birdlike

Bill, you are right to point this out; however, I should have made it clear that this is for my own personal satisfaction. If I meant it or wanted it to have an effect on the sponsors, I would have long ago tried to get some sort of "movement" going, and I did not. In fact, it wasn't until not very long ago that I even knew that China would be hosting the '08 Summer Olympics. I am doing this so that I know that I didn't help. >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. Uh, you realize that the US has hosted the olympics (and been thus been thrown money) 8 times compared to 1 for China, right? So by an objective criterion, the international community supports us 8 times as much as China. Yes, and I also believe that we--our nation, its ideals, its efforts--are at least 8 times more worthy of that support than China, which I think is completely unworthy of any of it. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

How would you keep the sperm viable after the first couple of days when the LN2 gassed off? Ever heard of "gargling"? (...EWWWWwwwww! ) Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

This begins to sound like the first ten pages or so of "Stranger In A Strange Land"; except that was a mission to Mars. Oh, did I mention that it was doomed? Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

It's funny, the only people who would enjoy the benefits of whatever this 10-way (they would all have to be skydivers, right? ) might accomplish would be the ten themselves, and whoever is on the alternate earth that their trip back in time spawns in the time-continuum. I just do not go in for the "Frequency" or "Terminator" type mythos that someone is "existing in the future" waiting to see the benefits of the mission they sent to the past. That is nonsense. If I sent someone back to a year ago to cut off my left arm, would I watch as he disappeared on the time platform, and then a moment later my arm would be missing and I'd be like, "Whoa! Dude! He did it!"? No. It couldn't possibly work that way. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

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? Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

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!" Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

I said that only in response to the comparison that was drawn between hitting a child to show that hitting is wrong, versus executing a murderer to "show" that murdering is wrong. They are not equivalents, because the goals of each are not the same. A large part of my disagreement over this is the fact that we don't seem to get good faith from our elected representatives nor from our justice system regarding WHAT EXACTLY "LIFE IN PRISON" EVEN MEANS. Because we keep seeing many murderers with sentences of "25 to life". What the fuck is that? Either give him life and KEEP HIM IN THERE UNTIL HIS CORPSE IS ROTTING or DON'T CALL IT "LIFE IN PRISON"! Did you follow the story of that sick, depraved murderess in CA who killed Sharon Tate as part of the Manson family? She's terminally ill, so the fuckin' pansies and bleeding hearts in CA tried to get the prison to release her so she could die in comfort with her family instead of prison. The story nearly broke my heart. Here is this pitiful, compassion-worthy dying woman and all she wants to do is be near her family when she dies... *sob sob* Yeah, fuckin' RIGHT! I wouldn't piss down her fuckin' throat if her stomach was on fire. But THAT IS OUR SYSTEM. Society is not protected by "life in prison" because as long as a convicted murderer is alive, there will be a chance that someone will try to get that degenerate piece of shit released from prison. Even if they don't succeed, we still will have to expend resources just to guard against the attempts. Now, fortunately, they did not release this woman. But what if they had set that precedent? It would mean that "life in prison" means "you spend all your life in prison but then when you are near to death, we'll let you out." Sorry, but fuck that. If you want to live a nice long life and die near your loved ones, don't commit crimes, so you can stay the fuck out of prison. I didn't make that point; I merely asked you for evidence supporting your assertion. Read my post. Well, now that you see my query, why couldn't you just address it? Must you wait for an engraved invitation? If we recognize that the death penalty does not deter murderers (your argument) as proved by the fact that people still murder, why should we go with the liberals' "life in prison" idea when that too obviously fails to deter murderers? Why is it such a better idea? Unless you're willing to recognize that maybe if they're equivalent, there's no point in arguing that execution fails to deter. The failure of both approaches to deter murderers cancels that argument out. Actually, I asked how hitting a child to show hitting is wrong is different from killing a murderer to show murder is wrong. And I would congratulate you on your straw man. It's no strawman. I think that it's a logical analogy. You say that it's just as wrong to execute to show that murder is wrong as it is to hit a kid to show that hitting is wrong. First, let me say that I don't agree with the validity of that latter argument in the first place. The intent behind "hitting" (i.e. spanking) the kid is to drive home the lesson, and condition the kid to change his behavior: you are not to engage in unprovoked hitting of others. K don't agree that a spanking to impart that lesson makes the lesson hypocritical. Besides which, I do not agree that one action done in response to the same action is just as wrong as the primary instance of that action. i.e. If someone hits you, it is not wrong to hit back just because you're doing the same thing he did to you which you say is wrong. Were that the case, we'd never be able to shoot back at people shooting at us. Or would you argue that that is so? But I must return to the subject of deterrence: It has never been my belief that the purpose of execution of murderers is to deter others against future murders. As far as I am concerned, the purpose of execution is two-fold: to punish the murderer, and to protect society from someone who has now proven himself to be a danger to it. Deterrence, IF it occurs, is merely a side benefit. Of course I don't believe in the deterrent effect of expected punishment: because I believe that most criminals commit their crimes because they believe they won't likely be caught. It's a tautology. If they thought they'd be caught and didn't want to be caught, they'd hold off on committing the crime. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Every criminal conviction can be appealed. The difference with the death penalty is that in some states there is no option to not appeal. (1) Questions like these make it sound as if you have no idea how the appeal process works. Perhaps you should learn about the system before complaining about how it works. (2) Here in America, we have a wonderful document called the Bill Of Rights, which is actually the first ten amendments to the Constitution. The fifth amendment reads (emphasis mine) The Constitution essentially forbids appeal of acquittals on the basis of double jeopardy. (3) Please donate $1 to your local American Civil Liberties Union, and post a picture of the receipt.

