|
In article ,
Scott Vernon wrote: Since Jon wants people to follow the rule of law and respect the majority view, Jon supports capital punishment. And President Bush ! Are you advocating violence? I hope not. -- Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m) http://www.sailnow.com "If there's no wind, row." |
In article ,
Scott Vernon wrote: "katysails" wrote ... Maybe you need to start running with a different crowd if you haven't met any of those kind of folks. They won't let gay couples adopt children. Apparently Soctty knows all about these restrictions.... -- Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m) http://www.sailnow.com "If there's no wind, row." |
In article ,
Dave wrote: On 27 Oct 2004 19:02:11 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz) said: The Dems (or at least a few of them) were dragged kicking and screaming to vote for welfare reform after they lost their Congressional majorities. Meanwhile, what Dean called the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party" continued with its dire predictions that it wouldn't work, and that welfare moms would be starving in the streets if they had to (gasp) work. Of course Dave is unable to substantiate any of this, but he still thinks it's ok to say it. -- Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m) http://www.sailnow.com "If there's no wind, row." |
In article ,
Dave wrote: On 27 Oct 2004 19:03:36 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz) said: Either your knowledge of the English language is sorely lacking, or you're simply trying to squirm out of your statement, Jon. The word "a" denotes the singular. And what is the antecedent for the pronoun "who" that appears twice in your sentence. Dave, you're unqualified to lecture about the English language. It's your third or fourth language. Do you want to take a guess at how many rapes result in pregnancy? I bet you don't. -- Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m) http://www.sailnow.com "If there's no wind, row." |
In article ,
Dave wrote: On 27 Oct 2004 19:06:23 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz) said: The vast, vast majority of people support a woman's right to choose to have or not have an abortion. If that is indeed the case, why would you be unwilling to let that vast majority act through the political process in their own States as they did prior to the time the legislative power was usurped by the nine wise men? Ah, I have it. Those evil racist legislators would flout the will of the people. It's quite apparent that you don't know squat about civil rights. The vast majority has acted through the political process. They seek to defend the rights of those who can't defend themselves. One of the consequences of this has been the right to privacy, which includes the right of a woman to choose whether or not to have an abortion. Do you want to guess how many rapes result in pregancy? I bet you don't. -- Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m) http://www.sailnow.com "If there's no wind, row." |
In article ,
Vito wrote: "Jonathan Ganz" wrote katysails wrote: Social Security to take care of you when you're ancient, .... That's not true. Definitely not true. You also get SS benefits if you're disabled. Blacks, for example, don't live as long on average as whites, nor do they make as much, they do have higher disability rates, and thus do get benefits. -- Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m) http://www.sailnow.com "If there's no wind, row." |
In article ,
Dave wrote: On 28 Oct 2004 10:33:49 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz) said: The Dems (or at least a few of them) were dragged kicking and screaming to vote for welfare reform after they lost their Congressional majorities. Meanwhile, what Dean called the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party" continued with its dire predictions that it wouldn't work, and that welfare moms would be starving in the streets if they had to (gasp) work. Of course Dave is unable to substantiate any of this, but he still thinks it's ok to say it. Some of us have memories, Jon. So, the answer is no, you can't. -- Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m) http://www.sailnow.com "If there's no wind, row." |
In article ,
Dave wrote: On 28 Oct 2004 10:35:33 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz) said: OK, Jon, since you're an expert in this field as well, enlighten us. Explain the structure of your fractured sentence: Sorry, but it's clearly too deep for you. Look it up. No, wait a minute--that first dependant clause would be too complicated for you. You can start with the words "a baby" and just follow the preposition "from," its object or objects, the appositive if any, and the dependant clauses following. Be careful though, since if you're not careful you may end up describing a situation in which a single child has 3 biological parents. So, you refuse to answer the question. Got it. Do you know how many rapes result in pregnancies? Probably you should look that up too! Do you want to take a guess at how many rapes result in pregnancy? I bet you don't. I'm not at all sure what the relevance of that question is to the discussion, as I've already indicated that in my view the answer that should be arrived at through the political process is that the guvmint should avoid getting involved in the decision to terminate pregnancies. It has a huge relevance, since you would deny abortions to these girls, as would Bush. It's a matter of law that they have the right to choose, but you and Bush would take that away wouldn't you.... What a humanitarian! -- Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m) http://www.sailnow.com "If there's no wind, row." |
In article ,
Dave wrote: On 28 Oct 2004 10:37:53 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz) said: It's quite apparent that you don't know squat about civil rights. The vast majority has acted through the political process. They seek to defend the rights of those who can't defend themselves. One of the consequences of this has been the right to privacy, which includes the right of a woman to choose whether or not to have an abortion. Hmm. I must have missed that election where we voted for the justices. Hmm... you've missed a lot. -- Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m) http://www.sailnow.com "If there's no wind, row." |
In article ,
wrote: He probably also missed Republican golden boy, Rude Guiliani, who today supported our troops by blaming them for not doing their job and protecting the missing explosives. That's right! He says it's not the administrations fault, it's those damn, no good, incompetent, lazy troops! Very nice! Amazing... Bush fails to do the right thing, then has one of his surrogates blame the troops. I actually had some respect for Guiliani until I heard him say that. Now, BushCo is claiming it was out of context. It wasn't. I listened to it. -- Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m) http://www.sailnow.com "If there's no wind, row." |
In article ,
Dave wrote: I suppose I must have given you too much credit in inviting you to explain the structure of your earlier sentence. Apparently your problem isn't a grammar problem--it's a basic comprehension problem. The rest of the folks here are able, I think, to read the part of my sentence beginning "the guvmin should avoid." I think you give yourself too much credit. So, what exactly are you trying to tell us? Should the gov't restrict women's rights or should they not? At the moment, women pretty much have the right to choose. Are you advocating removing that right and saying that each state should determine their rights, rights they already have? -- Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m) http://www.sailnow.com "If there's no wind, row." |
In article ,
Dave wrote: I strongly suspect that CBS, the Times and Kerry are gonna end up with egg all over their faces on this one. So long, Rather. Well, we strongly suspect that you're an idiot. I'm wondering if Bush is now going to fire the former mayor of NY. g When Bush was asked about the missing weapons, he had NO response. None. He just stood there, open-mouthed. -- Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m) http://www.sailnow.com "If there's no wind, row." |
In article ,
Dave wrote: On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 07:46:35 +1000, OzOne said: I strongly suspect that if there was no substance to the report then Bush wouldn't be running around like a chook without a head trying to find someone to blame! I'm reserving judgment, but no one has, so far as I know, come up with a believable explanation of how, in a period of a few weeks, 35 or 40 truckloads of explosives were moved to an undisclosed location without detection at a time when about the only traffic on the roads was U.S. military vehicles. Dave is such an even-handed guy that he ALWAYS reserves judgement about Bush's reported failings, but never reserves judgement about Kerry's. Perhaps we should keep an open mind about the ballot fiasco going on right now in Florida: Banks execute millions of ATM transactions every day, giving the customer a printed receipt if requested, and get them all right all the time. Not a margin of 1%, no recounts, but 100% right all the time. Why can't we make a voting system that is 100% right all the time? It would seem to me that the right way to do this would be a touch screen machine that asks the voter to make choices for the various offices in a language chosen by the voter (with audio output if desired), and when all done prints a paper ballot the voter can personally verify and deposit in the ballot box. The computer total would be available instantly after the polls close but in the event of a challenge, these paper ballots could be optically scanned or even hand counted. I can't believe a system like this is infeasible and it would certainly help restore faith in the electoral process. But the problems aren't only technological. There may be deeper forces at work. Today's New York Times reports that tens of thousands of absentee ballots in Florida's heavily Democratic Broward County have mysteriously vanished. The county says it mailed them but the post office says it never got them. -- Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m) http://www.sailnow.com "If there's no wind, row." |
In article ,
Dave wrote: I'm saying that that decision and similar ones should not be made for all States by nine wise men acting as a super-legislature based on nothing more than what they happen to think is a good idea today. And that each State should, through the political process, adopt the position which you claim is supported by an overwhelming majority. Thanks for clarifying. So, in simpler language, what you're saying is that you support the notion that women should be subject to the whim of state legislators, similar to how blacks were treated by those very same legislators. Basically, they shouldn't have the right to choose under federal law. -- Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m) http://www.sailnow.com "If there's no wind, row." |
In article , Jonathan Ganz
wrote: In article , Peter Wiley wrote: In article , katysails wrote: [huge snip] No. I want us to follow the rule of law and respect the majority view. Ah, but what about those minority rights? You seem to have forgotten about them quite conveniently. Since Jon wants people to follow the rule of law and respect the majority view, Jon supports capital punishment. I used to, but now I don't. I think it's much more cruel to force someone to live in a tiny cell for the rest of their life. Actually I agree with you but the risk is that someone will let them out again. Aren't you guys about to repeal the 'three strikes' law? I know it's resulted in jailing a lot of people who are plain stupid rather than dangerous but the idea, applied to people who commit crimes of violence, has a lot of merit IMO. I recall seeing stats somewhere (and we all know what they say about stats...) indicating the majority of crime was committed by the same small group of the population. PDW |
In article , Jonathan Ganz
wrote: In article , Dave wrote: I'm saying that that decision and similar ones should not be made for all States by nine wise men acting as a super-legislature based on nothing more than what they happen to think is a good idea today. And that each State should, through the political process, adopt the position which you claim is supported by an overwhelming majority. Thanks for clarifying. So, in simpler language, what you're saying is that you support the notion that women should be subject to the whim of state legislators, similar to how blacks were treated by those very same legislators. Basically, they shouldn't have the right to choose under federal law. Not really analogous. Blacks make up what, 10% of the population? Women make up fractionally over 50%. As for Dave, you guys can always have a constitutional convention and amend your constitution. Why not try that if you think your SC is so badly out of line? Personally, since I'm never gonna have to carry a baby, I'm buying right out of it. Let the pregnant woman make the choice, up to a point in the pregnancy where the foetus can survive unaided. That's where this whole debate gets real messy. Jon, answer this: do you support the right of a woman to abort a 32 week foetus? Yes or no. PDW |
In article ,
Peter Wiley wrote: Thanks for clarifying. So, in simpler language, what you're saying is that you support the notion that women should be subject to the whim of state legislators, similar to how blacks were treated by those very same legislators. Basically, they shouldn't have the right to choose under federal law. Not really analogous. Blacks make up what, 10% of the population? Women make up fractionally over 50%. Quite analogous I'd say, especially since women were denied the right to vote. As for Dave, you guys can always have a constitutional convention and amend your constitution. Why not try that if you think your SC is so badly out of line? Davey and BushCo don't have the balls, I mean the votes, to make it happen. So, they try end runs around the law. Personally, since I'm never gonna have to carry a baby, I'm buying right out of it. Let the pregnant woman make the choice, up to a point in the pregnancy where the foetus can survive unaided. That's where this whole debate gets real messy. Can or should? What about the fetus that would only survive a few minutes, due to some terrible defect? Jon, answer this: do you support the right of a woman to abort a 32 week foetus? Yes or no. Sorry, but it's not quite so simple... it depends on the situation, something the woman, her diety, and the doctor should decide. -- Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m) http://www.sailnow.com "If there's no wind, row." |
In article ,
Dave wrote: On 28 Oct 2004 15:30:39 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz) said: Dave is such an even-handed guy that he ALWAYS reserves judgement about Bush's reported failings, but never reserves judgement about Kerry's. Kerry has reported failings? g I was just being even-handed. g Perhaps we should keep an open mind about the ballot fiasco going on right now in Florida: ...as he tries to change the subject. What about those 35 or 40 truckloads, Jon? Did they take them out by camel? How many camels would it take? No. Bringing up another one. Can't handle change? Must be a Republican! -- Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m) http://www.sailnow.com "If there's no wind, row." |
In article ,
Peter Wiley wrote: Actually I agree with you but the risk is that someone will let them out again. Aren't you guys about to repeal the 'three strikes' law? I know it's resulted in jailing a lot of people who are plain stupid rather than dangerous but the idea, applied to people who commit crimes of violence, has a lot of merit IMO. I recall seeing stats somewhere (and we all know what they say about stats...) indicating the majority of crime was committed by the same small group of the population. The risk is minimal. Do you really expect anyone to let a serial killer out... ooops... well, let's not use that example. g But, mostly, life in prison without the possibility of parole, means exactly that. Also, if for example, DNA evidence turns up that exonerates someone, you don't have to dig them up. -- Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m) http://www.sailnow.com "If there's no wind, row." |
In article ,
Dave wrote: On 28 Oct 2004 16:37:42 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz) said: How were those explosives moved? No idea. Do you think your candidate should have considered that question before shooting from the hip? Don't know. I'm not Kerry. Do you think Bush could have come up with a more intelligent response than silence? -- Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m) http://www.sailnow.com "If there's no wind, row." |
In article , Jonathan Ganz
wrote: In article , Peter Wiley wrote: Actually I agree with you but the risk is that someone will let them out again. Aren't you guys about to repeal the 'three strikes' law? I know it's resulted in jailing a lot of people who are plain stupid rather than dangerous but the idea, applied to people who commit crimes of violence, has a lot of merit IMO. I recall seeing stats somewhere (and we all know what they say about stats...) indicating the majority of crime was committed by the same small group of the population. The risk is minimal. Do you really expect anyone to let a serial killer out... ooops... well, let's not use that example. g But, mostly, life in prison without the possibility of parole, means exactly that. Also, if for example, DNA evidence turns up that exonerates someone, you don't have to dig them up. Yeah as I said I agree with you. And given the sloppy evidence used to convict people I'd be real hesitant about capital punishment. As you say DNA evidence has shown that certain people couldn't have commited the crimes they were convicted of. Makes me wonder about the others too - be interesting to look at the % proven wrong. PDW |
In article ,
Peter Wiley wrote: Quite analogous I'd say, especially since women were denied the right to vote. Yeah - right. A century ago, more or less? We're talking about here & now. Women now make up over 50% of the population and have full political rights. Stop hiding and stop pretending women can't exercise their political power if they choose. It's demeaning & insulting to women. Well, quite a bit less than a century, but whatever. They do, but they're hindered at every turn. Blacks have full political rights also, but are still being disenfranchised on a regular basis. Can or should? What about the fetus that would only survive a few minutes, due to some terrible defect? Jon, get off it. Over 10 years ago I designed, built & still maintain a database on newborns, all of whom are screened for treatable and untreatable genetic disorders. The disorder numbers range from around 1 in 15000 to over 1 in 100000, in the tests that are done. The rarer disorders aren't screened for because the hit rate is too low. 1 in 100000 means how many actual births that would be enforced? Why put a woman in that position? What about economic or social reasons? What about rape victims? Do you know how many pregnancies are a result of rape? Part of the right-wing agenda is to remove a woman's right to choose, no matter the reasons. You get off it. The numbers that fall into the category you're trying to drag in are infinitesimal. So basically your answer is a copout. you don't want to face up to the inescapable conclusion so you look for ways to wiggle. I'm not looking for any ways to wiggle. g The fact is that the gov't has no business forcing a woman to carry a fetus to term. Jon, answer this: do you support the right of a woman to abort a 32 week foetus? Yes or no. Sorry, but it's not quite so simple... it depends on the situation, something the woman, her diety, and the doctor should decide. Ah, ok. You're prepared to see a woman abort a baby that could easily be delivered by c-section or induction and would be completely viable once delivered, without artificial life support. Got it. There's another word for that. Didn't say that. You did. I said "it depends on the situation." If you can't read, what are you doing here? Let's try another question. The woman has delivered her baby and immediately after delivery decides to smother it. Does she have that right? According to you, she had the right to terminate it a day ago, a week ago, a month ago..... why not now? Of course not. That's murder. And, as I said, it should be between her, her god, and her doctor. I can't predict the situation that would make it reasonable or unreasonable to terminate the day before she gives birth. Sorry. But, clearly you can. So tell us? Are there any situations where she should terminate before giving birth? Frankly Jon, at that late stage of a pregnancy, it *is* that simple and all the denialism in the world won't alter it. You're exactly the obverse of the blanket anti-abortion people and just as morally bankrupt. I guess you never heard of partial birth abortions... a very rare situation, but mostly used to save the life of the woman. You can call me all the names in the world, but you still can't justify something that is morally wrong.. namely denying a woman the right to choose. -- Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m) http://www.sailnow.com "If there's no wind, row." |
In article ,
Dave wrote: On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 10:31:54 +1100, Peter Wiley said: As for Dave, you guys can always have a constitutional convention and amend your constitution. Why not try that if you think your SC is so badly out of line? As I mentioned before, the Federalist Society is indeed making an effort to do just that with an amendment designed to reign in the blatant legislating from the bench.. Of the sort like Prisssssilla Owens? That freak of nature shouldn't be on any bench, except maybe a park bench. -- Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m) http://www.sailnow.com "If there's no wind, row." |
In article ,
Dave wrote: On 28 Oct 2004 17:03:07 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz) said: Do you think your candidate should have considered that question before shooting from the hip? Don't know. I'm not Kerry. So all of a sudden you're magically deprived of the capacity to make judgments about candidates and their actions? You asked me what he should have considered. I don't know. I think he did the right thing saying what he did. So, suddenly, you're an idiot? No. You always were an idiot. -- Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m) http://www.sailnow.com "If there's no wind, row." |
"Peter Wiley" wrote in message . .. Actually I agree with you but the risk is that someone will let them out again. Aren't you guys about to repeal the 'three strikes' law? I know it's resulted in jailing a lot of people who are plain stupid rather than dangerous but the idea, applied to people who commit crimes of violence, has a lot of merit IMO. I recall seeing stats somewhere (and we all know what they say about stats...) indicating the majority of crime was committed by the same small group of the population. PDW In most states judges have some discretion sentencing defendants, which is a good thing, after all, they are judges. We have a case here in Michigan where a confessed serial killer is due to be released from a Texas jail-a long convoluted story-and he has vowed to come back to these parts and do some more killing. The authorities in these parts are scrambling to build cases against him in Michigan, where if he goes to jail he'll never see the light of day as a free man. The ironic thing is that Texas is a death penalty state, has been for a while, this criminal's story is a good example of the unfairness of capital punishment, if there ever was a good candidate for killing, this is the guy, but he never got the death penalty. http://www.detnews.com/2002/metro/02...a01-563796.htm John Cairns |
Maybe the same thing will happen to him as what happened to Heffry
Dommer.... "John Cairns" wrote in message . com... "Peter Wiley" wrote in message . .. Actually I agree with you but the risk is that someone will let them out again. Aren't you guys about to repeal the 'three strikes' law? I know it's resulted in jailing a lot of people who are plain stupid rather than dangerous but the idea, applied to people who commit crimes of violence, has a lot of merit IMO. I recall seeing stats somewhere (and we all know what they say about stats...) indicating the majority of crime was committed by the same small group of the population. PDW In most states judges have some discretion sentencing defendants, which is a good thing, after all, they are judges. We have a case here in Michigan where a confessed serial killer is due to be released from a Texas jail-a long convoluted story-and he has vowed to come back to these parts and do some more killing. The authorities in these parts are scrambling to build cases against him in Michigan, where if he goes to jail he'll never see the light of day as a free man. The ironic thing is that Texas is a death penalty state, has been for a while, this criminal's story is a good example of the unfairness of capital punishment, if there ever was a good candidate for killing, this is the guy, but he never got the death penalty. http://www.detnews.com/2002/metro/02...a01-563796.htm John Cairns |
"katysails" wrote in message ... Maybe the same thing will happen to him as what happened to Heffry Dommer.... One can only hope.................hasn't happened yet, though he's been in prison for a long time. John Cairns "John Cairns" wrote in message . com... "Peter Wiley" wrote in message . .. Actually I agree with you but the risk is that someone will let them out again. Aren't you guys about to repeal the 'three strikes' law? I know it's resulted in jailing a lot of people who are plain stupid rather than dangerous but the idea, applied to people who commit crimes of violence, has a lot of merit IMO. I recall seeing stats somewhere (and we all know what they say about stats...) indicating the majority of crime was committed by the same small group of the population. PDW In most states judges have some discretion sentencing defendants, which is a good thing, after all, they are judges. We have a case here in Michigan where a confessed serial killer is due to be released from a Texas jail-a long convoluted story-and he has vowed to come back to these parts and do some more killing. The authorities in these parts are scrambling to build cases against him in Michigan, where if he goes to jail he'll never see the light of day as a free man. The ironic thing is that Texas is a death penalty state, has been for a while, this criminal's story is a good example of the unfairness of capital punishment, if there ever was a good candidate for killing, this is the guy, but he never got the death penalty. http://www.detnews.com/2002/metro/02...a01-563796.htm John Cairns |
Why didn't they hang Charlie Manson?
"John Cairns" wrote in message . com... "Peter Wiley" wrote in message . .. Actually I agree with you but the risk is that someone will let them out again. Aren't you guys about to repeal the 'three strikes' law? I know it's resulted in jailing a lot of people who are plain stupid rather than dangerous but the idea, applied to people who commit crimes of violence, has a lot of merit IMO. I recall seeing stats somewhere (and we all know what they say about stats...) indicating the majority of crime was committed by the same small group of the population. PDW In most states judges have some discretion sentencing defendants, which is a good thing, after all, they are judges. We have a case here in Michigan where a confessed serial killer is due to be released from a Texas jail-a long convoluted story-and he has vowed to come back to these parts and do some more killing. The authorities in these parts are scrambling to build cases against him in Michigan, where if he goes to jail he'll never see the light of day as a free man. The ironic thing is that Texas is a death penalty state, has been for a while, this criminal's story is a good example of the unfairness of capital punishment, if there ever was a good candidate for killing, this is the guy, but he never got the death penalty. http://www.detnews.com/2002/metro/02...a01-563796.htm John Cairns |
katysails wrote:
In the total scheme of things, that is not a lot. 3 million people die every year of tuberculosis. Are you in a panic over that? Approximately 300,000 per year still die of whooping cough.... Who's in a panic? Just pointing out the facts maam. Certainly TB is a more serious disease than the flu, and some people are in panic about it, particularly in the US. You guys have a veritable epidemic going on down there, it's not safe to ride the subway in NYC, if some dope addict doesn't cough on you, one runs the risk of being stabbed, shot, mugged, even deafened by some idiot with a boom box the size of a Volkswagon. The one thing that won't happen is that you will get sat on by Chuckles, he can't make it through the stiles. Cheers Marty |
gonefishiing wrote:
oh my god yes we NY'ers don't even leave our homes anymore. nothing quite like exaggeration. chuckles? chuckles the clown? Chuckles, Bubbles... 'twas somewhat satirical, jeeze. Cheers Marty |
cough on you, one runs the risk of being stabbed, shot, mugged, even deafened
by some idiot with a boom box the size of a Volkswagon. NY is among safest cities on the world. I've never witnessed violence on the subway, but I hear it can happen. It also happens in airports, streets and homes. RB |
In article ,
Dave wrote: No, I didn't ask you for a catalog. I asked you specifically whether, before shooting from the hip, he should have considered how likely it is that 35 or 40 truckloads of explosives were moved to an undisclosed location without detection at a time when about the only traffic on the roads was U.S. military vehicles. I take it your answer is that no, that the ends justify the means, so there was no need to give the matter any thought if it might make good copy. No. You didn't ask for a catalog. In any case, it looks like Kerry was right. It's a huge mess that BushCo created. -- Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m) http://www.sailnow.com "If there's no wind, row." |
In article ,
Dave wrote: On 28 Oct 2004 17:16:27 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz) said: As I mentioned before, the Federalist Society is indeed making an effort to do just that with an amendment designed to reign in the blatant legislating from the bench.. Of the sort like Prisssssilla Owens? That freak of nature shouldn't be on any bench, except maybe a park bench. Of any sort. So, then you don't agree that she should have been appointed by Bush. Unfortunately, Bush has flip flopped on this issue. He claimed that he doesn't have a litmus test (of course, he doesn't know what a litmus test is, but that's another issue), yet he appointed someone with a clear right-wing, wacko agenda. -- Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m) http://www.sailnow.com "If there's no wind, row." |
In article ,
Dave wrote: On 28 Oct 2004 17:13:12 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz) said: You can call me all the names in the world, but you still can't justify something that is morally wrong.. namely denying a woman the right to choose. One of the problems with this debate is the absolute certainty on the part of each side that no other position is morally defensible. As I've suggested before, when there is such a gulf in beliefs, the best course is for the law to stay out of the decision process, leaving such matters to other controls such as individual conscience, the socialization process and religious beliefs. People have come to ignore these non-legal restraints and insist that their own views in such matters must in all cases be enforced by the power of the state. Society is the poorer for it. I would agree except that the states have a poor history of doing what you suggest. Therefore, Federal action is required. If we had left it up to the states, blacks wouldn't have been allowed into colleges in the South. -- Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m) http://www.sailnow.com "If there's no wind, row." |
In article ,
Scott Vernon wrote: Why didn't they hang Charlie Manson? Because then we wouldn't have gotten to see him intimidate Geroldo. -- Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m) http://www.sailnow.com "If there's no wind, row." |
In article , gonefishiing wrote:
oh my god yes we NY'ers don't even leave our homes anymore. nothing quite like exaggeration. Well, we know you don't. g -- Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m) http://www.sailnow.com "If there's no wind, row." |
"Scott Vernon" wrote in message ... Why didn't they hang Charlie Manson? Big difference, Charlie's never going to leave jail alive. AFAIK, he did receive the death penalty, the Supreme Court declared the death penalty unconstitutional, threw out the penalty. BTW, he would have gotten the chair, IIRC. John Cairns "John Cairns" wrote in message . com... "Peter Wiley" wrote in message . .. Actually I agree with you but the risk is that someone will let them out again. Aren't you guys about to repeal the 'three strikes' law? I know it's resulted in jailing a lot of people who are plain stupid rather than dangerous but the idea, applied to people who commit crimes of violence, has a lot of merit IMO. I recall seeing stats somewhere (and we all know what they say about stats...) indicating the majority of crime was committed by the same small group of the population. PDW In most states judges have some discretion sentencing defendants, which is a good thing, after all, they are judges. We have a case here in Michigan where a confessed serial killer is due to be released from a Texas jail-a long convoluted story-and he has vowed to come back to these parts and do some more killing. The authorities in these parts are scrambling to build cases against him in Michigan, where if he goes to jail he'll never see the light of day as a free man. The ironic thing is that Texas is a death penalty state, has been for a while, this criminal's story is a good example of the unfairness of capital punishment, if there ever was a good candidate for killing, this is the guy, but he never got the death penalty. http://www.detnews.com/2002/metro/02...a01-563796.htm John Cairns |
Katie,
I, have a very different Mind set, having Myasthania Gravis. We have to take a drug called Mestinon. What I have to pay for a Hundred tablets ($100.00) can be purchased overseas for ($8.00 When the Gov. held hearing and decided US drug manufactures were over charging and put a ceiling on the profiteering, the Drug companies licensed companies outside the US to manufacture the drug. It is no longer manufacture in this country. We pay &100 and my web friend in Spain pays $8. Made by the same company. I know this isn't the Flu Vaccine and I'm sorry to be venting but it is kind of related Ole Thom |
In article ,
Thom Stewart wrote: Katie, I, have a very different Mind set, having Myasthania Gravis. We have to take a drug called Mestinon. What I have to pay for a Hundred tablets ($100.00) can be purchased overseas for ($8.00 When the Gov. held hearing and decided US drug manufactures were over charging and put a ceiling on the profiteering, the Drug companies licensed companies outside the US to manufacture the drug. It is no longer manufacture in this country. We pay &100 and my web friend in Spain pays $8. Made by the same company. I know this isn't the Flu Vaccine and I'm sorry to be venting but it is kind of related Sorry to hear it! A very good friend is in the same boat. His meds cost $350 US and a little more than 1/2 that from Canada. They're made by the same US company overseas... have been for years. -- Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m) http://www.sailnow.com "If there's no wind, row." |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:53 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com