any
endangerment has nothing at all to do with the constitution and the
law, but with lifestyle changes. We are a 'successful' country in
the
sense that OUR highest priority is "self."

We are, baby boomers being the obvious favored class, able to
indulge
ourselves individualy like no one but kings and princes have been
able
to in the past.

And we seem to chose, whereas others with more values placed on the
collective of community, family, state, etc. do not, to hold more
precious the idea that the individual is the highest value over all
other forms of life and living.

Although I agree the death penality should not apply to young
children I
beleive the Supreme County is on a slippery slope when they
determined a
child's brain is not fully developed as a reason for not executing
children.

Oh?

Care to explain how that works? Defend the execution of someone for
acting without the capacity for decision making that others have,
and
show how this slippery slope works and where you expect it to take
us?

The constitution makes no such allowances.

For judges to judge on facts like age and capacity of the actor?

Really now.


The supreme court has toyed with the death penality in many
various
ways and
I doubt they will ever get it right.

"Toyed?"

Well, the states have "toyed" with it for some time now, about 300
years in this country, and the fact they have such diversity
between
the states in how they apply, who they apply to, and what they
apply
for, that the Supreme Court has been called on many times to deal
with
this issue.

I believe that IS the intent of the supreme court..and if you
intend on
actually having something happen, rather than just listen to the
rocks
in a hollow gourd sound your head is making, you will have to look
to
the supreme court to doing it.

"Cruel and unusual" are subjective terms yet they continue to
define
with
some degree of specificity was it, and what is not.


Bobber, you are a riot. Objectivity and subjectively aren't much
bound
up in specific words, but refer to interpretations by observers and
actors upon such "terms."

If I see someone cut off someone else's head, I can say with
assurance
that I am accurate and objective, "that was a cruel and unusual
act,"
can I not?


We are talking about the state imposing cruel and unusual
punishments.
Chopping off one's head was not considered cruel... nor
unusual... as a way of the state carrying out an execution.


"Was." You can say "was" and not get the point?

bobber, it used to be common to burn people at the stake...it WAS
common and considered usual. It no longer is. It is cruel and unusual.

And as time passes and we grow more civil, let's hope, more things we
do now will be seen as cruel and unusual. Such as hitting a child for
being a child.


I'm not living in a land where this is common...so it would be
"unusual," right?

And last I heard removal of one's head is considered, in my
culture,
and I suspect, even where it is practice, "cruel." In fact that is
the
point...to do something so cruel and unusual that it shocks and
terrifies.

Hanging, electrocution, firing squad, have all been toyed with over
the
years as has lethal injection. We have given much more attention as
to how executions are carried out than the reason for execution.

And this makes what argument for the defense of executing children
being or not being cruel and unusual how?

If a person is entitled to a comfortable death I should think he
probably should not be exectuted in the first place.

So says the "civilized man."

In other words, we must do to him what he did to another?

That he/she
suffers a bit of pain the last few seconds of life would otherwise
be quite just, if not deserving.

Then bobber, you, when you die, I hope have some. It would be in honor
of the raped children that your ideas encourage, among other things,
like agony and deep losses people suffer from bigotry and racism you
fomet


Gosh, I wonder if you think "terrorist" is then a subjective term,
or
could it, under some circumstances be and objective interpretation?

For sure, terrorist is also a subjective term.

Oh dear. A single word is neither subjective or objective. It is only
in context of an issue larger than the word you can use such
judgements.

In fact, even today,
the government has adopted policy to punish those might be able,
though not capable, of commiting a terrorist act. Under the broad
scope of the term 'terrorist' many innocents acts are
becomig criminal in nature. A sitting federal judge was fined $750.00
for carrying a pen knife on an airplane.

Just like I said...the word is not objective or subjective, but THIS
application could be examined with objectively or subjectivity as an
argument.

You are confusing "objectivity" or "subjectivity" with good, or
correct, or bad, or incorrect. Neither are any of those. They are
descriptive of a way of looking at things. One, with a strict adherence
to fact alone. The other, through biases and emotion from one's single
viewpoint, or that of a group's viewpoint.

Man the rape you do to language should be illegal.

In fact, hy-jacking an airplane may not always be a terrorist act.

So, is the act subjective?

We have lost sight of 'intent'.

We do?

If it's to get to Cuba for the marlin fishing season, I'd be inclined
to not call it terrorism, in the current usage of the word. If it's
force a political agenda on others by act of "terror" (surprize!) then
I think calling it terrorism works.

