EBSB52

Not to Storm particularly, but most of the hype against gay AIDS isn't about concern for life, concern for tax enpenditures, or even concern for public safety, it's about designation and eventual legislation of morality. The same types of people use the concern tactic as a guise to conceal the true agenda against gay AIDS - to counter gay behavior. If this weren't true, they wouldn't be so vehement about stopping gay marriage. With that I don't think it's so much about marriage as it is against gay.

Scott Peterson might beg to differ with you. Good point, but the difference is that if the mother aborts - no rts if another person kills a mother wanting to take the fetus to term, then the fetus has rts. - kind of a contradiction For the record, the fetus only warranted a 2nd degree conviction, but that has only to do with mens rea. Moral is: the mother calls all the shots with rights and birth, etc...

So you think that putting some convicted murdered to death, to repay what they did (MURDER), is cruel and unusual? As for juveniles, yes. It's the old rights vs responsibilities thing; how can we expect kids to be constrained by laws governing their freedom, since they aren't mature enough to understand consequence, yet hold them accountable to the Nth? By your standards a smoking murderer, it will be very cruel to get him jailed for life without a cigarrette, as well as a rapist, or a pedophile, and many other cases.... HArdly - not executing kids is akin to pampering? What do you think? I think you are drawing extremes to make your point.

..I see them being originated in the actual criminals. But enough about cops..... different thread. If they are nuts, they have a chance to spend the rest of their lives in a nut palace, if not then let them pay for the crime they committed. You're going back 20-30 years. The nut farms are all but gone as far as criminal insanity goes - they just throw em in jail now. I find that blue states are more inclined in killing innocent babies (please read abortion). As a metaphor maybe, but fetuses have no Const, civil or even human rts.

First off they make a big point that because of the switch of five states now a majority of states do not allow execution of juviniles. But in actuality 12 states do not have the death penalty. If the 38 states that do think capital punishment is acceptable, a thin majority 20 to 18 are inclined to execute 16, 17, and 18 year olds who have commited particularly henious crimes. 1) ...12 states do not have the death penalty. If the 38 states that do ... - Illinois has a moratorium on CP. Other states might as well. 2) ...a thin majority 20 to 18 are inclined to execute 16, 17, and 18 year olds... - 18 YO's are irrelevant, the 16 and 17 are relevant. 3) ...who have commited particularly henious crimes.... - All that is required is 1st degree murder - you don't have to dismember bodies to qual for DP. But the change of five state laws is enough to change the meaning of the US Constitution. No, state law or policy doesn't drive the US Sup Ct, works the other way around. The US Sup Ct might mention what the states are doing, but the US Sup Ct has no duty to even recognoze Stare Decisis. So Kennedy knows where he wants to go and will use any means to get there. Can you show me any US Sup Ct decisions that aren't pre-decided? The cases are certified via Writ of Certiorari; it's not a democratic process..... well, the justices do vote as to whether they hear cases.... .(There have been six in the last 15 years.) What's 6 dead teens amongst friends. What I wonder is how people can tout the Constitution, bith in text and spirit, and forget that the notion behind the US is supposed to be away from utilitarianism and toward the rights of the individual weighing equally with the rights of the whole. Then he goes on to mention that the United States has not signed treaties on this subject because if the way Congress fells about it but because the people of Europe think it's barberic we should definately get rid of it. Do you mean to say virtually the rest of the world? Alienation - the best thing not to do. Funny, but I don't think a Supreme Court justice should be basing his opinions based of what the governments of other countries are doing. I think global perspectives are important. We are the "City on a Hill" and Europe has had a lot of really bad ideas over the last 250 years. 2 different ideas here. The former is viewed as blatant arrogance by most of the world, the latter could be said of many countires. Considering we are one of the few if not the only country that doesn't have socialized medicine, that hill is viewed as yucky by many around the world. As for Scalia's dissent, why is he woried about a national consensus? As they say in law school, "A sympathetic case makes for bad law." Written by (Scalia) a true conservative......what's compassion????

Huh? Are you saying that once murderers saw that they couldn't be executed, that they no longer wanted to kill anyone any more? I'd like to see your logical explanation for that... "Well shucks, Damien, without that death penalty, murder just ain't no darn fun anymore. I'm a-givin' it up." It's the "John Lott" explanation. You know all about that. Well, it didn't take you long being admitted back into this forum once again, before you resumed playing your little irrelevant games. I haven't mentioned Professor John Lott in this forum since Jan. 14th, 2004 - over a year ago. Check the search feature if you don't believe me. So I don't know why you're throwing that at me now. If you have some problem with Professor John Lott, start your own thread and state your case. Hijacking this unrelated thread to vent your anger with John Lott is not the appropriate way to make your point. If your disagreement is with me, just make your points straight-out, without the silly games. This is the kind of thing that got you banned from here for a while just recently... Well, it didn't take you long being admitted back into this forum once again, before you resumed playing your little irrelevant games. Is that necesary? I'm not aware of the reference, but it sounds like a metaphor to avoid having to drag out an explanation.

I realize that prison life is no walk in the park, but perhaps if hard time were really hard time, it would be a deterent... If a life sentance looked like: sufficient food, water, shelter, and big rocks into little rocks (or something along those lines) until they drop... no extraordinary medical care (i.e. you don't get to go to the top rated cancer hospital in the world for free), no TV, no books, no smokes, etc... 3 hots (or colds) and a cot, and hard labor... J If cap pun isn't a deterrent then how will prisoner abuses deter anyone? If anything, it will strengthen the resolve to commit the crime or kill/die trying, as any deterent value will shift to the consequence of where a person goes if they're caught rather than make a person think twice about committing a crime.

Huh? Are you saying that once murderers saw that they couldn't be executed, that they no longer wanted to kill anyone any more? I'd like to see your logical explanation for that... "Well shucks, Damien, without that death penalty, murder just ain't no darn fun anymore. I'm a-givin' it up." Basically there is no correlation and the concept of deterrence is a smokescreen for retribution...... revenge.

That's a good idea With the right combo - a girl could make a buck. Then it would become panties and everything else... then EBAY would shut it down

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=11511&item=3960479612&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW

The rectum is an organ OK, I stand corrected, I thought it would be like tissue - must be different tissues.

Right, and what about hetero backdoor action? Also, the rate of hetero sex is higher than is the rate of gay sex, so the overall rate for contraction of AIDS would be higher based upon the frequency of heteor sex as compared to that of gay sex.

Although it's true a tear in the rectum can more quickly facilitate HIV infection, mucus membrane is a very receptive organ and can just as easily allow infection when infected sperm is retained in either a vagina or rectum. Although it's true that rectum tissue has a high rate of absorption, it is not an organ to my knowledge. An organ is comprised of 2 or more differnt tissues, and I believe it is just 1 type of tissue. Suppositories get shoved up for quick absorption.

I knew that would be your answer, but I was kinda hoping that would be found out if he went to you to chat about it. Are you serious? Do you think I would drive to the DZ to say, "Hey, check out what Aggiedave wrote...." Are you really friken serious? I think Tx is a little more chatty like that, so maybe that explains why you might think that. No slam intented, just different culture....

Oh no you don't mister, you aren't draggin' me into this! My Momma always told me...don't discuss religion or POLLY TICKS. That advice has served me well. Don't worry, I would never drag anyone else into this. Dunno why he would try to drag you into it....... that's a lie - I do know why he did....

Can we make a new rule against excessive crying and sniveling? As soon as we make a rule against people like you running bihind greenies when you feel offended, yet want to write whatever you feel. You think this calms the fire? Like I wrote before, I enjoy trading barbs, but when I do it appears some conservatives feel offended, cry or snivel according to you, and then I get reprimanded. So yes, I wish all the sniveling would stop too, but I have a choice to either get slammed w/o the opportunity to return the favor, or I can call attention to it. Trust me, I'm the, "let's take it behind the blast fence" kind of guy, so tell your conservative contemporaries to quit the sniveling. Or better yet, quit stirring the pot with posts like the one I'm responding to here.

...... ~R+R...I must be masculine if I can write a post to a thread on an online site and call a guy "dear"......Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions...... Ok, picture is small, Robyn is an androgenous name, just blew up the pic and you seem to be a chick.... that is unless you are the gorilla. j/k Ok, if you're a chick you can callme that.... Furthermore, I wrote, "I don't need to hear that from a guy, assuming you are a guy." So that was my way of saying that there is question.... Anywho.....

The real ugly side hasn't beed exposed yet. Most people don't know or care, but as far as anyone with FAA licenses go, the TSA can direct the FAA to yank any licenses, deem the file classified and the airman has no appeal rights since he can't appeal what he can't discover. It hasn't been excersized yet, but the foundation is laid.

Why would a self-proclaimed conservative be anything other than HORRIFIED by the loss of personal freedoms under this administration (and other recent ones too). Imagine what Ben Franklin would say! Is that sarcasm? Funny how it seems the US conservs yell the loudest about Const rights, yet it's generally the conserv politicians that pass things like RICO, The Terrorism Bill, The TSA, The PAtriot Act and the sort. And the conserv citizens are against associtioons like The ACLU, which is here to protect civil rights for all, so excuse me if I can't help but to look at conservatives' fight for rights as a smoke screen. I, of course don't direct this at all conservatives, but it seems that especially the politicians do that.

BWWWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Another poster foiled once again by dry humor. Jesus man, chill out. If you really think that I was serious and trying to prove some sort of stupid penis size arguement then you need to relax, step away from the keyboard, take a deep breath and have a couple of strong drinks to settle down with. As for conservatives rule in SC and get away with stuff...HA! Hell, BillVon is close to a liberal commie compared to a lot of folks on here and he's a moderator. So you think he "lets" the conservatives get away with stuff because he's on their side? He's not on their side, he's on no one's side even though he's fairly left of center politically compared to many. It helps that I've been on here for over 4 years and Bill has gotten used to my humor and knows when I'm actually mad at someone. He's put the red fork down on me more then a few times for getting out of line, so myself as a conservative do I get special treatment? Hell no! Infact I'd state plainly that BillVon does a hell of a job keeping things inline for both sides of the political spectrum (even if he's a liberal tree hugger Love ya Bill, even if I'm jealous of your gas milage). Jesus man, chill out. If you really think that I was serious and trying to prove some sort of stupid penis size arguement then you need to relax, step away from the keyboard, take a deep breath and have a couple of strong drinks to settle down with. It appears that since Kennedy finally got warned that you've taken notice and are trying to downplay your insult: "study world history and have a general understanding of history, it will help enrich your life and keep you from looking kinda uneducated while discussing items." So I am chilled. I have no problem, just pointing out a very obvious situation. As for conservatives rule in SC and get away with stuff...HA! Hell, BillVon is close to a liberal commie compared to a lot of folks on here and he's a moderator. So you think he "lets" the conservatives get away with stuff because he's on their side? No, he let's them get away with stuff for the very reason you just gave. If he were to side with liberals he would be subject to a lot of partiality criticism, but since he warns 5:1, lib to conser respectively then he protects the conflict of interest arguments. He's not on their side, he's on no one's side even though he's fairly left of center politically compared to many. As far as, "side" goes, I'm sure he's on the side of the liberals, but if he excersized his position with consistent bias he would be removed I would conjecture. And you're not upset with any moderators because you're allowed a lot of lattitude. If you saw any bias toward libs here you would be firing away.

That's fine for you, but what about your future sexual partners? I hope you make it clear that you possibly could be infected before you jump into someone elses sack. Chris That's the chance I take, my current partner takes, and all future partners of the both of us take. It's not reasonable to blame your current partner's former parner(s) for a risk assumed at that later date. You know that personal responsibility thing. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a man whore with the ladys as I'd like to be , but whoever I sleep with will be willing to take the chance or choose not to sleep with me. Choices vs consequences all around.

I will be working on my second degree as well...

I agree that education is the key to understanding and behaving responsibly. But there comes a point to every action where you must say screw it and jump in. For example, with skydiving we can learn all that is available but we eventually have to bail out the door and take our calculated chances. Same could be said with driving, but 115 people per day die on the roads; how many thought they were prepared with enough experience and education going into it? It's utopian to think we can prepare for every possible event - it's hypocritical to blame others for their risks while we undertake our own.

Hmm. I checked the entire thread and your post was the only one containing "assbag". Edit: What's even more funny is that you are complaining about attacks after referring to all police officers as "pigs" 17 times (I counted) in a recent thread. Hmm. I checked the entire thread and your post was the only one containing "assbag". Hmm, I went and rechecked it too and didn't find that I wrote, "assbag" anywhere. Please, corect me if I'm wrong, but I didn't find it in my text. If you can't find it maybe you can admit that you misstated that. Edit: What's even more funny is that you are complaining about attacks after referring to all police officers as "pigs" 17 times (I counted) in a recent thread. Your brevity on, "attacks" from what should have been, personal attacks seesm to be intentional. See, the rule is about personal attacks, and my statement wasn't directed at anyone. In fact, I don't know of any cops on the forum. Even if I did, the statements were general and never directed at anyone. I have no problem referring to cops in any derogatory way, even though there are a couple good ones out there, So your referrence that I'm being hypocritical about personal attacks is moot due to your reference given is not a personal attack.

Well, with the writing of the 5th and 14th, Due process, a law obiding citizen carries no due process. In order to have Due Process there must be a process in the works, like an arrest and a charge. Now if you're using the term, "Due Process" as a metaphor for protection, then I see your point. However there is no guarantee for protection, which is why I want to live in a gun-loving state like AZ. I hate the politics, but love the unabridged lattitude to own a gun. but none of them including me know what it is like when that final curtain comes down Metaphor for afterlife. OK, so what does this have to do with what happens in life and if state-sponsored homocide is ok? I see that as a misdirection, although I respect your right to believe as you will about cap pun. Generally, when a person learns about all aspects of CP they usually turn around their position. Conservatives calls this the liberalizing of a person; truth is that it's eductaion of emotion. We can flash thousands of pictures of raped/murdered 10-year old girls and kill someone for it, but if we compound an injustice with another murder we have only become that same person that we were trying to remove.