Lucky...

You have a hundred other threads to bash America over Iraq. A sovereign democracy is invaded by communists, and all you liberals can think to do is bash America, which is doing nothing more than peacefully trying to make Russia stop. I would like to see you America-bashers cease your mindless bashing long enough to give an honest answer to this question: Do you approve of Russia invading Georgia? Answer Yes or No.See if you can pull yourself away from your America-bashing long enough to actually consider the seriousness of this world event, on its own. Forget about America for five seconds. Try really hard. After failures in Korea, VN, Iraq and Afghanistan, it makes a real hard argument to think the US should continue its attack for Democracy. Don't worry, the US engages in conflicts with puny nations and then turns them into proxy wars, this will be no different; we won;t directly fight the Russians, we will supply Georgia with arms to fight them. Then there's that little debt thingy......

I guess instead, we could have The Obamessiah declare "peace in our time", eh Bill? Nah, just elect the war monger McSame to further the war machine in the facade of liberty...... and lots of profit for Haliburton and maybe hit the debt to 15T by McSame's term end.

In the first case, logically, at least one must be either lying or delusional and if you think about it, so must it be true in the second case, unless, of course, god changes his mind frequently. Proving that God is a woman.

Nah, they'll test them first.... The whole process is actually very fascinating. Also being able to have the sperm shipped directly to ones home and inseminate with ones partner offers a more intimate experience. g Yea, I'm jokin..... had mine counted....must have taken then a long time to count to that many millions

I think I'll donate, I've had a vasectomy so that'll keep em scratching for a long time.

See but that's the thing, I NEVER need to open the box to know with nearly 100% certainty what is inside of it. In fact, I don't have to shake the box, nor do I have to even open the box. I don't have to even look at the box with my own eyes. Science has given me tools that allow me to "know" the nature of a lot of things I can't perceive with my own senses and to do it in repeatable and testable ways. Right, I was describing the scientific model, regardless of who does it, that's how it's done. And science dislikes the approach where we are always and forever certain of anything, as the entire mess is dynamic, always changing. UNlike religion that never even pick up the box and excommunicates anyone that dares to do so.

I agree with your point made here, but what makes Christianity so unreasonable is that they can guarantee you what the demonination is merely by faith. The scientific crowd at least gives it a shake, takes other boxes and places each coin in there 1 at a time and shakes them, records data from the sound noted and then draws a conclusion. There is still a chance of fallatability, but some real attempt is made other than a string of people making the same "guess" and all followers blindly doing so after them. "Chance of fallatability"? Maybe a 1 in 1000 chance if you ONLY "shake the box", but if you're doing real science, the "puzzle" should be solvable to damn near certainty. Yea, I agree, but I hate to get near absolute certainty, cause then I bring myself closer to what the other side (the Christians) does; they guarantee. I like science, it observes and makes theories, I despise religion, it makes absolutes based upon what their predecessors believe w/o question.

I agree with your point made here, but what makes Christianity so unreasonable is that they can guarantee you what the demonination is merely by faith. The scientific crowd at least gives it a shake, takes other boxes and places each coin in there 1 at a time and shakes them, records data from the sound noted and then draws a conclusion. There is still a chance of fallatability, but some real attempt is made other than a string of people making the same "guess" and all followers blindly doing so after them.

You're right, since I can't "prove" my theory I must default to the Jebus theory. Like how you didn't show evolution as a possible theory, considering it and Charlie are the 2 most believed theories in the US. Big bang is a more obscurely believed theory, not to say it's less likely and may work in concert with other theories. Love how creationists disclaim evolution and big bang, yet draw believability to Charlie throwing his magic dust around and making entire planets, down to every molecule..... that is far more far-fetched to me.

Hey Bird**** (the asterisks represent like), a guy in the 11th post to this thread made a spelling error...... just helpin a brother out.... u can't let him get away with it.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I think that the international community should never have awarded the financial windfall that is the Olympic Games to a country like China, with its disgraceful, deplorable oppression. http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/juveniles.html Since 2000, only five countries in the world are known to have executed juvenile offenders: China, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Iran, Pakistan, and the United States. Pakistan and China have abolished the juvenile death penalty, but there have been problems in nationwide compliance with the law. You're right, those are some deplorable nations, maybe you're onto sometheng. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The international community condemns the U.S. for abuses of a few terrorist suspects in Gitmo, but throws billions of dollars at China in the form of hosting the Olympics. That's sick. What's sick is you complaining about while using China-made goods. Now go ahead and deny it, you can't avoid it. SO you've never been to Walmart? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And now I just read here http://www.cnn.com/...cs.murder/index.html about Americans being murdered and wounded in China, right there at the site of the Olympics. I know that an individual murder could happen anywhere, no matter what country hosts the Olympics; it's just that this news cemented for me the feeling that it was wrong to give the Olympics to China. And foreigners don't get murdered over here? One non-related event from a nut and that represents the whole? That borders on racism, as you infer the people of China are as corrput as their government. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>What are your feelings about it? Wash the windows to your own house before pointing out spots in other's windows.

Capital Punishment, a phenomenon that most civilized, industrialized countries have abandoned in the 1970's-1980's, has picked up speed in the US since the reinstatement in 1976 with Gregg V Georgia. Why did the world weigh the cost of killing prisoners in the 70's-80's? I think the world underwent a conscience reform of a sort. I think the world awoke to gross civil unfairness as many racial atrocities were being abolished. Hell, in the US, it was a crime in 16 states in 1968 for a white woman to marry other than a white male. We had just come out of Brown v Board of Education where predominantly minority schools finally got some fiscal equity. There were so many civil revolutions occurring that it only seemed fair and timely that the art of the state killing people would come under fire. So the US weighed it out and supposedly fixed it during their 4-year moratorium and commuted all death sentences to life. Since then we have executed over 1,000 people and the question of errors and humanity are now resurfacing. Recently the SCOTUS reviewed a case on the pain of the lethal injection and possible errors. There was a moratorium on executions for several months, now the killing machine has wound back up again. So the battle goes on; continue killing or not. The issues on each side go like this: * Pro DP - Save money not imprisoning them for 15 years - Ensure they don't do it again, in or out of prison - Revenge (Biblical or otherwise) - Deserve it - Create deterrence (general) * Anti DP - Inhumane - Does society no real value - Likely chance of eventual error - Costs too much - Depraves society as children watch the state kill people Perhaps there are other reasons from either side, feel free to list them. As well, there are circular arguments such as from the pro side, abbreviate the process, but then you run a greater risk of killing an innocent person. Also, require a greater standard of proof, but we all know that when a person attends college for 7-10 years to learn how to skew the truth, this is also likely to lead to more deaths of innocent people. So the question I have posted is not sarcasm or asked for semantic or shock value, not a rhetorical question either. I am asking legitimately; if the government came forward and claimed that there were most likely innocent people executed since Gregg v Georgia in 1976, but certainly before that, but that it was a necessary evil and they wanted to keep the innocent deaths low, what would your tolerance number be? I think a great point from my side, the anti-DP side, is that deterrence has never been evidenced to reduce crime. A great example of a blood-thirsty state that spent 4 million dollars to get nothing is with the Terry Nichols case. The feds had him forever, yet Oklahoma wanted to execute him, so they spent 4M on a trial that ended in more life sentences. Just think what 4M could have done for a poor state like Oklahoma; books for kids, a new school somewhere, new school buses, but no, blood-curdling revenge replaced all that. What really cracks me up in regard to pro-DP guys is that they are willing go along with a standard of proof that allows for a, "maybe" to be convicted, that is obvious by the >200 overturned capital cases since Gregg, but to convince them that it is likely that innocent people have been executed and unlikely that there have been no innocent people executed is beyond their comprehension. Come on kids, convictions are often nothing more than wild-ass guesses, appeals mundane procedure and executions killing of a person based upon a signature; there isn't that much thought given to the whole process and you want a person's life to hinge on that? Bottom line kids, if we execute we will execute the guilty along with the innocent; civilized countries have figured that out. BTW, just 2 years ago we were executing people for capital crimes committed as 16 and 17 year olds, a custom practiced by only 7 or 8 countries in the world at that time. Edited to add: That many of these people who are executed really need to be, just that the cost of killing an inocent person, ever, is not worth it.

I'm convinced this guy and his buddies are trash and society is a better place w/o them, but WHY IS IT THAT YOU PRO-DP GUYS REFUSE TO EVEN ADDRESS THE ISSUE THAT A SYSTEM THAT EXECUTES WILL IN ALL LIKELYHOOD KILL AN INNOCENT PERSON? .......just wondering.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>I was under the impression that there has to be a LEGAL BASIS for an appeal filing to be accepted. What, do you think the clerk discrminates documents, accepting or denying them? When you appeal you simply file a notice of appeal with the clerk, then file your appeal memorandum in a timely manor, you pay your fees and do all the things you have to, this is called, "perfecting" your appeal. The other side, the state/feds, or in a civil matter the state or the other party or parties have to file their answer and it goes on. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>..Otherwise, for every conviction there would be an appeal. For every appeal denied, there would be an appeal to the next highest court. You can appeal a civil traffic ticket. Everything but things like small claims cases, which are binding arbitration, and other matters where you waive normal civil procedural rights are appealable. As for every criminal case being appealed, ~95% are plea bargained, so there is no appeal. You can file for post conviction relief, a similar but different animal. You should drop your, "know it all" attitudes and learn the system with an open mind, odds are that you would change your position on some things. And actually the state can appeal an acquittal, but not for the case in question, just for procedural or other issues the prosecutor wants to go their way in future events. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>An appellate court is a court that hears cases on appeal from another court. Depending on the particular legal rules that apply to each circumstance, a party to a court case who is unhappy with the result might be able to challenge that result in an appellate court on specific grounds. These grounds typically could include errors of law, fact, or procedure (in the United States, due process). Basically what I wrote. The judge is the finder of law in a jury trial, jury the finder of fact and judge the finder of both in a bench trial. The judge also determines all procedural interpretation and application, so all of these things can be appealed upon. How about if the cops didn't mirandize the suspect turned defendant and the judge allowed for that error? You would appeal the judges decision based upon the cops actions. If you're looking for hard and fast rules in the law, forget it. Another thing for the passage above is that the appeal may be heard only on record, no right to personally argue the case. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In different jurisdictions, appellate courts are also called appeals courts, courts of appeals, superior courts, or supreme courts... The trial court is the lowest court of record, they are generally called the Superior Court in most cases, but in NY they are called the Supreme Court. Watch LAw and Order and you'll see what I mean. Th heirarchy in my state is like this from lowest to highest: - Justice Court (county jurisdiction) - Municipal or city court (city jurisdiction) (above two are identical in heirarchy) - Superior Court - Court of Appeals - State Supreme Court ___________________________ - Then a maze of fed dist courts to the SCOTUS >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>A good example of this is the U.S. Supreme Court in which at least four justices must agree to hear the case if there is a constitutional issue. Right, you have the right to file an appeal, but the court has to decide to hear the case in a process called a Writ of Certiorari, or a cert, which means to certify the case. >>>>>>>>>>>>>In tort, equity, or other civil matters either party to a previous case may file an appeal. In criminal matters, however, the state or prosecution generally has no appeal as of right. And that's wrong, the state can appeal, but it won't effect the out come of that particular case, just procedure for future cases. Double jeopardy prevents an acquittal to be overturned, just procedure for future cases. Dude, you need to quit acting as if you have a clue about the legal system, I'm not a lawyer, never been and this stuff is off the top of my head from previous education. Wik is wrong about the state not appealling a criminal acquittal, so all you know is in whatever you Google. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>That is certainly a debatable concept. It's not like you can claim that that was written into the Constitution; nor can you claim that 100% of the people of the U.S. agree with that principle. While I abhor the concept of an innocent man being imprisoned, I find it very difficult to accept the notion of a known guilty man going free to continue his crimes. Who volunteers to be his next victim? No, you're showing your Communistic side. America was founded on the principal of individual rights, feeling that if every individual is guaranteed rights that the whole will also enjoy these. In Communism, they subscribe to Utilitarianism where they move for the group, feeling that the good of the group outweighs the good of teh individual. American Conservatism has assumed this concept that was embraced by early Communists.

Which has happened many times. When will the majority of folks tire of having that blood on their hands. When Mexico wins back Texas.

Perfect! Which is why the Dp is relegated to simple revenge, not deterrence.

In every case, it has prevented the convicted and executed murderer from killing again. One down, X to go. As for others, can you disprove that some of them who might have thought about murdering people have been dissuaded from it? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>In every case, it has prevented the convicted and executed murderer from killing again. One down, X to go. That's defined as incapacitation, not deterrence. At the same time, executing an innocent person incapacitates them from not killing again too. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>As for others, can you disprove that some of them who might have thought about murdering people have been dissuaded from it? What you're trying to say is that of the question of general deterrence. Again, so much nicer when we have the luxury of understanding concepts. Let me ask this: 1) Do you like pussy? 2) Assuming yes, if rape were legal, would you commit rape? 3) Of course not, your value system doesn't allow for you to harm other people, not the law. People do what they want, the law punishes them, laws deter very few juvenile types at best.

How is it different? Do you have any evidence suggesting the death penalty works as a deterrent? It works every time its tried...well at least here in Texas. Why have you seen the walking dead?, if so I hear a bullet to the head works. "We repeat: KILL THE BRAIN, AND YOU KILL THE GHOUL!" Are you also unaware that deterrence theory requires the element of choice?

>>>>>>>>>>>>(1) Let's be sure to mention that not every attempt to make an appeal is even granted the right to be heard. You can't just start an appeal just because you don't like the verdict that was returned. I hope you know that. An appeal is required to have a basis at law alleging that there was something improper about the trial! Basis on procedure as well. You have a right to review on appeal with DP cases, lower cases can just be summarily dismissed and generally are. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>(2) You failed to catch my sarcasm about how if they are going to give automatic appeals, which I am saying is like emblazoning every verdict with "NOT TO BE TRUSTED" on it, why not just go through the motions of the trial to find out what the jury thinks, and then go with the opposite of the jury finding because that must be the right decision! Right, just shoot em as they leave the courtroom. There are 2 main findings in trials: a finding of fact and a finding of law. There can be multiple errors in both, including the instructions from the judge to the jury, rendering a finding of fact flawed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>(3) I am familiar with the 5th Amendment, of course. And once again you failed to "get" my sarcasm. My point was that if each guilty verdict cannot be trusted and the condemned gets an automatic appeal--not just an appeal if there is an allegation of a legal impropriety, but an automatic appeal--that is a message that the guilty verdict cannot really be trusted. I am cynically saying, "Well, then, maybe we should look a second time at the acquittals--since we're saying the juries are just a bunch of dolts who often arrive at a conviction when a conviction is not called for. Maybe when they acquit, they are wrong, too." And the ridiculous nature of that reply is that the jury might be perfect, the judge AFU.

How is it different? Do you have any evidence suggesting the death penalty works as a deterrent? It works every time its tried...well at least here in Texas. Why have you seen the walking dead?, if so I hear a bullet to the head works. Uh, in case you don't understand deterrent theory, there must be the element of choice for it to work. There are 2 main types of deterrence: - Specific - you get punished, you therefore don't want to be punished again so you don't behave that same way - General - you get punished, I watch it, I don't want to be punished so I don't behave that same way It's so much nicer when we understand concepts before just flip the switch. Deterrence, most people will follow major laws w/o needing either form of deterrence, some can't be deterred no matter what, so deterrence is relegated to fodder for politicians to appeal to certain groups of people, it's not a viable theory. It can work on teenagers in formative years, but once we have our values established there is little to change that. But teh DP works great for revenge, just that vengance on innocent people sucks.

I agree, innocent and guilty alike, it clears em all out.

What qualifies as “much” for the economy? While I agree that the economic stimulus that the on-line porn industry saw may not reflect the goals behind the Economic Stimulus Act (ESA) of 2008 nor qualifies as “much” for the overall US economy, the reported benefits to the lagging construction industry are harder to discount. As to the “much” factors: the ESA has also been credited as largely being responsible for the small increase in growth over the quarter, 1.9%, compared to the previous quarter, 0.9%, (& some assert preventing a quarter of negative growth, one of the customary preliminary indicators of recession). Do I think the ESA was the best choice in the long run? No. That doesn’t, however, mean that one disregards the impact that it had. Was it as successful as Secretary Paulson had hoped? No; economists were looking for >2.4% increase due to the ESA (only got 1.9%). VR/Marg And after that, we get to tack on 1/5th or 1/6th of a billion $ to the debt.

What a crock of shit. The books were not "cooked." The budget surplus was real, by any acceptable accounting techniques. The fact of the matter is that Clinton oversaw the most fiscally responsible federal government since the Truman and Eisenhower administrations. That's absolutely correct. Bill got himself those blowjobs the old-fashioned way: he earned them. Still can't stay on line, can you? But why not be the Reight wing's representative here, was it about the BJ or about the lie? Or is it interchangeable based upon need?

What a crock of shit. The books were not "cooked." The budget surplus was real, by any acceptable accounting techniques. The fact of the matter is that Clinton oversaw the most fiscally responsible federal government since the Truman and Eisenhower administrations. Right, Clinton's 1993 Omnibus Spending Bill raised taxes slightly on the middle, extremely on the rich. As time went on and the deficit turned to a surplus, that was relieved. The debt and the deficit fell every year of Clinton's 8 years, the deficit turned to a surplus. As well he cut military spending.

Counselor, you feel some need to make this about me, perhaps you need some help to prevent from projecting onto others. Perhaps you need to some direction on how to focus on the issues in threads instead of ad hominem and spelling/grammar. I understand that conservatives really don't want to talk about the performance of their 3 stooges, but don't worry, when the left gets in, they will fuck up too, so it's kind of a trade off for the side in power; you get to have your side in power, just have to ride the waves. Now let's be real, no one will seriously address the post above because they can't. They make throw a piece of misdirected crap out there as you did, but no real answer. The recent thread where there was a workplace bully, not only was he fired shortly after cnflicting with me, but he was fired once before for the same thing from the same facility, just different ownership; the management should have been fired and was probably getting worried. As well, he was fired for a conflict with a girl, relating a story told by another worker there that she has a smelly pussy. Not to mention I never reported the scum, just ignored and waited for him to fuck himself, so your point is void, care to address the thread? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>My experience is that the intense, humorless, and slightly scary guy in the other cubicle, who takes, well...odd umbrage at collegial humor is best just avoided, for everyone's sake. You don't even know me, how do you claim to know my humor, intensity, etc? My experience is the anal attorney, always correcting spelling and nitpicking, addressing nothing important, just hanging around trying to rally people for them and against others not a good person to follow.