There are those who irrationally
use air transportation to escape the confines of their country...
or have you forgotten?

Unn...okay, let's say "I've forgotten." What would your point be then?

On the other hand, I'M not the one arguing for "terrorist" being
subjective.

Now I would not argue that the ACT, which is much more than the word,
can be viewed subjectively or objectively. But the word alone? Nope.

If an arab committs a bank robbery could that, too, be seen
as a terrorist act?

No.

"If an arab committs (sic) a bank robbery" and uses the money to
finance more arms and logistical support of political and religous
opponents, then it would be a terrorist act.

Do you think I am making and objective or subject argument?

There are many so called hate crimes that are committed to
instill terror in the hearts and minds of others. Certainly the
KKK was a terrorist group.

Yes.

Anti-abortion advocates are
terrorist groups.

Sometimes they are, sometimes they are not. Some are, some are not.

Under current law, carrying a rope or a scapel
subjects one to arrest as a 'terrorist'... just as the federal judge
for carrying a pen knife. The next 'terrorist' act will be the
unlawful possession of a cigarette lighter and matches on
airplanes.

Please cite your sources. I'm curious if they were judged as or even
seen as terrorists, charged so, convictied of, being terrorists.

I think your misanthropic lusts and madness are running away with you.

I would mind if the airline imposed rules and regulations in
order to fly on their airliners... even naked.. but I strongly
object to the state imposing these silly, and often,
unconstitutional
rules.

I hate traffic lights that aren't timed exactly to the speed limit, and
set to respond to approaching vehicles, but then there are those dash
burned cross traffic folks that get tired of sitting there forever.

It get's rather confusing.

How do we insure the most protection for the rights of most people?
Well, we inconvenience everyone. That is true, and would be if we had
only two people on the planet. Long as you got one you got no conflict,
but two?


I think it's cruel to send someone to prison for life, or even 20
years,
because he/she comitted a non-violent crime but it is no longer
unusual.

Yep. Now please fit that into your prior claims.

The constitution is suppposed to protect us from government but
more
and
more we are seeing legislators designing government as a
protection
agency.

And you are either a liar, or stupid as mush.

Please define "protection agency."

Is that so hard to understand?

No. I wanted to be sure YOU understood. And which ones you were
referring to. I have a hunch you LIKE some of them. The ones that might
protect YOUR rights or wants.

Car seat belts, child seats, OSHA,
national fire codes and CPS. Where do we find these in the
federal consitution?

Unnhh..in Washington DC? Do I get a sticker up by my name?

There are matters best left to the states... not federal government.

Well, how do you feel about the USDH, and it's food and drug division?

How about restaurant sanitation inspectors. How about those pesky
federal health people that come around when there's an epidemic and the
source hasn't been found?

How about the cops when someone close to you is murdered?

How about when child has been abused?


If we look to foreign government their people have enjoyed the
most
freedoms.

Oh?

What countries would you be referring to? I don't know of one that
doesn't have some minority group or another, just like the minority
group of phony balony CPS reformers (mostly child abusers that got
caught), that would disagree with you.

It's already been determined that civil right laws passed expressly
for
minority groups were, and always have been, unconstitional.

Then you would have to accept that the laws passed are not expressly
for minorities but in fact apply to all. You are aware that whites, for
instance, have successfully sued on civil rights grounds, being
discriminated against on the bases of race, are you not?


In the last 30 years or so, it is the U.S. government that has
influenced and extended the reach of even foreign government.

This appears to be similar to your "explanation" of the difference
between "composite" and "profile" in LE investigative work.

It's interesting to note which foreign governments are influencing
ours.

Hmmm....I can hardly wait for this revelation.

Still no clarifying the "composite" and "profile" differences you claim
you explained to me before?

In
the African countries property is valued far beyond life.. and
vigilante
justice is common-place. Steal a man's property it's instant
death.
Kill a
another person 'unlawfully' and the jail sentence is measured in
weeks.

Your point?

No answer?

You do know, of course, this is not Africa, right?

And you know of course we were discussing the US banning of the death
penalty, right?

In the middle-east reputation, honor, or sense of family is all
important. Screw with an unmarried daughter or sister regarless of
age and
death is instant.

Yes, they are known even to kill their females when the female was
raped. Tsk. What has this to do with the banning of the death
penalty
for minors in the US?

No answer?

Of course not.

In both these instances.. it is not the government that imposes
the
death
penality.. it is the people. Governments rarely execute except
for
crimes
against the state and even those are rare.

And you propose.........?

