Andy9o8

So you are saying that these guys (Journalist Killers) . . . . . . don't deserve the death penalty, but if the victim was your family, they should be burned at the stake. Of course they deserve it, Clint. I don't know those butchered journalists or their families, but even now I feel incredible personal rage toward their murderers. And as an individual, acting solely on behalf of myself, I'd be the first one to immolate them - if I could. I would be acting out of pure blood lust, governed principally by my lizard brain, and probably without much moral regret. But the formal collective of our society should not bring itself down to the level of my individual animal rage, or to the level of the scum that victimizes us. To my mind, that's part of what separates the most civilized of the world's societies from... those that are less so.

The core foundation of my objection to the death penalty is a lot more basic: I don't think society should debase itself down to the level of the murderer it punishes by killing him; for if it does, it is no better than he is. Society as a formal collective is supposed to operate at level higher than the base animal emotions of the individual. And that's how I'm able to reconcile wanting to personally burn at the stake anyone who ever murdered one of my loved ones, while still adamantly opposed to society-imposed capital punishment, even against those we're really, really certain committed murder.

Oh, I'm sure there will be plenty of countries expressing their outrage!!, and offering plenty of moral support for the American taxpayers footing the bill for whatever is actually done.

What every seasoned criminal defense attorney comes to understand first-hand is that the felony of deliberate perjury under oath on the witness stand is committed by police officers in American courtrooms hundreds of times every single day. The prosecutors know it, too, but they couldn't care less. And the judges know it too, they're just too intellectually dishonest to admit it. Corrupt, perjurious cops who arrogantly snicker at others in the system, while they get away with their crimes, protect and serve nobody but themselves.

People sometimes wonder why Scalia sickens me so much, so often. Here's just one example of why: Scalia Once Pushed Death Penalty For Now-Exonerated Inmate Henry Lee McCollum

Yeah. You know said interviewer is Sean Hannity, right? http://www.buildyourmarriage.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Mediocrity-Setting-the-Bar-Low.jpg

I fixed the link in my post. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

#1 +2 -10. Do none of you understand that these guys are journalists, not agents of any government or policy? Or that the profession of being a war correspondent has existed for hundreds of years? The dangers of being a war correspondent The level of ignorance on display daily is bad enough. Consider how much worse it would be if journalists were not our witnesses to history. ------------ (ETA: fixed the link in my post.)

Sorry to bear bad news, but in the US that's always technically been the standard in court, since pretty much forever. Cops' testimony are never supposed to be given greater weight than the testimony of other witnesses simply because they're cops. Judges pay lip service to it, and jurors are expressly instructed as such. But - long story short, that "standard" is almost never followed in real life: if it's a criminal case against a civilian defendant, it's unbelievably rare for most jurors, and especially most judges, to reject a cop's testimony over that of a civilian - especially if that witness is the suspect, or an associate of the suspect. So don't get your hopes up.

I'm horrified that pics of my butt might go viral.

I remember having to answer a question about a demo jump, where the demo jumper would be dressed up as a witch, with broom and hat, plus the demo jump was to be at night and close to water. Question was, what to prepare and how to handle this. A number of people started writing like a full page how-to. The correct answer was: Don't That's not a correct answer, it's a chickenshit answer. Every skydive, no matter how risk-mitigated the jump and the gear, is a high-risk activity, compared to not jumping at all. The very safest way to prepare and handle one is: Don't do it. Of course, that misses the point. The idea of that kind of exam question is, or should have been, to test the applicant on a combination of knowledge and judgment when asked to be an expert consultant on a higher-risk, specialized jump (regardless of whether the jump is for commercial, demonstration or strictly recreational purposes). Now, if Step #1 is "first, assess whether the jumpers possess the requisite skill set, (and if not, advise them to desist and/or prohibit the jump as needed)", that's fine; but if the answer to the first question is "Yes", then that's not the end of the analysis. A kick in the ass to the author of that question. Rant over.

They were founded by Italian immigrants, eh?

In other news, The English are still learning how to spell their own language.

Excellent spin. Really - quite skillful.

Nah Ron, You and I both know we'd just turn around, laugh and ignore this troll. He's a rank amateur in provocation compared to "them" (not mentioning "their" name)...... Amen to that. I refer you to my post #13 this thread. It was a challenge to see how mature men behave. As was my post #7 . But of course you knew that. Oh, and so did Jesus.

It's Buffalo. All he'd need to know is how to bowl. The rest is gravy.

No good deed goes unpunished, John. If Britain were a U.S. state, it would be the second-poorest, behind Alabama

Where'd you hear that?

The most populous muslim country in the world is in Asia. Muslim does not equal middle east. Native Israelis who immigrate to the US are Asian-Americans. Neat, eh?

According to my wife, this list, by definition, is infinite. Long story short (it's there in the evidence that will come out in court, probably at the pre-trial "motions for summary judgment" stage, and then again at trial), it was not the vast majority; truthfully, it was about half. The rest were sins of COMmission by BoA. Hey, trust me on this.

A lot of people would say it's the definition of "insanity," but I've yet to find a dictionary that agrees with them. Drives me crazy. You seem to be saying that you keep looking it up...

My comment was in reply to his digging up, and calling the OP a racist due to his posting history. Not for his thoughts on the current thread. Well, we all leave a footprint in this world, and patterns emerge. It so happens that I also looked up his posting history when I saw the thread yesterday, and I came to the same conclusion. I mean, it's right there. I just didn't feel like feeding the troll.

Eh, not so fast. You see, once Countrywide formally merged into BoA, Countrywide's severely impaired portfolio became part of BoA's portfolio. At that point, BoA had an affirmative obligation to disclose such portfolio impairments in its quartly 10-Qs, and in its annual 10-Ks - yet it failed to do so. And BoA compunded this regulatory non-disclosure by issuing press releases and speeches by its top echelon of executives - intended to be consumed and relied upon by investors - deliberately mischaracterizing (read: concealing) the impaired nature of its portfolio and its resulting risk of repurchase liability. And BoA did so not out of mere negligent ignorance of the impairments, it did so with full knowledge - the legal word is "scienter" - of those impairments. And it did so partly through former Countrywide executives who had become BoA executives in the merger, as well as by long-standing BoA execuives Therefore, the failure to disclose was part and parcel of a deliberate course of deceptive conduct, committed not only by Countrywide pre-merger, but also by BoA itself post-merger (and, in fact, even prior to the merger being formally consummated). Thus: It's not true that BoA "merely inherited Countrywide's liabilities, but not its sins". Rather, BoA actively engaged in the ongoing course of conduct of those sins itself, both pre- and post-merger. And these fraudulent acts were committed not only by legacy Countrywide executives, but also by long-standing BoA executives. Not all of this is part of the fact patterns behind the government-brought cases that have already settled (although some of it is), but it is part of the facts asserted, and for which there is ample proof, in several class-action lawsuits brought by private investors and monoline insurers which have not yet gone to trial.

I detect a second-generation Asian-American in your armor. ETA: Probably crashed into it by how she drives.

Ya know, the Pekin, IL HS team mascot until 1980 was the chinks . You alluding to that team name? For your further amusement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dangerous_Darkies