kelpdiver 2 #26 February 25, 2006 Quote I predict the gut won't be executed. His death warrant expired. The state has to go back to the original trial judge to get the warrant reissued. CHarles McGrath, the judge, asked Schwartzenegger for clemency for the bastard. I'm hopeful that the law and order types will stay on top of this one. The guy is still pretty young, so time works against him, and those who try to stop the execution may find out what happened to the last prominent death penalty opponents within the state supreme court. Tookie - he's a changed man Second guy - he's old, what's the point This guy - he doesn't speak spanish. Not quite the same crowds for a guy who planned, choked, hammered, fucked, and then stabbed a 17yo girl as a favor to a friend. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #27 February 25, 2006 Hey, I know how to settle this. Let's conduct a poll: ___ Kill him. ___ Give him candy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #28 February 25, 2006 QuoteQuote>No one had to make law to say it was permissible for blacks to go to school with whites . . . Google "desegregation" and then see if you still think no one had to make a law to desegregate schools. They may have done it so that they had a law they could say they were enforcing, but I'd like you to show me where in the constitution any rights guaranteed to Americans were done so only to white Americans. - Article IV, US Constitution: No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due. Seemed to have denied rights to blacks.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #29 February 26, 2006 QuoteHey, I know how to settle this. Let's conduct a poll: ___ Kill him. ___ Give him candy. LMAO! Candy always works. It's too bad they hadn't invented candy before Hitler came to power. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #30 February 26, 2006 QuoteQuoteThey may have done it so that they had a law they could say they were enforcing, but I'd like you to show me where in the constitution any rights guaranteed to Americans were done so only to white Americans. - Article IV, US Constitution: No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due. Seemed to have denied rights to blacks. It said "black" there? Where? Where? --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thesaint 0 #31 February 26, 2006 Ok I usually don't get into this kind of stuff here but here goes anyway. How come this sudden concern for the condenmed comfort? If the last ump-teen executions have gone bad why was it not addressed a long time ago. And the ideal that there was not ONE person in the entire state willing to carry out the sentence to me is laughable. Especially when it appeared to me that they were lined up to do Tookie Williams (not that I wanted him spared) As an aside what is up with the governors case I'd like to know? I want im brought up on charges for the motorcyle incident. Driving without a license etc... Not because I have anything against him but because anybody else would be prosecuted. "If a thousand people agree on a dumb ideal, it's STILL a dumb ideal." Skully Bro #1 - POPS# 10440 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #32 February 26, 2006 >It said "black" there? Are you really going to claim that slavery was not a black issue? You're really going to go there? Wow. Just - wow. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #33 February 26, 2006 Quote>It said "black" there? Are you really going to claim that slavery was not a black issue? You're really going to go there? Wow. Just - wow. Come on, Bill, are you going to call it a personal attack if I say you're being obtuse about this? I can't see it as anything but. I asked you where "black" was specified in the article of the Constitution that you quoted. I was looking for, "It's not in that text at all," but you got the buzzer. We have some lovely parting gifts for you, though. edit: The post you referred to initially was the one where I pointed out that the Constitution did NOT guarantee rights based on a person's skin color or ethnicity. That's fact. Now, whether inherently flawed Constitutional issues were wrongly and bigotedly (is that a word?) decided by flawed Supreme Courts is a different issue. I dare say that they WERE wrong to ever uphold slavery, but slavery is not permitted by the Constitution. It simply is not there; no language in the Constitution can truly and bona fide be claimed to support denying equal rights to anyone on the basis of race. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #34 February 26, 2006 >Come on, Bill . . . There's an art to know when to stop digging; it can take some time to learn. >are you going to call it a personal attack if I say you're being obtuse about this? It is, but I don't really care when it's me. PA's say far more about the person making them than the person receiving them anyway. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #35 February 26, 2006 Well, Bill, the fact is it isn't a personal attack; I'm just expressing my point of view that I feel you really were deliberately evading my point. Is that wrong? Why didn't you address what I said about the actual text of the citation? And what are you doing still up?! --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #36 February 26, 2006 Quote As an aside what is up with the governors case I'd like to know? I want im brought up on charges for the motorcyle incident. Driving without a license etc... Not because I have anything against him but because anybody else would be prosecuted. The DMV has stated that the M endorsement isn't necessary for a motorcycle with a sidecar, though there is questions over that simplification of the VC. The accident was entirely the fault of the other motorist, and it's pretty clear that Arnold doesn't pose a safety risk for his lack of the endorsement, so I'm sweating it too much. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thesaint 0 #37 February 26, 2006 QuoteQuote As an aside what is up with the governors case I'd like to know? I want im brought up on charges for the motorcyle incident. Driving without a license etc... Not because I have anything against him but because anybody else would be prosecuted. The DMV has stated that the M endorsement isn't necessary for a motorcycle with a sidecar, though there is questions over that simplification of the VC. The accident was entirely the fault of the other motorist, and it's pretty clear that Arnold doesn't pose a safety risk for his lack of the endorsement, so I'm sweating it too much. "M endorsement isn't necessary"Wow thats not only stupid but it's Galactically stupid. A bike with a side car is a whole new deal. It's not a bike but it's not a car. The steering and weight shift while braking is all quite unique. Oh well whatever. "If a thousand people agree on a dumb ideal, it's STILL a dumb ideal." Skully Bro #1 - POPS# 10440 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #38 February 27, 2006 Quote "M endorsement isn't necessary"Wow thats not only stupid but it's Galactically stupid. stupid and legal are different matters. DMV says it's legal. The VC says that a motorcycle and sidecar over 1500lbs is no longer considered a motorcycle. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #39 February 27, 2006 Quote stupid and legal are different matters. DMV says it's legal. The VC says that a motorcycle and sidecar over 1500lbs is no longer considered a motorcycle. "How many legs does a dog have if you call its tail a leg?", Abraham Lincoln... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