At another level, sometimes contradictory, we attempt to impose
our
'moral'
values on European countries through bribes and threats
forgetting,
once
again, the people should be protected from government and not
subject to
additional sanctions.

Yep. It's a problem for people that consider themselves to be
moral.
What do you think. Are the ayatollahs or us the more rightful heirs
to
the title "moral?"

Well then, you need a better understanding of 'moral'. Your
one-shoe-fits-all
mentality suggests where you are coming from. My way or no way.

bobber, I just caught you recently at one size fits all support. Stop
being so stupid.

No, it's not "my way or no way."

It's that you aren't going to be allowed to abuse children, and "way"
has nothing to do with it.

If it was "my way or no way" then I'd be advocating for every case to
handled the same. I am not. YOU folks are. Haven't you figured that out
yet?

Doug wants to criminalize the top horrendous abuse cases, and
apparently do NOTHING about the lessor ones. THAT, bobber, is a
"one-size-fits-all" solution to child welfare. Or haven't you noticed,
or maybe you forgot!



bobb


bobb

Gee, bobb, and greegor, this has been swell. You guys should be
invited
to speak at graduate seminars on political science. I'll see if I
can
arrange something. Greegor, bring along your Motion, and that
wonderful
testimony to the House Ways & Means committee. That'll wow 'em!

Kane


Continuing in the educational vein: bobber, it's been swell a second
time. I know so much more now than I did just a few short minutes ago.
I'm gratified.

Of course I'll have to replenish my supply of barf bags now.

bobber, you guys are really scary. I hope you don't live near me.

Kane

bobber, you guys are really scary.
I hope you don't live near me.

Where is that?

Kane, Let me make sure I'm not misunderstanding you.

You think that US domestic LAW should be made
based on influence from foreign powers?

Directly? Without a referendum from the people?

By way of the US Supreme Court?

Do you intend to get all of the religious people
excited about the UN telling the US what to do?

Think of how such statements from somebody
as powerful as you would encourage the
RECONSTRUCTIONISTS that you love so dearly!

Even people who are not living for "end times"
would say that any influence from Foreign
governments on our laws should be by way of
our votes.

Isn't it TREASON for our Supreme Court to
buckle under International Pressure ?

Will you have the United Nations dictating
our laws in the future?

Are you one of those "World Government" fans?

Greegor wrote:
bobber, you guys are really scary.
I hope you don't live near me.

Where is that?

North America. I'd hoped you were Middle Eastern given some of your
comments.

Kane, Let me make sure I'm not misunderstanding you.

Gregory Hanson, there is nothing in this world capable of insuring
that, considering who and what you are.

You think that US domestic LAW should be made
based on influence from foreign powers?

Yes.

Do you not think foreign nations should take the US into consideration
when they make law. They do so, you know. It's called "international
relations."

Do you make rules in your household without consideration of your
neighbors?

Directly? Without a referendum from the people?

If the body making such laws is duly constituted to do so, as they are
in a representative democracy.

The "referendum from the people" is covered by a number of things,
among those being our right to the vote for the scoundr....unnnnn
snicker.... our honorable representatives that make such decisions,
or appoint those that do. Then there is our right to a free press. Our
right to petition our greivences. Our right to song dance and merriment
on the steps of the statehouse. Our right to yak it up just about
anywhere we wish with zero consequences, except for a couple of small
matters, such as advocating the violent overthrow of the government.

By way of the US Supreme Court?

Are they not a legally constituted body?

Should they not take foreign nation issues into account along with all
the other things they must consider in making decisions?

Is it not common for little ****ing twits such as you to focus on only
ONE of the things they considered in a decision and decide, like
"clutter" nothing else was considered? Or try to hide, ignore,
minimize, that a great many other likely more important and weighty
issues were more influencing?

Do you intend to get all of the religious people
excited about the UN telling the US what to do?

I don't "intend" anything of the sort. Why would an athiest, as you
used to like to remind folks, (as though it was a fault or evil) want
to appeal to the religious for any particular help with anything.

In fact I'm not a fan of the UN, and not long ago had a serious falling
out with a very religious friend who was against spanking, as I am, and
was invoking the UN protect the child mandates to be used in the US
against US citizens.

Want to guess my position on that?

If the UN says do it, you won't find me putting on any blue helmet,
nitwit, but if a duly constituted body in this country says "do it" I
will "do it" even if I don't like it, then I'll scream my head off at
every politician I can get my hands on...by legal means, to change what
I don't like.

That's how it works here.

YOU assholes have tried (and mostly misinterpreted or flat out lied)
constitutional law, SC and state SC findings when it pandered to your
pet love, beating and torturing children and calling it "parenting."

Now you are finding yourself in the other position, aren't you? R R R R
R ...

Think of how such statements from somebody
as powerful as you

I have exactly the same power as bobber the swift, or Furneal, or you,
stupid.

would encourage the
RECONSTRUCTIONISTS that you love so dearly!

I wonder who you have me confused with.

Exactly who are you referring to as "RECONSTRUCTIONISTS," and what do
they do that I would love so dearly?

Are you referring by chance to those that say the constitution is open
to change?

Well, like it or not, there IS in fact a legal process for changing the
constitution. That's the difference between us. I know that and know
how and you squeek and whine.

Even people who are not living for "end times"
would say that any influence from Foreign
governments on our laws should be by way of
our votes.

Well, they may say anything they wish, and so may you or I. I may not
like something, but that doesn't mean I get to change it outside the
legal process supported by our constitution. Not an go unchallenged by
my fellow citizens, as it should be.

Why do you think I challenge you twits.

Isn't it TREASON for our Supreme Court to
buckle under International Pressure ?

I think you should quote yourself, and mail it off to them, with a
demand they account for their actions and decisions. Be my guest.

And no, personally I do not think it treason to have concern for one's
neighbors when setting up MY household rules.

I do not, for instance, burn brush when the wind if to my neighbors. I
could make a rule that I only burn brush with it will smoke them out. I
don't think I'd be getting away with it for long.

Will you have the United Nations dictating
our laws in the future?

I was a strong advocate of the UN back in the 60s and 70s. I learned,
because I used to travel a lot in the 80's and 90's, that I was
mistaken...or rather than I had been conned.

I don't allow myself the luxury of head in the sand, or up the ass, as
YOU ****tards do, when I find myself mistaken.

I gave up a very important association with a person who I otherwise
greatly admire on the anti spanking issue, just because of our
differences on the UN. Or rather, she dumped me because I was not going
to back down on rejecting the UN on the protect the child mandate.

Are you one of those "World Government" fans?

I'll let you guess.

In fact, I'll invite you to show me my posts that would be logically
accountable as proof that you should even ask such a question.

Unlike the post of yours to the ex cop, where you exclaimed to any
reader that the cop and his buddies were off base to criticise citizens
that might wave a gun in someone's face, and I asked you to clarify,
YOU have not such post of mine where I defend or advocate for the UN in
any way, on any matter, whatsovever.

I do, however, unlike you and your cronies, know that we have
neighbors, and while we are in power now, some of those helped us to
get here, and we may not always be.

It pays to be a good neighbor when we don't have to be.

And reaching out to other nations as part of our internal decision
making processes is just one way. It was a small thing to say we
recognized that other nations had already taken the step to ban a
juvenile death penalty, don't you think?

In fact, smirk, I think, great PR.

Kane

Kane wrote
"I don't "intend" anything of the sort. Why would an athiest, as you
used to like to remind folks, (as though it was a fault or evil) want
to appeal to the religious for any particular help with anything."

Are you denying you signed a Jesus group petition
against spanking?

Greegor wrote:
Kane wrote
"I don't "intend" anything of the sort. Why would an athiest, as you
used to like to remind folks, (as though it was a fault or evil) want
to appeal to the religious for any particular help with anything."

Are you denying you signed a Jesus group petition
against spanking?

You found my name on a petition against spanking?

Where?

I should sign up.

By the way, you forgot to respond to my other comments. You seem to be
incapable of writing in context. Can I expect a catch-up later?

Kane

wrote:
Hmm! The eighth admendment.....whats cruel and unusual about using
lethal injection.....the subject simply goes to sleep.....even the
removal of the head is
humane, just messy......if you punish youthful offenders, and don't
use
the extreme pushiment, society simply goes soft....and there is a
rise
in major crimes.

Chuck from a capital punishment state

Gee Chuck, given that we have so many states that are not CapPun
states, and the rate of violent crime in this country, according to the
FBI, keeps dropping, decade after decade, and either remains steady or
drops with youthful offenders, I'm completely stumped as to how they,
the FBI, and reporting LE agencies, could have missed your superior
knowledge on the efficacy of CapPun and the clearly causal link that is
responsible for lowering the violent or major crime rate.

I'm sure, if you contact them, the FBI,you can work out with them what
their mistake might be. Hey, buzz up the US Attorney General. This is
big, Chuck, real big.

0:-

Kane

Was Jesus spanked?