rehmwa

I hadn't heard of this at all. THanks for the update. 1 - Sno/Sno 13 - Offset/Spinner any other updates? randoms or otherwise? do you have a link for the cards that show the new Block 1? Is it the old Block 1 with the solo flying? Skyleague is pretty clear on 13 what is required. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Private companies choosing not to offer one of a billion other 'news' sources = "blocked, and afraid of free speech" got it In your little world, I suppose "Free Speech" would involve the government forcing all the networks to show Al Jazeera. Gotta admit it, your track record is spotless - you've missed the point on 100% of everything you think - most times in spectacularly foolish fashion. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

don't forget expensive ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

oooo - that's a good idea, it appeals emotionally to me as something we should do because stopping murder is 'very important'. I'll write my congressmen. for the children ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Posting this as a pre-nup is not really what we're talking about, it's more that a couple should sit down and be very specific on what they want and need and compare that to what the other wants and needs. Doing it in an organized fashion helps them figure out if they are really are starting out with the right person. I'd call it a "compatibility analysis" ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Wow, I'm not even so extreme as you to claim that taking any benefit from the government is "mooching". But if that's what you think, it's not very consistent with all your other posts. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

so, you're labeling Amazon as Right Wing now? Amazon is a mystery, wrapped in an enigma and angrily dressed in red. I think her politics vary according to the subject and I've seen her fall on topics to the right and left depending on the subject. The only thing consistent is she's passionate about them all past a certain point and will play devil's advocate a lot just to poke buttons. People aren't that easy to bin up - I wouldn't go bucketing Jeanne in any easily defined stereotype. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

nonsense - hate crimes are politically motivated default settings - if you assess for recidivism in penalty, that can be taken into account without having to create an entire new set of redundant laws. Christ, Bill, my whole argument is that it's important to "understand the defendant's state of mind" to determine the likelihood of repeat offenses and consider that as a big part of the penalty phase. Politically defined categories emphasize specific states of mind over just an overall assessment. I don't see any reason to penalize someone that is 100% likely to kill again based on color any more than another that is 100% likely to kill again because he's trying to impress his girlfriend. It's the likelihood that I'm worried about - I could not care less if the reason is PC or not. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

You are the one throwing out grounding when we're debating a murder case scenario. But let's look at your scenario. I said "assess the criminal for the likelihood of recidivism for assignment of the penalty". So, the 11 year old is found guilty of possession. You're making the dumb assumption that that results years of jail time. I posit the judge should consider his age, condition, attitude and likelihood if it will be a repeat offense and sentence accordingly. And he should do the same for 30 year old drug addict/burgar as well. It's very likely the 30 year will get a stiffer sentence and the youth might be moved to a foster home and just observed for a time. The result is seemingly just, and the fact that one is over 19 and the other under matters not one bit. Talk about not being in the same room. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

??Age is much more likely an accurate indicator of recidivism of the already committed crime than what?? Or are you arguing your strawman again about the definition of adult vs minor? That's always been a moot point or a strawman depending on who you were talking about. If so, you're debating with no one. Confusing, if the crime is already committed, then an assessment of character of the criminal needs to be be done and considered in their sentencing. I'm not sure if you are refuting something or not - or you just made up something to refute. My contention is that recidivism is the main thing we want to protect against. And that we assess that for anyone. If there is a correlation of that to age, then great, use that as one criteria, but not the sole criteria. You seem to agree with this sometimes, and argue it at other times. Or think it's the SOLE criteria for anyone younger than 15, or 16, or 22, or whatever. I'd consider that a very young person that does something terrible has a MUCH greater chance of being taught right from wrong than a fully and emotionally matured adult. But, so what? If the youth cannot be retaught (clinically psycotic), that's important too. That's part of the assessment that should be considered. Why is that so unreasonable to you people? Arbitrarily disallowing an assessment of this kind based on a random age cutoff is no better than doing it for gender, or skin color, or thickness of hair.... I'm saying the just thing is to assess it for each individual in consideration of the penalty. And again, this is NOT in consideration of the criminal at all, but strictly for the sake of protecting the public from that individual. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

that's what I've been saying. But I think Billvon wins with the mass murdering rapist minor getting grounded and losing his cell phone. I love it. I'm sure that makes the neighbors all comfy. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