Perhaps. Once things cool down, he may take another run at it. He is currently "best hair in show" winner, or what is called the "Jack Kennedy" effect. Just have a good tan and a great coif, you'll get elected to something. Just because Edwards' hair is carefully coiffed does not make it a good, attractive haircut, you know. The fucker looks like "Jonathan Hart -- a self-made millionaire... He's quite a guy!" Sorry, his haircut is out of date, and he looks ridiculous. The Robert Wagner / George Hamilton metrosexual look is OOOOLLLLLDDD, man. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Um... okay... Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Well, we didn't hear it in that case of the U.S. going to reign in a dictator who was making a mockery of U.N. sanctions imposed after he was stopped from invading Kuwait, that's for sure. Because one of many valid reasons for that invasion was the fact that this dictator was spitting in the eye of the toothless United Nations and someone had to have the balls to shut him down. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

I am personally boycotting the Olympics--particularly because they are being held in China. I won't watch a moment of them on television, so that I won't be knowingly supporting the sponsors of the event. I think that greed and corruption govern the Olympic games; the decisions about which countries host them are made by corrupt people; the games themselves have been perverted to be about crass commercialism. 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. (The internet is replete with depictions of the Chinese government's abuses of human rights--and now there are human rights being abused specifically related to China hosting the Olympics, like homes being bulldozed and familes made homeless to make room for Olympic buildings.) 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. And now I just read here http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/08/09/olympics.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. What are your feelings about it? Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Oh, come on. It sounds like you are saying that when we tax the rich, the poor are given that money as spending cash. That is such a load of ridiculousness. Is that really how you think it works? And do you really think that if we increase the taxes the rich pay, the poor are going to get checks written from that pool of money, with which they can go buy big rims for their Escalades, or hair extensions, or the top-of-the-line Nike sneakers? As "intollerable" as spelling errors? Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

The scary thing is just how many people (voters?) who say that it's nobody's business but the couple involved, and that there is no connection between being this kind of person in one's personal life and being an untrustworthy scumbag in political life, leadership, business, etc. I say to that, BULLSHIT. People don't have one set of character traits for their romantic relationships, and then another for who they are in politics, and another for who they are in business... You'd have to be a fool or a doublethinker to believe that. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Well, I've had only one, and I don't think I did anything wrong to necessitate it, so I wouldn't rule out that I can still be considered "smart" even though I've had a reserve ride. I'm inclined to think that anyone with a substantial number of jumps who has never had a reserve ride is a combination of both. I won't discount the fact that a large jump number plus no reserve rides means that at least the person hasn't screwed something up. It reflects that he's been doing stuff right, at least. But since there's so much random stuff that can cause the need, you can't discount his luck, either. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

^ Has no compunctions about making up words like "thoing"! Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

I liked that show he had where he had those kids. I guess it was "The Bernie Mac Show"? It was funny. Sad that he died of illness so prematurely. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

I'm just waiting for the supermarket tabloids to link Dr. Ivins to the JonBenet muder. Well, lately, it's the supermarket tabloids that are breaking all the big stories, leaving the mainstream press with egg on its face. To wit: that's how we found out the truth about John Edwards being a shitbag cheater. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Not only the government, but the media is just as guilty, if not moreso. Everyone has seen the media on a tear, convicting people of crimes long before any evidence is presented in the courtroom. The media pegged Richard Jewell, an innocent man, for the Olympic bombing and he was later given a fuck of a lot of money to compensate him for that farce. And they have an awful lot more that appears damning to Ivins than they ever had on Jewell. Let's start with easy access to the same strain of anthrax that was used in the attacks as a jumping-off point, shall we? HE IS THE ONE TO BLAME FOR WHY WE WON'T GET THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STORY!! FOR FUCK'S SAKE, we'd GET the other side if he hadn't fucking KILLED HIMSELF! It's NOT OUR FAULT that we won't hear "his side"! If he wanted to clear his name, the fucker should have stayed alive instead of ODing on acetominophen. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

