EBSB52

If anyone residing in the USA doesn't have any more respect for this country than that,... WHat if they respect their country and want to burn it for other reasons? This black/white languge is really tiring. It is possible people love the country which is why theu want to burn it. Me, I'm not that much into silly symbols, so I have no desire to burn a flag, but I will write what a piece of shit this country is or talk of it in open public? Will I be given repurcussion for it? Possibly. Was Rosa Parks welcomed when she wouldn't get up? Ya. Were the settlers welcomed when they refused to continue paying taxes to the Britts? No and it lef to the revolutionary war. We have our positions and these gives us the integrity that you say we don't have. If we had no integrity we would fold to the bulldogging and ultimate threats from that side of the logic. I catch some one burning a flag, well let's just say there would be a slight altercation. I have no desire to burn a flag, but if you ever come to AZ I would make an exception.... hell, we already have a lot of hot wind blowing this time of year.

Bingo... I completely agree.. Love it or get the fuck out. One each getting the fuck out, comming up. Would I like fries with that?

That is the tackiest fucking thing I have ever read. You claim to be compasionate, then you say shit like that. He never said he had AIDS. I thought he feared contracting AIDS. Hey Ron, tell us how you voted Bush in and then come on this thread and shit on me for writing that when you and your contengency helped to snatch the meds out of his hands..... who's the goat now?

Ok then, I'm gonna have a big party in a public square and have a Quran burning party. Who's up for that? Did I spell Quran right? Not a bad idea, actually. When the Quran flushing thing was in the news constantly, I was thinking about getting a few copies, putting each in a Ziploc bag along with a fresh turd, and mailing each to a different Saudi embassy. Still sounds like a good idea, but would probably be a waste of perfectly good turds. I don't have a lower opinion of Islam than I do any other organized religion, but a bunch of people acting like little crybabies over some reported damage to a book makes me want to annoy them just for sport. As for a Constitutional amendment banning flag-burning, that's just silly. If I buy or make an American flag, then it's mine to do with it anything I want--including burn it. Same with anything else. Too bad I can't buy some Al Quada shit-heads. I'd like to roast them slowly over a nice fire of Qurans. Walt Isn't this: ...a bunch of people acting like little crybabies over some reported damage to a book ... the same as some maggots crying about burning the US flag? Furthermore, the Quran issue was when people were being detained, they didn't ahve the right to leave or diregard it. I think it's semantic to worry about it, but then I'm not Muslim.... hell, I'm agnostic. That's not the issue, the issue is holding someones face and making them watch the most sacred thing get destroyed. I would compare it to people breaking into your house and fucking your wife/GF and making you watch..... get it?

AIDS kills. You seem to be uninformed of what this virus does to the immune system and the body in general. I fully expect to die from it as healthcare in the US is an utter shame. I was diagnosed in 1995 after a 7 month stay in Mexico. My healthcare was great during the Clinton years but since that asshole Bush got in my care is next to nothing. Why waste time on some ass who wants to burn a piece of cloth when there are so many other issues that need addressing. Unless you also have HIV or work in the field or you are a caregiver to someone who is infected or your an AIDS activist then your opinion means zero to me. Hey, walk into any AIDS clinic and shout your opinion. Your remark is the remark of a very uninformed person. I know that AIDS opens the door for OI's after it destroys the immune system. I am very well informed and do not need your small mind to tell me what it does. When one speaks of AIDS killing it is in the form of an overall generalization to cover the scope of its deadliness. Go read up on what it does and while you are at it, look at some pictures at what this virus is capable of bringing on. Actually I was just being technical, but I am correct. AIDS obviously suppresses your immune system and then you get an infection or pneumonia and your body is unable to resist it so you sucumb to it. I have never read an obit that reads that a person died of AIDS, now maybe a media sourse somewhere has, but that's irresponsible. As for me, I just fininshed Anatomy and Physiology 1 & 2, an entire year of it, I also just finished Microbiology, so I think I know what a virus is and how it infiltrates your body and then uses your cells to make copies of itself. These little creatures actually hijack your cells, inject its DNA into them and uses your cell's functions to make copies of itself. Really creepy. Viruses are not living and can be billions of years old, unless you believe in the Christian short-earth then they are up to 10k yrs old. SO all this encroachment onto other lands and stirring up of soil brings out some viruses that otherwise would not be. SO I think mother nature is in control here and is punishing us for screwing up her land. As for what is the most common whay to contract AIDS? Hetero sex. Again, that is on a world basis. I just read, I am really sorry for you. I didin't know that you have AIDS. So you were diagnosed with AIDS in 95 or HIV? If HIV, then when were you diagnised with AIDS? My healthcare was great during the Clinton years but since that asshole Bush got in my care is next to nothing. Why waste time on some ass who wants to burn a piece of cloth when there are so many other issues that need addressing. WHen will these stupid fucking Bush-voting Americans realize that corp profits mean nothing as compared to people and lives? I would like to hear some of these people comment on this, but I'm sure we won't. It's so easy to say that maggotted term, "personal responsibility." But when there is actually a person being refused services and might die these maggots tend to slither away. Virtually all of the rest of the world has socialized medicine, but this piece of shit called the US. Unless you also have HIV or work in the field or you are a caregiver to someone who is infected or your an AIDS activist then your opinion means zero to me. I understand. I am working toward being a nurse, my girlfriend's brother was gay and died of suicide because he didn't want to have another cycyle of the illness. Hey, walk into any AIDS clinic and shout your opinion. Your remark is the remark of a very uninformed person. I know that AIDS opens the door for OI's after it destroys the immune system. I am very well informed and do not need your small mind to tell me what it does. Like I said, I'm sorry for your condition and didn't mean to anger you. It is splitting hairs to say that AIDS doesn't kill, because it may as well and for all intents and purposes it does due to the OI (oppertunistic infections). I would never be that incompassionate to be mean to a person with any illness, especially a potentially terminal one. I am very well informed and do not need your small mind to tell me what it does. When one speaks of AIDS killing it is in the form of an overall generalization to cover the scope of its deadliness. Go read up on what it does and while you are at it, look at some pictures at what this virus is capable of bringing on. I do understand about it and have studied it to a degree. Like I said, I was being technical and wouldn't have posted the original statement had I known you have HIV/AIDS. Peace. Now, back to Bush bashing. You mentioned this pathetic flag burning issue. Even many conservatives on this board and elsewhere think this is a joke. Hopefully after Bush shifts as much of the assets as he can to the rich, the poor/middle class Bushers will wake up. Unfortunately it won't be until after much damage has been done. Is it naivity or just plain meanness for people looking at the Hoover years and the Bush 2 years to not see the inhumanity going on? Is it that theses people are bling or cruel? At least in 33 I think it was, the Americans has the sense to vote out their mistake.... by a landslide. Are the votes fixed or are people that stupid? As I've said many times in the past, I am out of here as soon as I get my nursing school finished and by then this countyr will be so fucked up that I will be fighting other people to get out first. So what do I hope? I hope this flag burning issue/amend goes through and I hope Jeb (could there be a gheyer name?) gets elected/appointed. Let's run this mother fucker into the ground ala the Hoover years. Take care and peace.....

If that is a joke, not funny. If not, honestly, the only thing I fear is dying of AIDS. If not, honestly, the only thing I fear is dying of AIDS. Well, you're in luck; no one die of AIDS, but AIDS related symptoms.

