From: Peter on
"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:2010050709524521153-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
> On 2010-05-07 09:36:43 -0700, "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> said:
>
>> Savageduck wrote:
>>> On 2010-05-06 22:28:29 -0700, "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> said:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The Left Coast is hopeless I think, not even salvageable. We
>>>> probably should give California back to Mexico, which it seems to
>>>> have effectively become part of anyway. Among other benefits giving
>>>> it back would much improve the electoral college.
>>>
>>> Noooooooo!
>>> My Spanish is terrible to nonexistent. My Spanglish is
>>> uninterpretable.
>>
>> Some provision should be made. I have a nephew on the Left Coast, and I
>> wouldn't want him subjected to the total Mexicization of California
>> either.
>> But really, what are the state's prospects? Leftist-liberals and unions
>> seem
>> to be succeeding in turning the state, for all its wealth and other
>> blessings, into an economic basket case.
>
> Tell me about it.
> One of the reasons I retired 2 years sooner than I initially planned, was
> Arnie's furlough plan. That was costing me around $900/month. My pension
> nets me about $15 less than I had been netting the year before I retired.
> If I had stayed on I would be netting less than I do now on my pension.
> Retiring was a no brainer.
>
> As far as Mexicanization goes, there is also the argument that Americans
> were the the illegal aliens in Texas, and all Santa Anna was doing at the
> Alamo was enforcing his nation's authority, in their own country, against
> that invasion of American illegal aliens bent on stealing Texas for
> themselves.
>
> The same could be said for California.
>


There are many Cherokee, Sioux, Iroquois, etc., who would say that about a
lot of other parts of our country.

--
Peter

From: Ray Fischer on
Neil Harrington <never(a)home.com> wrote:
>Savageduck wrote:
>> On 2010-05-06 22:28:29 -0700, "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> said:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> The Left Coast is hopeless I think, not even salvageable. We
>>> probably should give California back to Mexico, which it seems to
>>> have effectively become part of anyway. Among other benefits giving
>>> it back would much improve the electoral college.
>>
>> Noooooooo!
>> My Spanish is terrible to nonexistent. My Spanglish is
>> uninterpretable.
>
>Some provision should be made. I have a nephew on the Left Coast, and I
>wouldn't want him subjected to the total Mexicization of California either.
>But really, what are the state's prospects? Leftist-liberals and unions seem
>to be succeeding in turning the state, for all its wealth and other
>blessings, into an economic basket case.

In fact it is the voters who have caused all of the problems. By
passing propositions which reduce taxes and then passing propositions
which force increased spending the result is a problem. And it's not
liberals who demand lower taxes and it's not liberals who demand
bigger prison populations.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer(a)sonic.net

From: Albert Ross on
On Wed, 05 May 2010 21:48:46 -0400, tony cooper
<tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote:

>That is not because Democrats tend to be criminals. It's because the
>Republican criminals have better lawyers or are lawyers.

Hahahahahaha

Amazing that the State which gave the world Jeb Bush and hanging chads
should be so hard on "criminals" eh?
From: Neil Harrington on
Peter wrote:
> "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> wrote in message
> news:ffOdnf0qgpHBtHnWnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>
>> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
>> news:4be32172$0$27753$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
>>> "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> wrote in message
>>> news:0PidnfYBjd7ycX_WnZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>>
>>>> "David Ruether" <d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:hrudm3$638$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Unless they are suddenly afflicted by a severe attack of Humpty
>>>> Dumptyism (or a couple more Obama radical-lib appointees, which
>>>> effectively amounts to the same thing), they will not.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Exactly which "radical-lib" was appointed by our President?
>>
>> Obviously, Sotomayor.
>>
>>> Which decision[s] made prior to appointment, of his one appointee
>>> do you object to?
>>
>> Most famously, her ruling against white firefighters in New Haven, on
>> purely racist grounds. She was then and undoubtedly still is in
>> favor of discriminating against white males. That ruling of hers was
>> of course overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. Now she's part of
>> that court, which is bad news for anyone who cares about justice.
>>
>> The "wise Latina woman" remains what she always has been, in favor of
>> preferential treatment for certain races and genders, such as her
>> own. She has as much as said she wants to use the court for her own
>> political agenda, rather than to support the Constitution as it
>> stands. She made a joke of it on at least one occasion.
>
>
> That's what I thought you were talking about. Her original decision,
> which was fortunately overturned, was based upon precedents that
> existed at the time of her decision.

What precedents?

> That decision doesn't make her a
> racist. We will have to wait and see her subsequent decisions.

I think she's already made it clear what she is. Of course she downplayed
her agenda during confirmation, as anyone with that sort of agenda would.

> At the risk of starting a flame war, I agree with the the decision
> that , race or ethnicity should never be a factor in hiring. Having
> said that, my comment only applies if the hiring tests are not
> skewed. e.g. if an "intelligence" test included a ;question on the
> meaning of "pants on the ground" it would be skewed.

I believe the claims that certain population groups consistently score lower
on intelligence tests because the tests are "skewed" has been pretty well
debunked.


From: Neil Harrington on
Savageduck wrote:
> On 2010-05-07 08:18:58 -0700, "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net>
> said:
>> "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> wrote in message
>> news:t_qdnWhr5LiusXnWnZ2dnUVZ_q2dnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>
>>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
>>> news:2010050621330636579-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
>>>> On 2010-05-06 20:50:11 -0700, "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com>
>>>> said:
>>>>>
>>>>> "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:npd6u55qd9evqup3mdk0v3vdunr1g8tc6s(a)4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Thu, 6 May 2010 13:57:29 -0400, "Peter"
>>>>>> <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:in64u5tiqur9h2uv1u9i6ghhva04get663(a)4ax.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I don't buy that, and I'm a liberal on social issues. The
>>>>>>>>>> two criminals should be treated equally. The reason they
>>>>>>>>>> committed a criminal act of this type is not relevant to
>>>>>>>>>> them becoming a convicted felon. It may be relevant to the
>>>>>>>>>> sentence, but not the conviction and resulting status of a
>>>>>>>>>> convicted felon.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I agree. I don't think I said the circumstances I outlined
>>>>>>>>> should be considered on the question of whether a crime was
>>>>>>>>> comitted. But, circumstances certainly should be relevant in
>>>>>>>>> the determination of whether
>>>>>>>>> certain rights should be restored, which was the context of
>>>>>>>>> my comment.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't agree there, either. A person is, or is not, a
>>>>>>>> convicted felon. Certain crimes are designated as felonies. We
>>>>>>>> don't need another layer of government to decide if this
>>>>>>>> convicted felon should or should not be treated differently
>>>>>>>> from that convicted felon.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If circumstances of the crime have a bearing on sentencing why
>>>>>>> should they not have bearing on restoration of privelleges.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. Who is going to decide?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. The sentencing is set before the felon goes to jail. Any
>>>>>> restoration of privileges has be determined after the felon is
>>>>>> released and is off parole and probation and based partially on
>>>>>> the person's behavior while incarcerated and on parole or
>>>>>> probation. This means the setting up of some sort of review
>>>>>> board that does not presently exist.
>>>>>
>>>>> I should think at least the preliminary work could be done as
>>>>> part of the parole process. Whatever they need to consider during
>>>>> that, should have some bearing on the question of restoration of
>>>>> rights later.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Most states are having trouble with the current budget in
>>>>>>>> providing court personnel. There's no room in the budget to
>>>>>>>> hire people to evaluate convicted felons about whether or not
>>>>>>>> they get the vote, right to sit on a jury, or ability to run
>>>>>>>> for public office.
>>>>>>> I don't see budget as an excuse.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course it is. I don't know about your state, but my state is
>>>>>> cutting back vital services because of budget problems. Everything
>>>>>> from schools to the court system to emergency
>>>>>> services is being cut back because of budget problem.
>>>>>
>>>>> Unless your state is very unusual, I'll bet there's still an
>>>>> awful lot of waste after all the cutbacks.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The last thing we want to do is add a government department to
>>>>>> review the voting rights status of ex-felons. There is a system
>>>>>> already in place whereby the convicted felon can apply for
>>>>>> reinstatement. Let the felon initiate the process instead of
>>>>>> making the government handle it.
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree with that, but if the felon initiates the process the
>>>>> government still has to "handle it," doesn't it?
>>>>
>>>> BTW. The standard California conditions of parole with regard to
>>>> weapons are: "5. WEAPONS: You shall not own, use, have access to, or
>>>> have under
>>>> your control:
>>>> (a) any type of firearm or instrument or device which a reasonable
>>>> person would believe to be capable of being used as a firearm or
>>>> any ammunition which could be used in a firearm:
>>>> (b) any weapon as defined in state or federal statutes or listed in
>>>> California Penal Code Section 12020 or any instrument or device
>>>> which a reasonable person would believe to be capable of being
>>>> used as a weapon as defined in Penal Code Section 12020;
>>>> (c) any knife with a blade longer than two inches, except kitchen
>>>> knives which must be kept in your residence and knives related to
>>>> your employment which may be used and carried only in connection
>>>> with your employment;
>>>> or (d) a crossbow of any kind."
>>>
>>> Great, that will sure put a stop to all these crossbow murders.
>>>
>>> Actually, we did have one right here in my small city (which has
>>> very, very few murders of any kind) several years ago. A woman put
>>> a bolt into her husband's head while he was sleeping. I assume the
>>> crossbow she used was his, since I don't think most women have much
>>> interest in that type of weapon.
>>
>>
>> A power hammer would have the same effect. Indeed, something similar
>> is used in slaughter houses.
>
> Aah! The "No Country for Old Men" system.
>
> Anyway the "...or any instrument which a reasonable person would
> believe to be capable of being used as a weapon as defined in Penal
> Code 12020;" should cover any hammer, baseball bat, golf club, hockey
> stick, ski pole, etc. Given what an inmate learns with regard to
> fabricating weapons while in prison, a pencil could fall into that
> category.

Yes. In some cities I understand sharpened screwdrivers are popular too.