From: Albert Ross on
On Sat, 08 May 2010 06:24:54 -0400, Steve House
<sjhouse.remove(a)this.hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 16:54:30 -0700, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net>
>wrote:
>
>>
>....
>>>
>>Be careful what you ask for.....The socialists will take away all your money
>>and give it to the "Poor", unless they are true libertarians........
>
>
>If they take away all my money, then I will be poor and they will give
>me money.

Hand over all your lupins

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbtVaTWs6II
From: Peter on
"Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> wrote in message
news:LIWdnUL_Rb_753jWnZ2dnUVZ_oSdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>
> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
> news:201005072013196853-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
>> On 2010-05-07 19:27:20 -0700, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> said:
>>

> But seriously, that's the way the Chinese do it with capital crimes,
> according to what I've read. Instead of our system of lengthy and hugely
> expensive trials, appeals, more appeals, etc., which seem to go on and on
> for so many years that the most brutal and sadistic murderer on death row
> is more likely to die of old age than of execution, . . . the Chinese
> method is very simple, direct and to the point. One (usually rather short)
> trial, rather quickly leading to a bullet in the back of the head as you
> say. I think the whole process typically takes a couple of weeks. Then the
> criminal's family is sent a bill for the cartridge.
>
> For some of our worst criminals, I really wonder whether the Chinese
> method would not be the more appropriate one.
>

A post mortem reversal of the conviction is not a satisfactory solution. It
also allows the real criminal to get away.
Our system also helps to keep the police from becoming over zealous, hiding
exculpatory evidence, manufacturing evidence, (ever hear of dropsy.)
While the vast majority of law enforcement personnel are honest, it is not
unknown for one to do any or all of the above for career advancement, or
pocket lining purposes.

--
Peter

From: Ray Fischer on
Peter <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote:
>"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
>> On 2010-05-07 21:00:52 -0700, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> said:
>>
>>> I seriously object to your concept that the right wingers in California
>>> voted for the three strikes law. Since when did the "right wingers" have
>>> any say at all over what laws got on the books in California? I preached
>>> against the concept that you could replace a 125 K a year judge with a
>>> secretary and a computer for many years when I lived in that state. But
>>> after 40 years there, I can safely say that there was no law that I voted
>>> for that wasn't voted down by the populace and visa-versa. A conservative
>>> living in California was the equivalent of being disenfranchised.
>>
>> It is not my "concept" it is fact.
>>
>> The California "Three Strikes Law" was the result of a Voter Initiative
>> (Proposition 184) put on the ballot in 1994 by one Mike Reynolds, who had
>> been campaigning for it for year since his daughter was murdered by a
>> parolee. It won with 72% of the vote, and it was badly written law.
>> There was much publicity and reaction due to the kidnapping and murder of
>> Polly Klass (do you remember her?) by Richard Allen Davis, a parolee in
>> 1994. He became the poster boy for this initiative and the right-wing
>> voters pushed it through without thought of the cost.
>>
>> The author of the Law was one Bill Jones, Republican, California
>> Assemblyman, and losing opponent to your pal Barbara Boxer in the Senate
>> race in 2004. He is currently involved with private company voting
>> services as a consultant to Sequoia Voting Systems. A fine upstanding
>> right-wing Republican. He would be very upset to hear you think he is a
>> "Liberal" law maker.
>>
>
>Please don't bother him with facts.
>Mr. Grahm is not a true conservative. I seriously question whether he
>understands, or would admit he understands, the difference between true
>conservatives and wing nuts.

Everybody who agrees with his wish to be selfish is a conservative.
Everybody who does not is a liberal.

Rightard logic 101.


--
Ray Fischer
rfischer(a)sonic.net

From: Bill Graham on

"Joel Connor" <myemail(a)myserver.com> wrote in message
news:i4r9u51kfk1c7bia0grbtuh52smjcsp8jl(a)4ax.com...
> On Fri, 7 May 2010 20:41:06 -0700, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
>>news:201005071352399530->
>>> What makes a weapon "deadly" is the manner in which the item or object
>>> is
>>> used. Strangulation with pantyhose, running down a victim with a car, or
>>> as Hitchcock demonstrated, clubbing your husband with a frozen ham.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Savageduck
>>>
>>Hey! You're preaching to the choir....Tell that to the liberals, who have
>>been trying to take my guns away from me all of my life. ( I speak of
>>people
>>like Dianne Feinstein who as Mayor of SF, wanted to ban all gun stores
>>from
>>that city.)
>
> You've been mistaken. "Liberal" comes from the Latin roots of: Liber
> Libera, Liberum. Meaning FREEDOM, independent, unrestricted. Liberty. You
> know, like "the land of liberty", "the Statue of Liberty", etc.
>
> Unfortunately, idiot conservative republicans like Rush Limbaugh haven't
> quite realized this and they have been stupidly calling those who want to
> control others as "liberals" all these years. And idiot conservative
> republicans just as stupid as Rush have only parroted him. They claim he
> went deaf recently but he's been deaf since birth. So have all his
> followers.
>

I let them name thenselves....those who call themselves, "Liberals" are the
stupid ones, regardless of the origin of the term, or what it should mean.

From: Bill Graham on

"Cal Rollins" <anywhere(a)anyplace.net> wrote in message
news:1ds9u5pbrge5dlusc5nmbe2ml954abaodr(a)4ax.com...
> On Sat, 08 May 2010 00:06:15 -0400, tony cooper
> <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 7 May 2010 21:08:50 -0400, "Peter"
>><peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Any drug can be abused. Certain drugs, such as crystal meth and H have
>>>little or no known medical value. I also agree that substantial crime is
>>>associated with illegal drug use. While I can't cite statistics, I think
>>>that if distribution and use of certain drugs
>>
>>That's the part that bothers me about legalization of marijuana. The
>>rules would creep. Once marijuana is legal, it would be easier to get
>>other drugs on the list.
>>
>>>that have legitimate medical uses, such as marijuana,
>>
>>C'mon, now. What's the real need for medical use of marijuana?
>>One-tenth of one percent of the potential users? Yeah, it's helpful
>>to glaucoma sufferers and chronic pain victims, but so are other -
>>legal - drugs.
>>
>
> Aye, there's the rub. You can spend $1,000-$10,000 a month for medication
> or pain management to some "approved authority" or you can grow a simple
> house-plant for free.
>
> You're not too bright, are you.
>
All drugs, including prescription medications should be legal for anyone who
wants, and can pay for, them. Why do we separate out one segment of the
society and give them the right of God over the rest of us? Are we that
stupid? Doctors should be advisors, and no more than that....There are just
as many criminals among the medical profession as there are anywhere else.
If I am dumb enough to buy some drug and OD on it, well, so be it....All the
more air, space and water for the rest of you. Why would you care? - It's
called, "Survival of the fittest" And the human race is improved by it.