Bush wants that now, so we're not that far off. Good point tho

Call it what you want. Word it how you wish. I sincerely hope this bill passes. Free speech as everyone calls it has fucked this country. As a country we have no integrity. Everyone thinks they have the right to know everything. They don't. Everyone thinks they should be able to run their sucks with out consequence. Call it what you will... Burning the flag to exercise your free speech should be against the law. I hope it passes. Rhino Free speech as everyone calls it has fucked this country. Free speech is highly overrated. The 1st is in reality more about the establishment of a state-sponsored religion, but free speech falls under that purview. I'm sure the German citizens in the 30's thought a lot like you - not an attack - they bought into the patriotic nationalism. After they voted in Bush, er I mean Hitler with their Democracy, I'm sure some citizens wish they hadn't bought into the whole package. It's not really thoughtful, intelligent use of logic to say, 'I know it's a bad thing, but I just want it.' As a country we have no integrity. Examples: 1. Invading a country on false premise 2. Denying medical care to our own citizens 3. Excusing corps for multi-billion $ debts, but disallowing private people to bankrupt on smaller amounts 4. Slashing the Ergonomics Bill 5. Passing the Overtime Law 6. NAFTA 7. Executing kids I could go on, but I see your point. Everyone thinks they have the right to know everything. Freedom of information is highly overrated too. Suppression and govern secrecy is the key. After I leave this country, oh, in 3-4 years, I'm with ya man.

That'll make society a much better place, especially when your kids/younger siblings see our society as barbaric. Them and theri generation will grow up and act as or more barbaric and we'll scratch our heads wondering why. If this was my sister/wife/cousin, I would want what you say, but then that's why we have objective, unaffected people making these decisions.

Alas, 1 thing we agree on . I think the country has been reduced/relegatd to worrying about symbolic things, which is scarry. Let's worry about healthcare, homelessness, and disease. But no, we need to ensure everyone manditorily swears their allegiance. This is a look toward Naziism. I thought we had the right to peacefully dissent......

Yeah, the hatred is still there, but tempered greatly once my coping mechanisms take over. Unfortunately, I boiled over a bit yesterday on this board, and I regret that. That's why we're here ..... take care

Sure there is. Are you trying to be a menace? If so, there's a moral difference. It's like saying there's no difference between attempted murder and murder. Or, there's no difference between murder and manslaughter. Would you say there's no difference between an regular airline crash (i.e., the AeroMexico plane that hit Cerritos, CA causing deaths on the ground) and the plane that crashed at the Pentagon on 9/11 that killed people on the ground? After all, a plane crash is quite menacing. How about driving at 90 mph to get your buddy to the hospital vs. driving that same speed to see if you can do it in 4th gear? How about driving at 90 mph to get your buddy to the hospital vs. driving that same speed to see if you can do it in 4th gear? Or doing it inthe quarter mile on a street race.... Things come in degrees and shades rather than black/white, as you've demonstrated. Good to read less hate and see you disecting the elements. I mean that sincerely. Are you going to see what you can do for the girls and that they have a home (assuming there is no father)? Sad stuff. Are the cops going to do paint scrapes and attempt to match the car make, that is if they had factory paint? That's what we need cops for, not collecting revenue for the state. If the mother was a relative of a cop, they would be all about forensic everything to find the scum - petition of they refuse to fully investigate this.

Actually those were my numbers/arguments I thionk you were answering, not Minobo's. Your argument about intent is flawed in my opinion. You do not have to intend to irresponsible to be irresponsible. I was speaking more from a legal perspective rather than a layman one. Responsible/irrepsonsible refers to civil liability/strict liability. It only requires Actus Reus, generally no Mens Rea. Intent/evil intent generally defines Mens Rea, which is what I was saying that elderly drivers wouldn't have, but street racers do have, so this is another tired issue of ends justifying the means - if someone dies it was an evil act, otherwise it's a nuisance. Furthermore, if an elderly person slams into a crowd of people, as in Santa Monica a few years ago and wasn't even arrested, the outcome is that there was no evil intent. If it was an out of control kid in a ricer, homicide x # of fatalities, maybe 2nd degree. Point is, this is not a measure of harm done, it's a measure of intent, even though statistically elderly drivers might kill more people than street racers. Kind of a semantic argument, but, IT'S THE WAY IT IS. You do not have to intend to irresponsible to be irresponsible. Again, this is the definition of strict liability, no requirement for Mens Rea (evil intent). Most criminal findings of guilt require the prosecutor prove a culmination of Mens Rea and Actus Reas - there are exceptions. As I stated before studies show that driving with a handheld cell phone is equivalent to a Blood Alcohol Content of .08. I'd like to see those studies. Again, very subjective. ...it is all over the news. And on the internet - must be true. SO, in my opinion they are no less irresponsible that someone who wants to go fast. And soccer momc are as "irresponsible" too, right? Those who eat while driving as worse, since their hands and mouth are preoccupied. The problems with American vehicle laws are that they paint with a broad brush. I realize that is somewhet neccessary in order to be fair, but I think driving instruction/competency should be increased. What's to say that even if some very inept drivers follow all laws and avoid all distractions get into a situation can handle it correctly? The system assumes all people are at some level of competency that is equal because they can pass an idiot written test, read 3 foot letters on the wall, and parallel park a car with 10 attempts. I like Germany's and other European country's program that actually requires drivers demonstrate some skill. ....because the entire prediction is that they will be erratic. Which is still a prediction. I have owned 4 Gixxers and driven them thousands of miles, so I know what it is to predict all kinds of erratic behavior.

The actual numbers are pretty small as compared to the 115 people per day or so that get killed on the roads each day. I don't know the breakdown of how many are caused by drunk drivers, but I would guess the numbers are pretty significant, far more than the .4 per day caused by street racers. But if it happens to yoiu or a loved one then the numbers are real significant. I think the stigma surrounding street racing draws more ire and appears more wastefull when something like this happens. I would imagine about the same number of people are killed by seniors that shouldn't be driving, but it seems so much more meaningless since there is no evil intent apparent. On another note, I don't see skydiving as a way to take out aggression. It may be nuts at times, but if it's aggressive it would be stupid. What is aggressive skydiving? Weird...

Nice. No consolation, but life must go on for the little ones, who must be devastated.....

Sorry for the loss and I understand the anger/hate. Maybe you can help the prosecutor if they are found. With punk-asses likethat type, they will certainly brag. What should they be charged with, when found? I say capital murder. I think a fit punishment for them is lifelong quadriplegia. Let them move at the speed Christopher Reeve moved for the last few years of his life. They'll be charged with 2nd for sure.... no elements for 1st. There was an attorney named Mark Torre who was drunk and driving his mudsatin fast near ASU, killed a 19yo college girl; cut her in half they say. They actually charged him with 2nd and got it. He got 11 years. He was an Ivy League grad as I recall, worked for a prestigious law frim at soemthing like 26yo. http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/criminal/caseInfo.asp?caseNumber=CR2001-095428 Not quite street racing, but same concept. Best of wishes coping

I'm not arguing or disagreeing with you on this point. You just stated as FACT that there isn't any law that exist that allows officers to speed while performing their duty. OOPS, here's an example now: http://www2.chass.ncsu.edu/avery/class16/class16.htm

I'm not arguing or disagreeing with you on this point. You just stated as FACT that there isn't any law that exist that allows officers to speed while performing their duty. I'll address the, "You just stated as FACT" in the near future, but for now I have found this: N.C. G.S. 20-145 (f) - Additional Statutory Limitations. G.S. 20 ' 145 Specificaly states this exception [to posted speed limit] shall not protect the driver from liabilty as a consequence of a reckless disregard for the safelty of others. Translation - you be gettin' yo ass sued off if you hit someone ion the attempt to apply a raod tax for the state. I reiterate, do you want to have an audio recording where you freely state you were doing 90 in a 45 to catch a speeder? If there is a kidnapped person in there, well, even then it's crazy but possibly excuseable,but for revenue? That was my point and I don't think I wrote that as a matter of fact there is no exception that allows cops to speed. I know of none in AZ. I will address that later.

Rather true, Dave. But hey, why not...it's not like any of us who know Sparky think that EBS is worth his time...and a silly peurile post like this won't change anyone's mind. It's speaker's corner, where most argument is futile, and loud whining is the norm. I am playing an even smaller violin than you. Matter of fact, this whole thing has bored me enough to quell my insomnia. YAY!!! Ciels- Michele Aside from the fact that Sparky's your buddy, it is a chicken thing to do when you post crap and run/block.

Well, I don't think you would be chicken enough to drop crap in pm, and then run to the block prompt. Also, no one else cares but you, so why call me lame? Mirrors Dave, mirrors.

Um...excuse me sir....over here. Every state has this LAW on the books. Each state list it under their own General Statute(number)... For North Carolina... (N.C. G.S. 20-145) WHEN SPEED LIMIT NOT APPLICABLE The speed limitations set forth in this article shall not apply to vehicles when operated with due regard for safety under the direction of the police in the chase or apprehension of violators of the law or of persons charged with or suspected of any such violation, nor to fire department or fire patrol vehicles when traveling in response to a fire alarm, nor to public or private ambulances and rescue squad emergency service vehicles when traveling in emergencies, nor to vehicles operated by county fire marshals and civil preparedness coordinators when traveling in the performances of their duties. This exemption shall not, however, protect the driver of any such vehicle from the consequence of a reckless disregard of the safety of others. (1937, c. 407, s. 107; 1947, c. 987; 1971, c. 5; 1977, c. 52, s. 3; 1985, c. 454, s. 5.) Google AZ motor vehicle law and look under "speed exemption" or something in reference to that and you shall find what you don't want to exist. I will check that N. Carolina statute later to verify validity. I will take your word for it for now tho. North Carolina, the state that gave us the Rule of Thumb. (you can beat your wife with a stick, so long as it's no bigger in diameter than your thumb. I realize that was overstated and that there was no real finding by the State Sup Ct, but there was some refernece to it. ...with due regard for safety under the direction of the police in the chase or apprehension of violators of the law... OK, so is it with due regard for safety to pursue someone that is suspected of speeding by driving 80 in a 45 through an intersection? Even with that law, if every state has one, which I'm not convinced, there is a reasonable standard. That DPS cop that ran the light at over 60 in a 40 when dispatch told him to call off, killed a 25 yo college kid. That cop plead to manslaughter and got the usual professional courtesy break of 6 months work release. SO where was that law then? Truth is, it's not fun for a cop to have ecorded instruments out there where the cop advocates driving twice the limit to bag a couple hundred for the city/state.

See this? That's the worlds smallest violin. Zip your pants up Look, if you've got a conflict going on, PM someone who can do something to help and/or play as a middleman to resolve your conflict. Someone like HH and/or a greenie. As I've noticed in the past, most people really don't care about these types of situations on this site. Nah, I don't really care, leave the greenies alone. I just wanted to relate my experiences with the guy. Hey, if ya wanna fight in pm, cool, but don't drop barbs and then run to block incomming messages.... geez

Local media just gave his name as - David Nunn

mjosparky and myself took our little fight to pm - great idea. Then he realized he didn't have the ability to keep up, so he blocked my pm's, yet he continues to pm me with his crap. I'm wondering if that username is my girlfriends, as that is her MO too.

what I was trying (poorly I guess) to differentiate is restitution from retribution. they aren't the same thing. Certainly, but if he's found guilty then restitution has little place here - we just need to incapacitate him by sitting him in a 6x9 box forever. Retribution is the deifference between life w/o the possibility of parole -or- death, harassment, etc.. personally, I think chemical castration should be part of the punishment. See, this is the retributionist part. OK, so kids hear of this and it's supposed to deter them, and it may scare some, but challenge others. It makes society a worse place when the punishers outdo the criminals. Citizens start to wonder which is worse. some other countries did it before (maybe still do?), by giving the pedophile a chemical much like depo-provera. it totally kills the libido, from what I understand. And, should the pedophile show evidence of rehabilitiation (not likely), it is reversible in most cases I think. If he's even convicted on 1% of these cases, he'll have sevral life sentences. I think there are occasions for it, such as w/ menaces to society like this guy. It seems like every cases has an exception. Again, if you want to lower yourself and this country to be the scum this guy is, let's torture and murder him. Kinda hard to denounce his actions when we are the same. If he is removed - no more mennace. And, since that realistically may be impossible (people escape, etc.), does the criminal justice system not have a responsibility to protect society from the likes of him? Failures in the penal system don't justify random killings. With today's technology I think we can avoid escapes. It comes down to Old Testament Retribution in these cases. I understand you don't want to acknowledge that, but it the truth.