I can't think of the last person I read of being executed (it's not like there are that many happening rapidly) who hadn't been on death row for at least 20 years. Yes, in fact, I often do. My belief is that anyone who takes part in any malfeasant act that results in the death sentence of an innocent person (i.e. one who laters is proved to not have committed the murder for which he was convicted) should himself be sentenced to death. And I would impose that death sentence even if the convict never actually got executed and the fraud and error were discovered before that could happen. Make it really cost a crooked cop or prosecutor or judge. Maybe then we'd get the honesty from the system that you claim to seek. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

How is it different? Do you have any evidence suggesting the death penalty works as a deterrent? You might have "caught" me--if I had ever said that "deterrence" is why I support it. For me, I support the death penalty as the PUNISHMENT for MURDER. You murdered someone? Fine, you don't get the right to live among us anymore. And we drag you off to your execution, to punish you, and to protect mankind from anything you might do in the future. And anyway, that murderer is deterred from any future murders. And as for your point: You argue that capital punishment doesn't work as a deterrent to murderers. OK, fine. I guess that's proved by the fact that people still do choose to murder. Well, in places where life in prison is the punishment for murder, they also have murders. I guess life in prison is no deterrent to murderers, so why should we have it? Several years in prison for armed robbery does not stop armed robberies from being committed. The deterrent has failed to work. I guess we shouldn't imprison armed robbers. Maybe you have to finally admit that "deterrence" is not the principal reason for prison sentences OR executions. Executions are simply not equivalent to murders, any more than a cop shooting and killing a criminal who is on a rampage is equivalent to murders. Would you say that the cop should simply never use deadly force to stop deadly force? Because that's all execution is, to me. If you argue that the two are equivalent, I would say, don't jump out of planes with parachutes unless you want to teach kids that committing suicide by jumping off a building is wrong. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

It's an excellent practice for exactly that reason. Then why not have it for every criminal conviction?? Oh, that's right, because we're supposed to be putting our faith in the justice system, instead of just treating it as though every first conviction must be a flawed one. Why not just do the murder trials, and then whatever the verdict is, DO THE OPPOSITE? If they find the guy guilty, rather than do an automatic appeal, just say he's NOT guilty. Likewise if he's acquitted. And if you want to grant an automatic appeal after a verdict, why don't the PEOPLE (who are represented by the prosecution) get an automatic appeal when a guy who everyone believes did a murder gets acquitted? You know, check whether the acquittal was properly arrived at? I bet a dollar you won't address that last paragraph in good faith. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Well, Edwards tried to maintain that "nobility" by dismissing tabloid press reports (which were RIGHT) that he was screwing around. That's arrogant, and it makes it all a compound lie (like Clinton wagging that finger with Monica's cunt juice on it in our faces as he told us to back off). A whole other issue is why the mainstream press left it solely to the "tabloid trash" to break this story to the American people. THE MAINSTREAM PRESS KNEW, BUT SPIKED THE STORY. Who says the Dems don't get preferential treatment from the liberal press? Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Elizabeth Edwards' Oncologist considered her cancer a non-issue in 2006, when John had his affair. Moreover, even if it were coincidental, they obviously worked it out within their family a long time ago. Meaning what? She long ago gave him the "Go out and fuck who you want, honey" speech? Is that what they "worked out"? How does that reconcile with the fact that he has apologized for the affair? Doesn't sound like had permission, or else, why apologize? How does it reconcile with the fact that he has said he was "egocentric" and "narcissistic"? I mean, those are his own words for himself. There's absolutely no proof of that hypothesis. Says you. I'd prefer to vest my trust in someone I at least don't already know to be an untrustworthy cheater. I tell you what, if you want to, go ahead and surround yourself with nothing but friends, of both sexes, who you know to have cheated on a spouse. But I don't want to do so, and I sure as hell don't want to be led by cheaters. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

o rl'yeh? HAHAHAHAHAA! Thanks for not letting me down! (Speaking of letting down, do you see the little person that Chthulhu is dropping? If he had a rig on, we'd have to change the acronym to "B.A.S.E.C. jumping!) Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire