In article ,
katysails wrote:
BTW, there won't be any Social Security...we pay heavily for our own health
insurance, and banks are protected by the FDIC....if you are counting on

People have been saying that for 40 years. My mother gets SS, as did
my father and most of their friends. Do they rely on it completely?
No. But, it's an important part of their retirement. They deserve
it. They paid for it.

Social Security to take care of you when you're ancient, you're really in
sad shape...that is the biggest myth the Democrats ever promulgated and FDR
never intended that people should live on SS benefits...they were to be an
assistance...all the money I have put into the SS system has gone to take
care of those that are drawing right now....there won't be the population
necessary to do the same for me when I retire. Public utilities? What are
those? We have a well and a septic field...and there is no public

Don't you know? I guess next time you're in a car accident and have to
go to an emergency room or you have to dial 911 and no one answers,
you'll figure it out. Grand Rapids is not the rest of the country. How
about the homeless? Should they be left to starve or freeze to death?

transportation outside the city limits of Grand Rapids unless you drive to
the Mall to take the bus in...and no commuter trains...so I guess I'm really
not worried about those things..I've never had them so won't miss them.
As far as your abortion diatribe, my opinions do not have anything to do
with government...if the government puts it up for a vote, then as a citizen
I vote and have my say...if it's not to my liking, I have the RIGHT to still
have my say, which you seem to not understand....if a mother's life is in
danger, then there is a necessity for abortion.

But that's the point. The right-wing fanatics are not interested in
the life of the mother. They would ban all abortions for all reasons.

Over the years I have never
met anyone who had an abortion for that reason. I have known women who had
them for monetary reasons...because they didn't want to wait and give the
baby up for adoption...because they wanted to get back at the man and punish
him...because it was a girl baby and not a boy like they wanted....there are
scenarios where an abortion is the lesser of two evils...those incidences
are not in that category...

Just because you haven't doesn't mean they don't exist. You would
saddle a 15 year old with a child she can't take care of and doesn't
want all because of one mistake? She's going to be mature enough to
take care of herself long enough to have a healthy baby? What about
the girl who was raped by her father, uncle or boyfriend, but is
afraid to say anything? Seems rather cruel, but if that's ok with you,
fine. It's not ok with me, and I don't think your or my will should be
imposed on the rest of the people. That's what you don't seem to
understand.

As far as getting out, I'm out every day....I read the medical trade
journals for the long term care industry. What you have to remember is that
San Francisco is not the world...it is a very specialized community that
lives quite differently than the rest of us in the US....

I don't live nor do I work in SF. Neither is GR. So do you.

--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

:
BTW, there won't be any Social Security...we pay heavily for our own
health
insurance, and banks are protected by the FDIC....if you are counting on

People have been saying that for 40 years. My mother gets SS, as did
my father and most of their friends. Do they rely on it completely?
No. But, it's an important part of their retirement. They deserve
it. They paid for it.

I'm not saying they didn't pay for it....take a poll, Jon...the majority of
the US actuially believes that they are going to be taken care of by the
government...Social Security and Medicare...in their old age....they do not
have savings...they have very little equity in their homes because they buy
second mortgages and home equity loans...many have gone to reverese
mortgages to get by....

Social Security to take care of you when you're ancient, you're really in
sad shape...that is the biggest myth the Democrats ever promulgated and
FDR
never intended that people should live on SS benefits...they were to be an
assistance...all the money I have put into the SS system has gone to take
care of those that are drawing right now....there won't be the population
necessary to do the same for me when I retire. Public utilities? What
are
those? We have a well and a septic field...and there is no public

Don't you know? I guess next time you're in a car accident and have to
go to an emergency room or you have to dial 911 and no one answers,
you'll figure it out.

Figure what out? That the 6K I shell out of my pocket (my portion of my
emplyer's plan) and the 20% deductible and the co-pay and my check book pay
the bill? I've got that all figured out.

Grand Rapids is not the rest of the country. How
about the homeless?

We are not speaking of those individuals who honestly cannot get by in life.
They, of course, should be provided for. However, there are many on our
Social Service rosters who take advant5age of the system. I can tell you of
about 15 young ladies who are screwing the system as we speak...so if I know
20, then you probably know a few, too, as does most everyone. And I'm tired
of opaying for them. I speak monthly with FIA reps here in MI reporting on
my employee's wages....I know exactly what's going on. Yes, we do have
young ladies that need the assistance, but when I see someone who is
recieiving all kinds of government perks walking down the hall with her
camera cell phone, wearing $200.00 Nikes, and driving an SUV that gets at
best 15 mpg while receiving that assistance it makes my blood boil.

Should they be left to starve or freeze to death?

If course not, but we're not talking about them, are we? We're talking
about Joe the Average American.


transportation outside the city limits of Grand Rapids unless you drive to
the Mall to take the bus in...and no commuter trains...so I guess I'm
really
not worried about those things..I've never had them so won't miss them.
As far as your abortion diatribe, my opinions do not have anything to do
with government...if the government puts it up for a vote, then as a
citizen
I vote and have my say...if it's not to my liking, I have the RIGHT to
still
have my say, which you seem to not understand....if a mother's life is in
danger, then there is a necessity for abortion.

But that's the point. The right-wing fanatics are not interested in
the life of the mother. They would ban all abortions for all reasons.

Nom they wouldn't. Just as Doug pointed out, there are various scenarios of
what people will accept and not accept. The problem is the slippery slope
thing....where do you draew the line?

Over the years I have never
met anyone who had an abortion for that reason. I have known women who
had
them for monetary reasons...because they didn't want to wait and give the
baby up for adoption...because they wanted to get back at the man and
punish
him...because it was a girl baby and not a boy like they wanted....there
are
scenarios where an abortion is the lesser of two evils...those incidences
are not in that category...

Just because you haven't doesn't mean they don't exist. You would
saddle a 15 year old with a child she can't take care of and doesn't
want all because of one mistake?

Yes. I would. She is culpable. She must learn how to take care of what
whe has brought into the world or she must give the baby up for adoption.

She's going to be mature enough to
take care of herself long enough to have a healthy baby?

Yes. There are programs available. And there are plenty of infertile
couples who want that baby.

What about
the girl who was raped by her father, uncle or boyfriend, but is
afraid to say anything?

Grasping here, Jon. The chances of preganancy in those cases is probably
very slight. But then you get to the lesser of two evils thing. That's one
of the gray areas.


Seems rather cruel, but if that's ok with you,
fine. It's not ok with me, and I don't think your or my will should be
imposed on the rest of the people.

It's not yours or mine individual wills but the combined wills of many
people.


That's what you don't seem to
understand.

Oh, I understand quite well. You want it all your way. And everyone else
is wrong.

As far as getting out, I'm out every day....I read the medical trade
journals for the long term care industry. What you have to remember is
that
San Francisco is not the world...it is a very specialized community that
lives quite differently than the rest of us in the US....

I don't live nor do I work in SF. Neither is GR. So do you.

In article ,
katysails wrote:
I'm not saying they didn't pay for it....take a poll, Jon...the majority of
the US actuially believes that they are going to be taken care of by the
government...Social Security and Medicare...in their old age....they do not
have savings...they have very little equity in their homes because they buy
second mortgages and home equity loans...many have gone to reverese
mortgages to get by....

I believe you. This is an education problem that the government should
take a major responsible role for, but that doesn't mean we should
scrap it.

Figure what out? That the 6K I shell out of my pocket (my portion of my
emplyer's plan) and the 20% deductible and the co-pay and my check book pay
the bill? I've got that all figured out.

Figure out that someday you or a loved one will need the gov't
intervention to live. I hope it doesn't happen, but it has happened to
me. It's easy to claim to be self-reliant; it's another to actually be
so.

Grand Rapids is not the rest of the country. How
about the homeless?

We are not speaking of those individuals who honestly cannot get by in life.
They, of course, should be provided for. However, there are many on our
Social Service rosters who take advant5age of the system. I can tell you of

There are many, but not as many as you think. They said that about
welfare mom's. Sure there are a few who screw the system. That will
always be true. That doesn't mean there is something so wrong with the
system that it can't be fixed. Bush wants to scrap many of the gov't
ensured protections that we have. SS is just one of them he would like
to errode.

about 15 young ladies who are screwing the system as we speak...so if I know
20, then you probably know a few, too, as does most everyone. And I'm tired
of opaying for them. I speak monthly with FIA reps here in MI reporting on
my employee's wages....I know exactly what's going on. Yes, we do have
young ladies that need the assistance, but when I see someone who is
recieiving all kinds of government perks walking down the hall with her
camera cell phone, wearing $200.00 Nikes, and driving an SUV that gets at
best 15 mpg while receiving that assistance it makes my blood boil.

Yes, I'm sick of them two. Why don't you report them? Again, most of
the time, the vast majority of the time, people who are being helped
by gov't assistance need that help.

Should they be left to starve or freeze to death?

If course not, but we're not talking about them, are we? We're talking
about Joe the Average American.

No. The obligation of the majority is to protect the rights of the
minority. That's been codified for centuries.

Nom they wouldn't. Just as Doug pointed out, there are various scenarios of
what people will accept and not accept. The problem is the slippery slope
thing....where do you draew the line?

Exactly. Where do you draw the line. IMHO, the line is between the
woman, her god, and the doctor. The gov't has no business
interferring, yet the right-wingers insist on it. Why?

Just because you haven't doesn't mean they don't exist. You would
saddle a 15 year old with a child she can't take care of and doesn't
want all because of one mistake?

Yes. I would. She is culpable. She must learn how to take care of what
whe has brought into the world or she must give the baby up for adoption.

No. She's a child. Children are not responsible for their
actions. That's just cold-hearted and mean. Why is it necessary to
ruin her life and probably the life of the child after it's born? So
you can feel good about your paycheck or your morality??

She's going to be mature enough to
take care of herself long enough to have a healthy baby?

Yes. There are programs available. And there are plenty of infertile
couples who want that baby.

Really? Well, that's news to me? Do you really think most people are going
want a baby from a 15 year old child from a broken home, a minority,
who hasn't even gotten out of high school, and who might be doing drugs
during the pregnancy?

What about
the girl who was raped by her father, uncle or boyfriend, but is
afraid to say anything?

Grasping here, Jon. The chances of preganancy in those cases is probably
very slight. But then you get to the lesser of two evils thing. That's one
of the gray areas.

Not really. So, you're saying that you can't get pregnant if you're a
virgin and your uncle rapes you? You call it a grey area, but how does
this child get through the system if she has to inform her father, the
guy who raped her, that she's requesting an abortion? There is always
the lessor of two evils. I'm not in favor of abortion. I'm just in
favor of the woman's right to make the decision, and not have some
"official" do it for her.

Seems rather cruel, but if that's ok with you,
fine. It's not ok with me, and I don't think your or my will should be
imposed on the rest of the people.

It's not yours or mine individual wills but the combined wills of many
people.

The vast majority of people in this country support a woman's right to
choose. Yet, the Bush administration and other right-wing groups are
attempting to get around those wishes... it's something like 80% I
believe.

That's what you don't seem to
understand.

Oh, I understand quite well. You want it all your way. And everyone else
is wrong.

No. I want us to follow the rule of law and respect the majority view.





--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

I'm not saying they didn't pay for it....take a poll, Jon...the majority
of
the US actuially believes that they are going to be taken care of by the
government...Social Security and Medicare...in their old age....they do
not
have savings...they have very little equity in their homes because they
buy
second mortgages and home equity loans...many have gone to reverese
mortgages to get by....

I believe you. This is an education problem that the government should
take a major responsible role for, but that doesn't mean we should
scrap it.

Once again, no culpability.....


Figure what out? That the 6K I shell out of my pocket (my portion of my
emplyer's plan) and the 20% deductible and the co-pay and my check book
pay
the bill? I've got that all figured out.

Figure out that someday you or a loved one will need the gov't
intervention to live. I hope it doesn't happen, but it has happened to
me. It's easy to claim to be self-reliant; it's another to actually be
so.

If it comes to that, then I hope I die....but I doubt it will come to
that....you see, uinstead of a cell phone and vehicles that cost a bundle to
drive, and trading up to a newer bigger house every year, we've pauid all
our bills, own our vehicles and boat free and clear and put our money away
so that that will never happen. My son jokes about Mom's room at his house,
but if I can help it, that will never be. If it comes to that, then at
least there will be something that we've provided to take care of me.


Grand Rapids is not the rest of the country. How
about the homeless?

We are not speaking of those individuals who honestly cannot get by in
life.
They, of course, should be provided for. However, there are many on our
Social Service rosters who take advant5age of the system. I can tell you
of

There are many, but not as many as you think. They said that about
welfare mom's. Sure there are a few who screw the system. That will
always be true. That doesn't mean there is something so wrong with the
system that it can't be fixed. Bush wants to scrap many of the gov't
ensured protections that we have. SS is just one of them he would like
to errode.

about 15 young ladies who are screwing the system as we speak...so if I
know
20, then you probably know a few, too, as does most everyone. And I'm
tired
of opaying for them. I speak monthly with FIA reps here in MI reporting
on
my employee's wages....I know exactly what's going on. Yes, we do have
young ladies that need the assistance, but when I see someone who is
recieiving all kinds of government perks walking down the hall with her
camera cell phone, wearing $200.00 Nikes, and driving an SUV that gets at
best 15 mpg while receiving that assistance it makes my blood boil.

Yes, I'm sick of them two. Why don't you report them?

I have. Repreatedly. It does nop good. I have employees from the Goodwill
OJT that work wonderfully until their contract with OJT is met and then they
start to call in and shirk....so we end up having to terminate them...and
then in 3 months they're hired at the nursing home next door on the same OJT
project...I've seen this happen 3 times in the past 2 years...

Again, most of
the time, the vast majority of the time, people who are being helped
by gov't assistance need that help.

Nope. The government needs to help them not need help. They need to make
them culpable for their actions. They need to learn the consequences of
making bad choices.


Should they be left to starve or freeze to death?

If course not, but we're not talking about them, are we? We're talking
about Joe the Average American.

No. The obligation of the majority is to protect the rights of the
minority. That's been codified for centuries.

To protect, not to enable bad behavior and foster slothfullness and
entitlement.


Nom they wouldn't. Just as Doug pointed out, there are various scenarios
of
what people will accept and not accept. The problem is the slippery slope
thing....where do you draew the line?

Exactly. Where do you draw the line. IMHO, the line is between the
woman, her god, and the doctor. The gov't has no business
interferring, yet the right-wingers insist on it. Why?

Just because you haven't doesn't mean they don't exist. You would
saddle a 15 year old with a child she can't take care of and doesn't
want all because of one mistake?

Yes. I would. She is culpable. She must learn how to take care of what
whe has brought into the world or she must give the baby up for adoption.

No. She's a child.

Young women of 15 are not children in this day and age, and probably weren't
in any day and age.

Children are not responsible for their
actions.

The age of reason begins around the age of 7. Moral conciousness is
developed before then. And yes, children are and should be held resposible
for their actions. You really need a good dose of Jim Fay and Love and
Logic. Good thing you don't have kids,..they'd be a royal mess.

That's just cold-hearted and mean.

Bleeding heart liberal...responsible for most of the social ills of the
present because you don't realize that people, children included, must be
responsible for their actions.

Why is it necessary to
ruin her life and probably the life of the child after it's born? So
you can feel good about your paycheck or your morality??

My paycheck and morality have nothing to do with it. How many young women
who've had abortions have you talked to? They are usually consymed with
guilt for years and years afterwards and regret what they did.


She's going to be mature enough to
take care of herself long enough to have a healthy baby?

Yes. There are programs available. And there are plenty of infertile
couples who want that baby.

Really? Well, that's news to me? Do you really think most people are going
want a baby from a 15 year old child from a broken home, a minority,
who hasn't even gotten out of high school, and who might be doing drugs
during the pregnancy?

Yep. There are tons of people out there waiting for those babies and they
cry themselves to sleep every night because there isn't one for them. Go
check the lists at the adoption agencies. Lots of people who are waiting
and waiting and waiting. And BTW, my sister adopted 4 of those kinds of
children. And now she's fostering 3 more, so don;'t tell me there aren't
people out there. My cousin in MN has fosterd and adopted, also. Maybe you
need to start running with a different crowd if you haven't met any of those
kind of folks.

What about
the girl who was raped by her father, uncle or boyfriend, but is
afraid to say anything?

Grasping here, Jon. The chances of preganancy in those cases is probably
very slight. But then you get to the lesser of two evils thing. That's
one
of the gray areas.

Not really. So, you're saying that you can't get pregnant if you're a
virgin and your uncle rapes you?

No I didn't say that. Now you're getting totally ridiculous.

You call it a grey area, but how does
this child get through the system if she has to inform her father, the
guy who raped her, that she's requesting an abortion?

She informs the school guidance couselor, Protective Services, the
police...she emancipates herself. rather than educate about abortion,
educate on how to take care of yourself.


There is always
the lessor of two evils. I'm not in favor of abortion. I'm just in
favor of the woman's right to make the decision, and not have some
"official" do it for her.

Seems rather cruel, but if that's ok with you,
fine. It's not ok with me, and I don't think your or my will should be
imposed on the rest of the people.

It's not yours or mine individual wills but the combined wills of many
people.

The vast majority of people in this country support a woman's right to
choose.

As do I. But that doesn't mean that I don't think the action is wrong and
immoral. And it doesn't mean that I still don't have the right to my
opinion or the right to voice my opinion.


Yet, the Bush administration and other right-wing groups are
attempting to get around those wishes... it's something like 80% I
believe.

If that were so, the issue would be settled. And the 80% would not vote for
Bush.


That's what you don't seem to
understand.

Oh, I understand quite well. You want it all your way. And everyone else
is wrong.

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.

You and I will never agree on anything political, Jon, so I'm ending this
discussion because I like you way too much to argue with you further. You
want to talk about sailing, that's fine with me, but this foes nowhere.







--

In article ,
I believe you. This is an education problem that the government should
take a major responsible role for, but that doesn't mean we should
scrap it.

Once again, no culpability.....

Huh? What are you talking about?

Figure out that someday you or a loved one will need the gov't
intervention to live. I hope it doesn't happen, but it has happened to
me. It's easy to claim to be self-reliant; it's another to actually be
so.

If it comes to that, then I hope I die....but I doubt it will come to
that....you see, uinstead of a cell phone and vehicles that cost a bundle to
drive, and trading up to a newer bigger house every year, we've pauid all
our bills, own our vehicles and boat free and clear and put our money away
so that that will never happen. My son jokes about Mom's room at his house,
but if I can help it, that will never be. If it comes to that, then at
least there will be something that we've provided to take care of me.

It'll never happen?? You mean needing emergency help and not being
able to ask for it?

I would say tongue-in-cheek that I hope you do to, but I'm not going
to. I'm not a mean person.

I have. Repreatedly. It does nop good. I have employees from the Goodwill
OJT that work wonderfully until their contract with OJT is met and then they
start to call in and shirk....so we end up having to terminate them...and
then in 3 months they're hired at the nursing home next door on the same OJT
project...I've seen this happen 3 times in the past 2 years...

If you actually want to report someone, it will make a difference
and it will have a positive result. To whom did you report them...

the time, the vast majority of the time, people who are being helped
by gov't assistance need that help.

Nope. The government needs to help them not need help. They need to make
them culpable for their actions. They need to learn the consequences of
making bad choices.

The VAST majority of people who receive gov't assistance NEED that
assistance. What bad choices are you talking about? Being born to a
crack mom? Having an inferior education because there are minimal
property taxes to support the schools? Or are you going to rely on
gov't intervention in the form of the underfunded "no child behind"?

No. The obligation of the majority is to protect the rights of the
minority. That's been codified for centuries.

To protect, not to enable bad behavior and foster slothfullness and
entitlement.

There has certainly been some of that, but that doesn't obsolve us
from helping nevertheless.

Young women of 15 are not children in this day and age, and probably weren't
in any day and age.

This sounds like pedofilia to me. They are certainly children, just as
boys of that age are. They do not have good judgement generally,
although some do. I suppose you support executing children also?

Children are not responsible for their
actions.

The age of reason begins around the age of 7. Moral conciousness is
developed before then. And yes, children are and should be held resposible
for their actions. You really need a good dose of Jim Fay and Love and
Logic. Good thing you don't have kids,..they'd be a royal mess.

Begins. But, doesn't mature until much later. So, you're saying that
it's ok for an 11 year old to be seduced by someone your age, and then
hold the 11 year old responsible for their actions????

That's just cold-hearted and mean.

Bleeding heart liberal...responsible for most of the social ills of the
present because you don't realize that people, children included, must be
responsible for their actions.

How responsible? How much more should we heap on kids? This position
of yours makes you sound like a monster. Quit digging. The hole is
plenty deep.

Why is it necessary to
ruin her life and probably the life of the child after it's born? So
you can feel good about your paycheck or your morality??

My paycheck and morality have nothing to do with it. How many young women
who've had abortions have you talked to? They are usually consymed with
guilt for years and years afterwards and regret what they did.

I suspect more than you have, but that's not the point. Women who give
up their baby for adoption are also riddled with guilt. Some women do
it relatively easily... some are traumatized. In any case, it should
not be YOUR decision. It should be between the woman, her doctor, and
her god. The state shouldn't be invovled.

Really? Well, that's news to me? Do you really think most people are going
want a baby from a 15 year old child from a broken home, a minority,
who hasn't even gotten out of high school, and who might be doing drugs
during the pregnancy?

Yep. There are tons of people out there waiting for those babies and they
cry themselves to sleep every night because there isn't one for them. Go
check the lists at the adoption agencies. Lots of people who are waiting
and waiting and waiting. And BTW, my sister adopted 4 of those kinds of
children. And now she's fostering 3 more, so don;'t tell me there aren't
people out there. My cousin in MN has fosterd and adopted, also. Maybe you
need to start running with a different crowd if you haven't met any of those
kind of folks.

Oh poor rich women. How about how those poor children feel when forced
to give birth to a baby born of a rape from their father? No sympathy
for them I see. Your sister is a saint, but that's not the norm.

Not really. So, you're saying that you can't get pregnant if you're a
virgin and your uncle rapes you?

No I didn't say that. Now you're getting totally ridiculous.

Well, not in so many words, but you did say that a child should be
held responsible for all mistakes no matter the effect on her or
anyone else.

She informs the school guidance couselor, Protective Services, the
police...she emancipates herself. rather than educate about abortion,
educate on how to take care of yourself.

Haha.. good one. And, the Bush administration would force the couselor
or the police to notify the rapist that she's pregant, even if that
person is her father. What's wrong with educating people about all the
options? According to you, that's just too much evil.

The vast majority of people in this country support a woman's right to
choose.

As do I. But that doesn't mean that I don't think the action is wrong and
immoral. And it doesn't mean that I still don't have the right to my
opinion or the right to voice my opinion.

Voice it, fine. But don't think you can legislate your
morality. That's my objection to what the Bu****s are doing!

Yet, the Bush administration and other right-wing groups are
attempting to get around those wishes... it's something like 80% I
believe.

If that were so, the issue would be settled. And the 80% would not vote for
Bush.

Not necessarily. For most people, that's not the end all and be all of
the issues at hand. And, the issue is settled, unless Bush appoints
conservative, anti-choice judges to the Court.

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.

What about their rights? Do you now consider yourself an oppressed
minority? My bleeding heart goes out to you....

You and I will never agree on anything political, Jon, so I'm ending this
discussion because I like you way too much to argue with you further. You
want to talk about sailing, that's fine with me, but this foes nowhere.

Ah, you want to end the discussion, because you're caught in your own
bull****. I guess you finally realized that the hole you dug is deep
enough. Not quite deep enough to hide your crap in, but deep enough
for you to feel good about yourself.

--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

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.

PDW

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
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.

And President Bush !

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 ,
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.



--
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