Lucky...

Sure, and if the case stays in juvi court, there are minimal maximums. What they do is to trabsfer to adult court and then adult jeopardy can be sentenced. I think it's wrong too....

And if convicted of a felony, wouldn't he have to resign even if he did win the seat? So that would put the Senate at a 99 Senator count, just like when Jeffords moved to Indep..... Not good for Repubs either way, they were lucky he, uh, cut-n-ran....

So, he is guilty just because he was charged? The attorney has to use 3 grand juries to get a charge? Have your short time of enjoyment but he was targeted because he was good at what he did. He was effective. I believe he is more dangerous to your lefty leanings now than when he was in the office. I love watching irrational responses to this. But again, this is dangerous to both parties should this become common practice...... And impeaching presidents for sexual favors is even more dangerous...

Not to mention that it will save the party a ton of money. Dems were pooring a fortune into the race to defeat him. He, and the party would have had to respond. So, he is confident that the seat will remain republican if he gets out (and do it for a lot less money) This whole thing is a dangerous predident regardless of your party affiliation And impeaching a president for getting a BJ and lying about it isn't a dangerous political precedent???? Come on, let's pick 1 side of the fence here....

But you were for the Clinton Impeachment and probably removal...

Have her served with a forcible detainer, go to court and get a court order to have her blow you. If she defaults, have the Sheriff come and move her shit out.

Yes, and this undo's the 4 trillion $ increase in the debt, the mass damage he's done to the ecology via lower air standards during the 1st 5 years, damage to medicare via privatization, and whole plethera of other goodies I don't care to list....

Unless that is, someone's feelings get hurt, or you say "coon", instead of "conda"... 1. He said, "Coon" and didn't even modify it to Coonda... Conda.... cough, hack, sorry, stuck in my throat, etc.... The context where he said, "Coon" was about Coon and not Conda. 2. The US Const has a 1-way realtionship between the gov and a citizen, so this is not an issue of freedom of speech since the US gov didn't deny any speech.

The country changed when we discovered that being able to eat, support our families, and take a vacation once a year just wasn't quit enough to satisfy us. This is the year 2006 and we want it all baby! The right to say anything without retribution (as long as it isn't about a subject that we personally consider to be politically incorrect). The right to say that we're being discriminated against (even if we don't have the same qualifications as everyone else). The right to burn the American flag (just because we hate America, even though we live here). The right to work and live in this country (even if we are doing it illegally). The right to be ashamed when one of our brothers or sisters waves the flag with passion. The right to complain about the government, and then never do anything to change it. The right to be a sheep. It isn't just us -vs- them, it's us-vs-us-vs-them-vs-us. Right, emaning we have great division now.... wonder what the cause of that is???

true. But exeption to the rule doesnt change the rule. You are of course only going to hear bad stuff on the news. scenes checked out by cameras instead of, or supplementing, actual cops. same amount of intrusion; more efficient. This is not some small exception to some obscure rule, this is about Constitutional protections, the cornerstone of the US Const. The US Const = protections and if we ignire them then we are ignoring the primary document under which this country was formed. To say, "Ah, small exception" is define the very purpose of teh US Const; the US Const was drafted to protect thise small exceptions. As for media and bad stuff, if I post some good stuff from the media will that thwart that argument? I can. Granted, the media presents things that attract and sell, and trainwrecks attract more that a person donating time at a seniors home. But the media isn't part of the gov, maybe parasites at best. No, more intrusive than cops in that cops don't have vision that keen. Again, there is no expectation of privacy when outside, so it's a moot point, but a general feeling of police state will be the product if they do it.

And don't forget that the US Sup Ct and this admin in ger=neral have been weaving these prisoners in and out of soldier status as they mistreat them. They are enemy combatants one day, not the next; whatever fits the issue.

I can't really fight for my own freedoms right now. Can only Q-Back politick right now till I get out. Politics does intrigue me. You might see me in some office in the future. Mkkkk. Perhaps not.

That has been done and protected by the courts, that is, the right not to hire those who smoke. Right or wrong, that is not an invasion in the governmental sense, perhaps the private sector sense.

True. . .But it would have to be a fascist theoracracy. I have complete confidence in those Third Party types and Civil Liberties groups to fight tooth and nail against any imbalance towards fascism We already have a large fascist component in the US. And theocracy, we have shades of that too.

You have no expectation of privacy while in public, but where does teh harrassment of cameras enter the scene?

Fine. For all of you living in states with anti-sodomy laws, cameras are in the mail for wall-mounting in your sleeping rooms. Furthermore your food purchases are being logged, as muslims eat differently than the average American, and terrorists are predominantly muslim. Of course you are also required to have microphones in your home, so your conversations can be creened for subversive content, but you should not be afraid of this, because law-abiding citizens have nothing to hide... Just teasing ya with the examples, but the argument remains valid. There are such things as privacy and freedom. Not here, we've traded them for intrusion and surveilance.

I think this above quote stood out the most for me. It seems if any of the above is considered something to hide, you might be lying to someone. None of these stuff are illegal. . . But mostly, If someone is not breaking any laws they would not have any reasons to fear any of this. I know this is a cop-out retort answer to this line of questioning, but I feel it rings true. Personally, I like the idea because it seems to have an ability over the long run to save a lot of money on bureacratic paper shuffling. You can spot a crook faster and be able to convict them a lot more quicker; a lot less trials per case. It would save a lot of investigative man-hours. You can downsize certain offices and completely get rid of whole departments. More than likely, there will be no real-time monitoring (It would be totally unfeasable to hire hundreds of govt people to stand a 24 hour watch) but it all be recorded until a particular time-frame in a certain area needs reviewing. Come again.... would you like me to post many of the wrongful arrests where it took people sometimes years to get out of jail? When cops screw up, their buddies are there to keep the victim burried to protect the career of the so-called good cop. OK, I know it's mostly cold, but it's hot as hell.... Which are you saying? Cop out or true? I think it's a cop out to relegate to the thinking that only guilty people are stalked. Some truth, but if we killed teh 4th, allowed cops to kick in doors on will, then we would have less crime, in fact, very little crime. But we would have no privacy as well. There's a balance of privacy versus safety from crime; both extremes are scarry and we're leaning too far to the side of intrusion to prevent crime.

No...I don't think that's a good measure. For two reasons, primarily. 1. I've known people who were sitting on the edge of suicide, and who were functioning pretty well at the time. Only people in the know knew of their distress, and their desire to suicide. I've known mothers in the throws of PPD/P who were outwardly "functioning" but literally unable to cope. And I know that for myself, when I was there at the edge, I was not considered unfunctioning; most people I knew had no idea what was transpiring inside my mind. What is function, anyway? The ability to pay taxes? Then every stay-at-home mother who doesn't earn a wage then becomes "non-functioning." Being able to hold a job? Drive a car? Go to the store? Read a book? What? What if someone is completely sane, and only has their groceries delivered and lives off a trust fund and stays at home all the time? They're functioning...in their way, for their needs and choices, in a chosen lifestyle. So is that not functioning? 2. At what point does "functioning" become perjorative, as in "most people eat ice cream for dessert, therefore if you eat ice cream for dinner, you're not functioning" or something along those lines? We're right at defining normal, which I think is almost impossible to do accurately. I would suspect there are other factors, rather than "functionality", that should be the earmarkers for mental illness... Ciels- Michele We're being quite abstract here, aren't we? Many.most of the optional suicides will be elderly who are extemely ill. Furthermore, there will be safeguards in place to ensure these people are sure. I support a 1-year wait. Again, if these people want to do it, barring quads, they will do it publicly and dangerously (to others) if they choose.

I am a firm believer.... tht when you know its time.. it is time. I have no desire to be kept alive with heroic measures if I am terminally ill and in severe pain. I think the people who force a life of pain and suffering on others just to assuage their own fears and dogmatic beliefs need to come to grips wiht the reality that ALL of us will die. No one gets out of this lifetime alive. I want a peaceful end to my life and a peaceful passing.... not one filled with agony because someone refuses to just let me go. I lived in Oregon at the time that the people VOTED overwhelmingly for the Right to die with dignity. That right is still being mucked with by people who SUPPOSEDLY believe in Jesus and an afterlife.. yet they feel free to deny that afterlife to others. These are the same people who demand we have state-sponsored executions...... religion/Christianity = playing God.

Someone who needs help is not in a position to determine whether they want it or not. It's kind of like a bipolar or schizophrenic who goes off his meds: he starts talking too fast and too incoherently or talking to the air or she takes her small children out to a construction site and collapses (this is a true story, not merely a made up example) or he decides to commit suicide by cop (another true story). A suicidal person who receives treatment against his will can always decide--when he becomes rational again--that ending his life is the right choice. And then it is a choice, not an act of desperation. Death is not undoable, but there are a lot of people walking around out there who are very grateful to be alive only because someone made decisions for them when they were not capable of making such decisions for themselves. There is a legal standard for competence. Someone who can't meet it should not have the power to make decisions about life and death. rl I'm curious what your stance is on state-sponsored execution.

This should bring visions of dollar bills instead. This is not about the Baker Act and straitjackets, but about legislation authorizing funding and about developing policies for grants to researchers working in this area. You would know this if you had read a bit more. And you've changed your xpremise from the Bonfire thread to this one. I'm not sure what it is you're aiming for here, Andy. I totally agree that we have the right to determine our individual fates, but a depressed person is not in his right mind, and he cannot make a rational decision to end his life. Given that, to advocate that anyone should have the right to end it is irresponsible and thoughtless, and I cannot fathom why you would (in the original thread) take such a position. rl Well of course there is a battery of tests involved where the competence of the person is tested. With that, once reasonable competence is established, optional suicide would be allowed. People can commit suicide publicly and dangerously and without dignity, or we can have an alternate means.

"them" didn't sneak across the borders, freeload off the social services, demand their native language be taught in schools, etc. etc. How do you know? The US didn't have much in the way of social services until FDR in the 30's, but whatever we had I bet they utilized. The first juvenile court was in 1899 in Illinois, so I bet they used those services.

Maybe you don't understand the pride and machisno that is common to Hispanics.

This still a racist nation. Do you know that it was crime in 16 states until 1968 for people of different races to marry? The laws were still on the books until 2000 when I think it was Alabama that finally repealed that law.

Interned Japanese-Americans proved their Americanness by creating the 442nd and kicking ass through Europe. Black Americans did a similar thing during WWII. Once they dedicate thier lives, they then carry the burden of being an American, so they will keep it strong. Amazing at how these people work for corporations for pennies and the right wing thinks they are stripping America of its assets, while corp America sends away millions of jobs and they barely bat an eye.