and, isn't better (more fair) to assess ANY criminal on the basis of recidivism, rather than just ASSUME a certain propensity based on an arbitrary cut off date? the only no answer here is one of two: 1 - unreasonably emotional basis or; 2 - clear and repeatable statistics under pinning they actually do have a better non-recidivism rate but if 2 - stats are mass volume assumptions, horrible crimes might still warrant the one at a time analysis current law agrees with me - when the crime is so terrible, then there are allowances to propose more restrictive punishments (i.e., try as an adult) for the sake of protecting society ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Also different than 'rights' the hypothetical discussion doesn't consider the criminal first - it's about the protection of society first - the criminal somewhere on the priority list around 7th If the young child is a proven threat to the rest of us (i.e., they are considered very likely to "do it again"), what do you suggest we do to protect the rest of us. And if it's an effective technique, why would you not use it for anyone else regardless of age. The point is, we aren't "punishing" anyone, we're "protecting" the rest of us. I suspect the answer lies in that children are more likely to respond to corrective intervention and lesson the chance of repeat. But if that's not an option for a particular child (clear diagnosis of psychopathy, sociopathy), then what? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

when these are the crimes, why does the age matter at all? These are crimes that put society at risk in an unreasonable fashion. As for parole - One guy goes in at 14 - at 18 (four years later) he's a good candidate (based on observed behavior) to be let out. Another goes in a 34 - at 38 (four years later) he's a good candidate (based on observed behavior) to be let out. Conversely, both are observed to remain a clear threat of repeating violent crimes and should stay in prison..... I really don't see how one can justify treating these two people any differently in either scenario. And you can call them dogs and cats if you like as well I have one consideration that might work.....if they are REALLY young when put on parole but they have to live under the responsibility of an adult who will have to answer for any digressions.....But I'm not sure that's still safe for society to let them walk if they are still evaluated as a further threat. Something to think on. It's not about the criminal, it's about doing what is right for the rest of society - you know, those people that don't commit those crimes and don't like it happening to them. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

As long as, as much as possible, you treat dogs like friends it's ok. I'm a dog person. I grew up with dogs. But, when I have a dog, I treat it like a 'pet' which it is. And certainly not like an offspring (I don't understand city folk and their dogs....) However, that treatment and what I get in return is often better than with some friends. I suspect that's what you mean. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Don't bother, he's having fun pretending that the second part is the actual discussion in play. It's fun in a frustrating sort of way. (my apologies to you though, I have been incorrectly using the two words interchangably though my intent was 'try' not 'treat') However, in no way will I advocate trying a dog as an adult cat. It's just not reality. Though at times I do treat some friends like dogs. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

there's a better point - if one is gorgeous during their formative years I suspect has a greater chance of them having issues than for a 'late bloomer' as for that specific point - pretty much every popular kid from my youth was an early bloomer - the genetics seemed in their cases to result in a lot of fat before any of them turned 30. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

He's a charactor from the wizard of oz - he was looking for a brain and he ended up being actually quite intelligent and sensitive, but not too good with trigonometry. hope that helps ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

hammocks in bars - simple solution, elegant - no more drunk driving ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

that's a fair answer - and it identifies the gray area under discussion a 10 year range needs something else then doesn't it? apparently you agree with the allowance offered under law that allows the option to take some kids and try them as adults while trying others of the exact same age as minors - as long as they fit in your window of what - 15 to 25 I'm ok with that as a starting point. thanks ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

no, it's exactly the issue under discussion as proposed by Davjohns and currently an option under law ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

no, like you, this is just the law - no opinion, no claims ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

I agreed - but they can charged and treated under the same rules in a court of law for the specific offense only. (some people think this is really justified for the safety of society, not just DA politics) so what? If you want to argue against that allowance, then state why. Your strawman is zero value added. My one concession - Treating one in a different category prior to a guilty verdict is silly. But the punishment phase should not be defined by minor status. When do you think a child becomes an adult? What's your personal criteria? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Having established legal definitions of adult and minor and then circumventing them by renaming a child to be an adult is moronic. Yes, and legally, there are allowances to have trial of a minor "as an adult" in certain cases. So that's another moot point since they don't call the minor an adult, they just treat them as an adult for the specific crime. I doubt that if any minor commits a horrible crime, that the judicial system will wave a magic wand, the child grows chest hair, and then uncle sam will also let them vote and buy liquor and cigarettes. That would be moronic. If you read my post up top, I proposed that we forget about "child" and "adult", but base judgments on the severity of the crime and the likelihood of repeat offenses. That doesn't worry about an arbitrary magical age transition. However, if you want to debate the topic with Dav, then you need to acknowledge the argument and debate it. Your input is just inconsequential to his submittal. That sucks, you're smart and yet you continue to dodge the real questions here. I didn't ask you for the legal dodge. Just your personal opinion. Do you have one that the goverment hasn't assigned to you via law? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

if you won't join the discussion's intent just to be smug that's fine. What is YOUR definition of adult then? Is it an age? Is it a level of displayed maturity? Is there an age "range" that you'd be comfortable with a mixed answer? Do you bias by gender on the question? or background? Inquiring minds want to know. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants