JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
> "zxcvbob" > wrote in message
> ...
>> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>> "zxcvbob" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Peter wrote:
>>>>> "itsjoannotjoann" > wrote in message
>>>>> ups.com...
>>>>>> On Jul 10, 1:28 pm, "Peter" > wrote:
>>>>>>> Indeed. It's still OK to kill a mentally ill person in the USA today
>>>>>>> too
>>>>>>> apparently. I think, after studying various points of justice in
>>>>>>> history at
>>>>>>> school an during my own time, it is easy to see some progrssive
>>>>>>> reasoning
>>>>>>> with some countries, because they are willing to be open and discuss
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> issue with its citizens. Afterall the government is there because
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> citizens pay them to be there to serve them, to serve the will of the
>>>>>>> people.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't live in the American culture of death penalties and war
>>>>>>> though, so
>>>>>>> it is hard for me to grasp the thought process that allows it to
>>>>>>> continue.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Everybody here claims 'mental illness' when facing the death penalty.
>>>>>> They were abused as children, didn't get that bicycle they wanted at
>>>>>> age 10 and it warped their minds, dad/mom spanked him as a child and
>>>>>> he was so affected by it that he grew up to kill, etc. Take your
>>>>>> choice, it's always someone else's fault that they grew up to be
>>>>>> lowlife scum of the earth and but certainly not their fault to hear
>>>>>> them and their lawyers tell it. There's just some mean, evil, nasty
>>>>>> people in this world who don't deserve to live. They're just sucking
>>>>>> up air that someone else could be breathing. They are not
>>>>>> contributing to society, working on world hunger/peace, nor are they
>>>>>> looking for a cure for cancer/aids/birth defects, take your pick.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course after a few years in the slammer, they all get religion and
>>>>>> of course they are reformed and should be set free. Give me a break.
>>>>> \\
>>>>>
>>>>> I just don't understand how in a civilized world that people would
>>>>> condone the killing of a fellow man. I'm not a church going person
>>>>> either. Once you kill someone, thats it, it is final, and there is
>>>>> never again a chance to bring back that person from death to learn
>>>>> about there crimes, or for them to prove their innocense. Many
>>>>> condenmed persons have been proven innocent thanks to modern forensics,
>>>>> and who is to say that future forensics wouldn't prove future persons
>>>>> innocent.
>>>>>
>>>>> A person in jail for life does you no harm, why murder them?
>>>> Minor correction, when the state kills someone after they are found
>>>> guilty, it is not murder. That is of little comfort to the person being
>>>> executed. But other than that I agree with you. The *ease* with which
>>>> China executed this corrupt official demonstrates their lack of respect
>>>> for value for human life.
>>>>
>>>> That we execute some of our guilty prisoners, even after a long appeals
>>>> process, undermines our credibility to protest human rights violations
>>>> elsewhere.
>>>>
>>>> To whoever it was complaining about the expense to house and feed a
>>>> prisoner for years and years: Because of that long appeals process, it
>>>> is actually cheaper to imprison someone for life than to execute them.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Bob
>>> If a family member was about to be killed right in front of you, and you
>>> could easily "wish" the perpetrator to die instantly, would you do it?
>>
>> I would stop them myself, with my bare hands and feet if I didn't have a
>> gun or knife or pitchfork (etc.) handy; if they died in the process, so be
>> it. And I think I would have a clear conscience about it.
>>
>> I'm not a Buddhist, and I think self-defense is an inalienable right.
>> What's that got to do with the death penalty?
>>
>> Bob
>
> So, it's OK to kill them at the moment the crime is about to happen. But,
> after a jury trial, it's not? I'm confused. Does the value of the perp's
> life change with the passage of time?
>


Yes it does; I'm surprised you would have to ask. (You are purposely
ignoring the value of the lives of the victims)

Bob

"zxcvbob" > wrote in message
...
> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>> "zxcvbob" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>>> "zxcvbob" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> Peter wrote:
>>>>>> "itsjoannotjoann" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ups.com...
>>>>>>> On Jul 10, 1:28 pm, "Peter" > wrote:
>>>>>>>> Indeed. It's still OK to kill a mentally ill person in the USA
>>>>>>>> today too
>>>>>>>> apparently. I think, after studying various points of justice in
>>>>>>>> history at
>>>>>>>> school an during my own time, it is easy to see some progrssive
>>>>>>>> reasoning
>>>>>>>> with some countries, because they are willing to be open and
>>>>>>>> discuss the
>>>>>>>> issue with its citizens. Afterall the government is there because
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> citizens pay them to be there to serve them, to serve the will of
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> people.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't live in the American culture of death penalties and war
>>>>>>>> though, so
>>>>>>>> it is hard for me to grasp the thought process that allows it to
>>>>>>>> continue.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Everybody here claims 'mental illness' when facing the death
>>>>>>> penalty.
>>>>>>> They were abused as children, didn't get that bicycle they wanted at
>>>>>>> age 10 and it warped their minds, dad/mom spanked him as a child and
>>>>>>> he was so affected by it that he grew up to kill, etc. Take your
>>>>>>> choice, it's always someone else's fault that they grew up to be
>>>>>>> lowlife scum of the earth and but certainly not their fault to hear
>>>>>>> them and their lawyers tell it. There's just some mean, evil, nasty
>>>>>>> people in this world who don't deserve to live. They're just
>>>>>>> sucking
>>>>>>> up air that someone else could be breathing. They are not
>>>>>>> contributing to society, working on world hunger/peace, nor are they
>>>>>>> looking for a cure for cancer/aids/birth defects, take your pick.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course after a few years in the slammer, they all get religion
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> of course they are reformed and should be set free. Give me a
>>>>>>> break.
>>>>>> \\
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I just don't understand how in a civilized world that people would
>>>>>> condone the killing of a fellow man. I'm not a church going person
>>>>>> either. Once you kill someone, thats it, it is final, and there is
>>>>>> never again a chance to bring back that person from death to learn
>>>>>> about there crimes, or for them to prove their innocense. Many
>>>>>> condenmed persons have been proven innocent thanks to modern
>>>>>> forensics, and who is to say that future forensics wouldn't prove
>>>>>> future persons innocent.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A person in jail for life does you no harm, why murder them?
>>>>> Minor correction, when the state kills someone after they are found
>>>>> guilty, it is not murder. That is of little comfort to the person
>>>>> being executed. But other than that I agree with you. The *ease*
>>>>> with which China executed this corrupt official demonstrates their
>>>>> lack of respect for value for human life.
>>>>>
>>>>> That we execute some of our guilty prisoners, even after a long
>>>>> appeals process, undermines our credibility to protest human rights
>>>>> violations elsewhere.
>>>>>
>>>>> To whoever it was complaining about the expense to house and feed a
>>>>> prisoner for years and years: Because of that long appeals process,
>>>>> it is actually cheaper to imprison someone for life than to execute
>>>>> them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>> Bob
>>>> If a family member was about to be killed right in front of you, and
>>>> you could easily "wish" the perpetrator to die instantly, would you do
>>>> it?
>>>
>>> I would stop them myself, with my bare hands and feet if I didn't have a
>>> gun or knife or pitchfork (etc.) handy; if they died in the process, so
>>> be it. And I think I would have a clear conscience about it.
>>>
>>> I'm not a Buddhist, and I think self-defense is an inalienable right.
>>> What's that got to do with the death penalty?
>>>
>>> Bob
>>
>> So, it's OK to kill them at the moment the crime is about to happen. But,
>> after a jury trial, it's not? I'm confused. Does the value of the perp's
>> life change with the passage of time?
>
>
> Yes it does; I'm surprised you would have to ask. (You are purposely
> ignoring the value of the lives of the victims)
>
> Bob

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying. Like most normal people,
you'd be OK with killing someone at the moment when they're about to do
something violent to a family member. But, after they've killed a family
member, and been through a trial, you're NOT OK with killing them?

It's a matter of timing? Is that what you're saying?

George Shirley wrote:
> zxcvbob wrote:
>
>> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>>
>>> George Shirley wrote:
>>>
>>>> zxcvbob wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Louisiana, Chicago, and Washington DC. would collapse into anarchy.
>>>>> (That's not necessarily a bad thing) ;;-)
>>>>
>>>> "Would"? You obviously haven't tried to deal with a bureaucrat
>>>> recently.
>>>
>>>
>>> If there are bureaucrats, can it be anarchy?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Maybe a kleptrocracy?
>>
>> Bob
> I'm really impressed Bob. Not to many old East Texas boys know what a
> kleptocracy is. Luckily this old East Texas boy was once upon a time an
> English major. "Rule of the inept" is in place in many areas of the
> world. B-})
>
> George
>


I thought it meant "Rule by thieves".

Bob

"JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote in message
...
> "Phil Evans" > wrote in message
> ...
>>I believe its called premeditated murder if you plan it, so yes,
>> under the present law there is a huge difference.
>>
>> Even so, I am not passing judgement on this one.
>>
>
> If you stop a killing, it *usually* will not be considered murder of any
> kind, unless you're in one of the weird states.


You are willing to let a loved one to be murdered in the name of your
government because they prevented a murder of someone else and were charged
by murder themselves?

"Peter" > wrote in message
news:jQSki.27843$tB5.10552@edtnps90...
>
> "JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Phil Evans" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>I believe its called premeditated murder if you plan it, so yes,
>>> under the present law there is a huge difference.
>>>
>>> Even so, I am not passing judgement on this one.
>>>
>>
>> If you stop a killing, it *usually* will not be considered murder of any
>> kind, unless you're in one of the weird states.
>
>
> You are willing to let a loved one to be murdered in the name of your
> government because they prevented a murder of someone else and were
> charged by murder themselves?
>

WHAT?? :-)

Let's start over, so you understand where I'm coming from here. If someone
enters my home at 3:00 AM and my son is here, I will assume (correctly) that
they intend to harm us, and I will kill them instantly. There will be no
discussion, no warning, nothing. Just a simple process. When the cops are
done with their questions and paperwork, I will have an early breakfast and
continue as if nothing happened. Good ammo costs about 75 cents per round.
I'm a generous guy, and it would be rude not to share.

Now we can continue. What was your question?

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
> "zxcvbob" > wrote in message
> ...
>> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>> "zxcvbob" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>>>> "zxcvbob" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> Peter wrote:
>>>>>>> "itsjoannotjoann" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ups.com...
>>>>>>>> On Jul 10, 1:28 pm, "Peter" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Indeed. It's still OK to kill a mentally ill person in the USA
>>>>>>>>> today too
>>>>>>>>> apparently. I think, after studying various points of justice in
>>>>>>>>> history at
>>>>>>>>> school an during my own time, it is easy to see some progrssive
>>>>>>>>> reasoning
>>>>>>>>> with some countries, because they are willing to be open and
>>>>>>>>> discuss the
>>>>>>>>> issue with its citizens. Afterall the government is there because
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> citizens pay them to be there to serve them, to serve the will of
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> people.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't live in the American culture of death penalties and war
>>>>>>>>> though, so
>>>>>>>>> it is hard for me to grasp the thought process that allows it to
>>>>>>>>> continue.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Everybody here claims 'mental illness' when facing the death
>>>>>>>> penalty.
>>>>>>>> They were abused as children, didn't get that bicycle they wanted at
>>>>>>>> age 10 and it warped their minds, dad/mom spanked him as a child and
>>>>>>>> he was so affected by it that he grew up to kill, etc. Take your
>>>>>>>> choice, it's always someone else's fault that they grew up to be
>>>>>>>> lowlife scum of the earth and but certainly not their fault to hear
>>>>>>>> them and their lawyers tell it. There's just some mean, evil, nasty
>>>>>>>> people in this world who don't deserve to live. They're just
>>>>>>>> sucking
>>>>>>>> up air that someone else could be breathing. They are not
>>>>>>>> contributing to society, working on world hunger/peace, nor are they
>>>>>>>> looking for a cure for cancer/aids/birth defects, take your pick.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Of course after a few years in the slammer, they all get religion
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> of course they are reformed and should be set free. Give me a
>>>>>>>> break.
>>>>>>> \\
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I just don't understand how in a civilized world that people would
>>>>>>> condone the killing of a fellow man. I'm not a church going person
>>>>>>> either. Once you kill someone, thats it, it is final, and there is
>>>>>>> never again a chance to bring back that person from death to learn
>>>>>>> about there crimes, or for them to prove their innocense. Many
>>>>>>> condenmed persons have been proven innocent thanks to modern
>>>>>>> forensics, and who is to say that future forensics wouldn't prove
>>>>>>> future persons innocent.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A person in jail for life does you no harm, why murder them?
>>>>>> Minor correction, when the state kills someone after they are found
>>>>>> guilty, it is not murder. That is of little comfort to the person
>>>>>> being executed. But other than that I agree with you. The *ease*
>>>>>> with which China executed this corrupt official demonstrates their
>>>>>> lack of respect for value for human life.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That we execute some of our guilty prisoners, even after a long
>>>>>> appeals process, undermines our credibility to protest human rights
>>>>>> violations elsewhere.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To whoever it was complaining about the expense to house and feed a
>>>>>> prisoner for years and years: Because of that long appeals process,
>>>>>> it is actually cheaper to imprison someone for life than to execute
>>>>>> them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>> Bob
>>>>> If a family member was about to be killed right in front of you, and
>>>>> you could easily "wish" the perpetrator to die instantly, would you do
>>>>> it?
>>>> I would stop them myself, with my bare hands and feet if I didn't have a
>>>> gun or knife or pitchfork (etc.) handy; if they died in the process, so
>>>> be it. And I think I would have a clear conscience about it.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not a Buddhist, and I think self-defense is an inalienable right.
>>>> What's that got to do with the death penalty?
>>>>
>>>> Bob
>>> So, it's OK to kill them at the moment the crime is about to happen. But,
>>> after a jury trial, it's not? I'm confused. Does the value of the perp's
>>> life change with the passage of time?
>>
>> Yes it does; I'm surprised you would have to ask. (You are purposely
>> ignoring the value of the lives of the victims)
>>
>> Bob
>
> Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying. Like most normal people,
> you'd be OK with killing someone at the moment when they're about to do
> something violent to a family member. But, after they've killed a family
> member, and been through a trial, you're NOT OK with killing them?
>
> It's a matter of timing? Is that what you're saying?
>


Killing the the murderer after-the-fact does not bring back the victims.
Killing him during-the-act does, so to speak. Stopping him without
killing him is even better, but the primary goal is just to stop him
(keep shooting until he is no longer a threat, then you stop shooting)

IIRC, you claim to have a CCW license. You should have had this drilled
into you during your training.

I used to be for the death penalty. If someone did murder a friend or
family member now, I think I would still be against executing them --
but if the state executed them anyway, I don't think I'd be very upset
about it. Or maybe I discover that I'm a hypocrite and I'll want to
pull the switch myself. I'd just as soon not find out either way.

Bob

"zxcvbob" > wrote in message
...

>>>> So, it's OK to kill them at the moment the crime is about to happen.
>>>> But, after a jury trial, it's not? I'm confused. Does the value of the
>>>> perp's life change with the passage of time?
>>>
>>> Yes it does; I'm surprised you would have to ask. (You are purposely
>>> ignoring the value of the lives of the victims)
>>>
>>> Bob
>>
>> Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying. Like most normal people,
>> you'd be OK with killing someone at the moment when they're about to do
>> something violent to a family member. But, after they've killed a family
>> member, and been through a trial, you're NOT OK with killing them?
>>
>> It's a matter of timing? Is that what you're saying?
>
>
> Killing the the murderer after-the-fact does not bring back the victims.
> Killing him during-the-act does, so to speak. Stopping him without
> killing him is even better, but the primary goal is just to stop him (keep
> shooting until he is no longer a threat, then you stop shooting)
>
> IIRC, you claim to have a CCW license. You should have had this drilled
> into you during your training.
>
> I used to be for the death penalty. If someone did murder a friend or
> family member now, I think I would still be against executing them --
> but if the state executed them anyway, I don't think I'd be very upset
> about it. Or maybe I discover that I'm a hypocrite and I'll want to pull
> the switch myself. I'd just as soon not find out either way.
>
> Bob


I guess I look to bears for guidance. Once they've got you down, you're not
a threat. But, they'll still remove your face or your guts, just to be sure.

George Shirley wrote:


> Just imagine what we could do in the US if we took that tack with
> crooked politicians and bureaucrats. Probably empty out the state,
> local, and federal bureaucracy almost instantly.

Oh geez. This guy got it because he became an embarrassment to the
Chinese government and because it made it look to the world like
they're doing something about the situation.

China is still rife with graft and corruption. This guy just made the
mistake of getting in the news.




Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
> "zxcvbob" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>>>> So, it's OK to kill them at the moment the crime is about to happen.
>>>>> But, after a jury trial, it's not? I'm confused. Does the value of the
>>>>> perp's life change with the passage of time?
>>>> Yes it does; I'm surprised you would have to ask. (You are purposely
>>>> ignoring the value of the lives of the victims)
>>>>
>>>> Bob
>>> Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying. Like most normal people,
>>> you'd be OK with killing someone at the moment when they're about to do
>>> something violent to a family member. But, after they've killed a family
>>> member, and been through a trial, you're NOT OK with killing them?
>>>
>>> It's a matter of timing? Is that what you're saying?
>>
>> Killing the the murderer after-the-fact does not bring back the victims.
>> Killing him during-the-act does, so to speak. Stopping him without
>> killing him is even better, but the primary goal is just to stop him (keep
>> shooting until he is no longer a threat, then you stop shooting)
>>
>> IIRC, you claim to have a CCW license. You should have had this drilled
>> into you during your training.
>>
>> I used to be for the death penalty. If someone did murder a friend or
>> family member now, I think I would still be against executing them --
>> but if the state executed them anyway, I don't think I'd be very upset
>> about it. Or maybe I discover that I'm a hypocrite and I'll want to pull
>> the switch myself. I'd just as soon not find out either way.
>>
>> Bob
>
>
> I guess I look to bears for guidance. Once they've got you down, you're not
> a threat. But, they'll still remove your face or your guts, just to be sure.


If you're first shot is good enough, the rest is just academic.

Bob

"zxcvbob" > wrote in message
...
> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>> "zxcvbob" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>>>> So, it's OK to kill them at the moment the crime is about to happen.
>>>>>> But, after a jury trial, it's not? I'm confused. Does the value of
>>>>>> the perp's life change with the passage of time?
>>>>> Yes it does; I'm surprised you would have to ask. (You are purposely
>>>>> ignoring the value of the lives of the victims)
>>>>>
>>>>> Bob
>>>> Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying. Like most normal people,
>>>> you'd be OK with killing someone at the moment when they're about to do
>>>> something violent to a family member. But, after they've killed a
>>>> family member, and been through a trial, you're NOT OK with killing
>>>> them?
>>>>
>>>> It's a matter of timing? Is that what you're saying?
>>>
>>> Killing the the murderer after-the-fact does not bring back the victims.
>>> Killing him during-the-act does, so to speak. Stopping him without
>>> killing him is even better, but the primary goal is just to stop him
>>> (keep shooting until he is no longer a threat, then you stop shooting)
>>>
>>> IIRC, you claim to have a CCW license. You should have had this drilled
>>> into you during your training.
>>>
>>> I used to be for the death penalty. If someone did murder a friend or
>>> family member now, I think I would still be against executing them --
>>> but if the state executed them anyway, I don't think I'd be very upset
>>> about it. Or maybe I discover that I'm a hypocrite and I'll want to
>>> pull the switch myself. I'd just as soon not find out either way.
>>>
>>> Bob
>>
>>
>> I guess I look to bears for guidance. Once they've got you down, you're
>> not a threat. But, they'll still remove your face or your guts, just to
>> be sure.
>
>
> If you're first shot is good enough, the rest is just academic.
>
> Bob

I know I shouldn't, but I've been practicing this slick shot through the
throat. Severs the spine and the bad guy gets really peaceful. Less of a
mess than the chest, too, at least for a few minutes.

George Shirley wrote:
> zxcvbob wrote:
>
>> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>>
>>> George Shirley wrote:
>>>
>>>> zxcvbob wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Louisiana, Chicago, and Washington DC. would collapse into
>>>>> anarchy. (That's not necessarily a bad thing) ;;-)
>>>>
>>>> "Would"? You obviously haven't tried to deal with a bureaucrat
>>>> recently.
>>>
>>>
>>> If there are bureaucrats, can it be anarchy?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Maybe a kleptrocracy?
>
> I'm really impressed Bob. Not to many old East Texas boys know what a
> kleptocracy is. Luckily this old East Texas boy was once upon a time
> an English major. "Rule of the inept" is in place in many areas of the
> world. B-})

That doesn't speak well for Texas -- heck, I'm a *shark*, and I know
what kleptocracy means.

And it's not about ineptness, it's about thieves (the "klept" in
"kleptomania" as well). klepto (thief) + cracy (rule)


--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

zxcvbob wrote:
> George Shirley wrote:
>> zxcvbob wrote:
>>
>>> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>>>
>>>> George Shirley wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> zxcvbob wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Louisiana, Chicago, and Washington DC. would collapse into anarchy.
>>>>>> (That's not necessarily a bad thing) ;;-)
>>>>>
>>>>> "Would"? You obviously haven't tried to deal with a bureaucrat
>>>>> recently.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If there are bureaucrats, can it be anarchy?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe a kleptrocracy?
>>>
>>> Bob
>> I'm really impressed Bob. Not to many old East Texas boys know what a
>> kleptocracy is. Luckily this old East Texas boy was once upon a time an
>> English major. "Rule of the inept" is in place in many areas of the
>> world. B-})
>>
>> George
>>
>
>
> I thought it meant "Rule by thieves".

It does. Remember, George admitted he ws from East Texas too.


--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

George Shirley wrote:
> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>> George Shirley wrote:
>>
>>>zxcvbob wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Louisiana, Chicago, and Washington DC. would collapse into anarchy.
>>>>(That's not necessarily a bad thing) ;;-)
>>>
>>>"Would"? You obviously haven't tried to deal with a bureaucrat
>>>recently.
>>
>>
>> If there are bureaucrats, can it be anarchy?
>>
>>
> Only on the Left Coast would there be anarchic bureaucrats. B-{)

I live on the West Coast (California), and even here I think bureaucrats
need a framework of government in which to operate.


--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:37:34 -0500, Omelet >
wrote:

>In article >,
> "Nancy Young" > wrote:
>
>> Yikes. Guess that'll teach him.
>>
>> http://www.marke****ch.com/news/stor...f-food/story.a
>> spx?guid=%7B970CDBD2-2C6C-4F26-BEE9-39C620BBAED0%7D&dist=hplatest
>>
>> or
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/2amfgp
>>
>> nancy
>
>I heard about that on the radio this morning.
>
>Too bad we don't have that kind of "justice" here!
>
>Who knows how many people (and pets) that greedy bastid killed?
>He was no better than any other mass murderer.
>
>Sorry to be so harsh, but he really did deserve it! I take public
>service jobs pretty seriously.


"The buck stops here" takes on a whole new meaning!
--

History is a vast early warning system
Norman Cousins

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 16:55:10 GMT, "Peter" > wrote:
>
>I'm not sure how killing a person solves a problem or makes a good
>deterrent. It obviously does not work in China or the USA.
>
>As far as USA crime and death penalty is concerned, just look at other
>western or civil countries, like Canada and various European countries,
>compare crime statistics. I find it so ironic that the USA questions Chinas
>human rights values.
>
Oh...... the death penalty works.

We just haven't executed enough of the death-row inmates.


<rj>

Peter wrote:


> I'm not sure how killing a person solves a problem or makes a good
> deterrent. It obviously does not work in China or the USA.
>
> As far as USA crime and death penalty is concerned, just look at other
> western or civil countries, like Canada and various European
> countries, compare crime statistics. I find it so ironic that the
> USA questions Chinas human rights values.

You mean like Canada having twice the rate of violent crime per 100,000
people than America?

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

Nancy Young wrote:
> "JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote
>
>> "Nancy Young" > wrote
>
>>> Yikes. Guess that'll teach him.
>>>
>>> http://www.marke****ch.com/news/stor...&dist=hplatest
>>
>> I wonder how they execute guys like him. Maybe make him eat pet food and
>> then brush his teeth with "funny" toothpaste?
>
> I shouldn't have laughed, but I did. Partly because I was wondering
> how they killed him.
>
> nancy
>
>
The Chicoms favor using a bullet.

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 15:16:41 -0500, zxcvbob >
rummaged among random neurons and opined:

>Blinky the Shark wrote:
>> George Shirley wrote:
>>> zxcvbob wrote:
>>
>>>> Louisiana, Chicago, and Washington DC. would collapse into anarchy.
>>>> (That's not necessarily a bad thing) ;;-)
>>> "Would"? You obviously haven't tried to deal with a bureaucrat recently.
>>
>> If there are bureaucrats, can it be anarchy?
>>
>
>
>Maybe a kleptrocracy?

<sweeping hat off head in deep bow to zxcvbob> Wonderful word! I love,
love, love it! I had never heard this word before and I am happily
stuffing it into one of the few working synapses left in my brain, for
retention. When I was in college, my sorority sisters used to call me
Dictionary Terry <sniff!> If they could only see how the mighty have
fallen. I have a book on etymology at work and am gonna look it up
tomorrow. Oh, joy! I love learning new words.

Kleptocracy <smile> I always wanted to know a perfect one-word
definition for the current US administration.

Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd

--
"If the soup had been as hot as the claret, if the claret had been as
old as the bird, and if the bird's breasts had been as full as the
waitress's, it would have been a very good dinner."

-- Duncan Hines

To reply, replace "spaminator" with "cox"

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 16:19:42 -0500, zxcvbob >
rummaged among random neurons and opined:

>I thought it meant "Rule by thieves".

It does in its literal sense (see? I've been busy ingraining this
lovely word into my vocabulary) "klepto" - "to steal." But Merriam
Webster defines it as:

Main Entry: klep·toc·ra·cy
Pronunciation: klep-'tä-kr&-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -cies

government by those who seek chiefly status and personal gain at the
expense of the governed; also : a particular government of this kind

- klep·to·crat /'klep-t&-"krat/ noun
- klep·to·crat·ic /"klep-t&-'kra-tik/ adjective

Who does that sound like?

Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd...just sayin'

--
"If the soup had been as hot as the claret, if the claret had been as
old as the bird, and if the bird's breasts had been as full as the
waitress's, it would have been a very good dinner."

-- Duncan Hines

To reply, replace "spaminator" with "cox"

In article >,
zxcvbob > wrote:

> Minor correction, when the state kills someone after they are found
> guilty, it is not murder. That is of little comfort to the person being
> executed. But other than that I agree with you. The *ease* with which
> China executed this corrupt official demonstrates their lack of respect
> for value for human life.

China never has.

They will forcibly abort a _full term_ baby.
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

Nancy Young > wrote:
>Yikes. Guess that'll teach him.

We should do that to public officials who **** up and
get over 3700 innocent Americans killed in unnecessary wars.

--Blair

Nancy Young > wrote:
>Yikes. Guess that'll teach him.

BTW, they didn't execute him.

They sentenced him to die, but the execution isn't
scheduled to be carried out for two years, and by then it
will probably be reduced to life imprisonment.

Still. We should be doing that to a whole bunch of the
*******s currently in the White House.

--Blair

On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 05:32:00 GMT, Blair P. Houghton > wrote:

>Nancy Young > wrote:
>>Yikes. Guess that'll teach him.
>
>We should do that to public officials who **** up and
>get over 3700 innocent Americans killed in unnecessary wars.
>
(Plus too many thousands of innocent natives)


--

History is a vast early warning system
Norman Cousins

On Jul 10, 10:37 am, George Shirley > wrote:
> Nancy Young wrote:
> > "JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote
>
> >>"Nancy Young" > wrote
>
> >>>Yikes. Guess that'll teach him.
>
> >>>http://www.marke****ch.com/news/stor...rmer-chief-foo....
>
> >>I wonder how they execute guys like him. Maybe make him eat pet food and
> >>then brush his teeth with "funny" toothpaste?
>
> > I shouldn't have laughed, but I did. Partly because I was wondering
> > how they killed him.
>
> > nancy
>
> Usually with a pistol bullet to the back of the head, ala Mafia killers
> in the movies.
>
> Just imagine what we could do in the US if we took that tack with
> crooked politicians and bureaucrats. Probably empty out the state,
> local, and federal bureaucracy almost instantly.

What about corporate executives? I'd like to see tobacco execs
executed.

Today, in America, working class criminals are treated far
more harshly than white-collar criminals. After non-
confiscatory fines and short or suspended prison sentences,
corporate criminals are allowed to resume their opulent
lifestyle. Fairness would dictate a confiscation of all assets
for serious property crimes. Also, why would the CEO of a
corporation who knowingly endangers the lives of citizens,
and ultimately causes their deaths, not be held to the same
standard of guilt as an armed robber who murders in the
commission of his or her crime of greed?

Current law reflects a current mindset that suggests that
the very lives of these two classes of people are of a different
value.
-- Bobo Bonobo® in alt.punk, Sep. 16, 1999

So, how about holding corporate leaders, bureaucrats and working class
perpetrators to the same standards?
>
> George

--Bryan

On Jul 10, 7:39 pm, Terry Pulliam Burd >
wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 15:16:41 -0500, zxcvbob >
> rummaged among random neurons and opined:
>
> >Blinky the Shark wrote:
> >> George Shirley wrote:
> >>> zxcvbob wrote:
>
> >>>> Louisiana, Chicago, and Washington DC. would collapse into anarchy.
> >>>> (That's not necessarily a bad thing) ;;-)
> >>> "Would"? You obviously haven't tried to deal with a bureaucrat recently.
>
> >> If there are bureaucrats, can it be anarchy?
>
> >Maybe a kleptrocracy?
>
> <sweeping hat off head in deep bow to zxcvbob> Wonderful word! I love,
> love, love it! I had never heard this word before and I am happily
> stuffing it into one of the few working synapses left in my brain, for
> retention. When I was in college, my sorority sisters used to call me
> Dictionary Terry <sniff!> If they could only see how the mighty have
> fallen. I have a book on etymology at work and am gonna look it up
> tomorrow. Oh, joy! I love learning new words.
>
> Kleptocracy <smile> I always wanted to know a perfect one-word
> definition for the current US administration.

The Iraq war has accomplished one of the Bush Administration's goals.
That being moving BILLIONS of American taxpayer dollars into the
coffers of Halliburton and the Right-wing mercenary companies.
>
> Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd
>

--Bryan

On Jul 10, 11:36 am, "Nancy Young" > wrote:
> Yikes. Guess that'll teach him.
>
> http://www.marke****ch.com/news/stor...rmer-chief-foo...
>
> or
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2amfgp
>
> nancy

Yes, but I wonder how many other people it will teach. Not one,
according to death penalty opponents; i.e., death penalty is not a
deterrent to anyone else.

Dee Dee

"Dee Dee" > wrote

> On Jul 10, 11:36 am, "Nancy Young" > wrote:
>> Yikes. Guess that'll teach him.

> Yes, but I wonder how many other people it will teach. Not one,
> according to death penalty opponents; i.e., death penalty is not a
> deterrent to anyone else.

How does anyone know that? Maybe there are murders that
didn't happen because someone was afraid of the death penalty.

I'm just saying. I'm not an opponent or proponent. Just
commenting on the idea anyone can make an unprovable statement
like that.

nancy

On Jul 11, 7:53 am, Dee Dee > wrote:
> On Jul 10, 11:36 am, "Nancy Young" > wrote:
>
> > Yikes. Guess that'll teach him.
>
> >http://www.marke****ch.com/news/stor...rmer-chief-foo...
>
> > or
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/2amfgp
>
> > nancy
>
> Yes, but I wonder how many other people it will teach. Not one,
> according to death penalty opponents; i.e., death penalty is not a
> deterrent to anyone else.

It doesn't deter crimes of passion, crimes of desperation, and I doubt
it does much to deter organized crime killings, but you can bet your
ass it'd deter white collar murder (see my "One Chinese import..."
post)
>
> Dee Dee

--Bryan

"Nancy Young" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Dee Dee" > wrote
>
>> On Jul 10, 11:36 am, "Nancy Young" > wrote:
>>> Yikes. Guess that'll teach him.
>
>> Yes, but I wonder how many other people it will teach. Not one,
>> according to death penalty opponents; i.e., death penalty is not a
>> deterrent to anyone else.
>
> How does anyone know that? Maybe there are murders that
> didn't happen because someone was afraid of the death penalty.
>
> I'm just saying. I'm not an opponent or proponent. Just
> commenting on the idea anyone can make an unprovable statement
> like that.
>
> nancy
>

Somewhat related: An author whose name I forget did interviews with
prisoners to get their views on homeowners being armed. Turns out they were
quite fearful of mistakenly burglarizing a house whose occupants were home
at the time. Perhaps someone has also interviewed criminals to find out
whether the death penalty mattered to them.

I still don't believe it, though. Seems statistically "loose".

In article >,
"JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote:

> "Peter" > wrote in message
> news:jQSki.27843$tB5.10552@edtnps90...
> >
> > "JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> "Phil Evans" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>>I believe its called premeditated murder if you plan it, so yes,
> >>> under the present law there is a huge difference.
> >>>
> >>> Even so, I am not passing judgement on this one.
> >>>
> >>
> >> If you stop a killing, it *usually* will not be considered murder of any
> >> kind, unless you're in one of the weird states.
> >
> >
> > You are willing to let a loved one to be murdered in the name of your
> > government because they prevented a murder of someone else and were
> > charged by murder themselves?
> >
>
> WHAT?? :-)
>
> Let's start over, so you understand where I'm coming from here. If someone
> enters my home at 3:00 AM and my son is here, I will assume (correctly) that
> they intend to harm us, and I will kill them instantly. There will be no
> discussion, no warning, nothing. Just a simple process. When the cops are
> done with their questions and paperwork, I will have an early breakfast and
> continue as if nothing happened. Good ammo costs about 75 cents per round.
> I'm a generous guy, and it would be rude not to share.
>
> Now we can continue. What was your question?

Interestingly enough, that is what is recommended. Intruders into your
home to be shot on sight if you are SURE that it's a stranger that does
not belong there.

No warning.

You do, of course, realize that unless you are one helluva good shot,
there is no guarantee of a one shot kill.

I have a shotgun loaded with buckshot, but still...

I think the thing that bothers me is that many seem to worry more about
the rights of the criminal versus the rights of their victims. It's ok
for them to kill their victims, but we have to let them live?

<sigh>
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

"JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote

> "Nancy Young" > wrote

>> How does anyone know that? Maybe there are murders that
>> didn't happen because someone was afraid of the death penalty.
>>
>> I'm just saying. I'm not an opponent or proponent. Just
>> commenting on the idea anyone can make an unprovable statement
>> like that.

> Somewhat related: An author whose name I forget did interviews with
> prisoners to get their views on homeowners being armed. Turns out they
> were quite fearful of mistakenly burglarizing a house whose occupants were
> home at the time.

Burglars just want your stuff, they don't want to engage in hand to hand
combat with you. Or any other kind.

> Perhaps someone has also interviewed criminals to find out whether the
> death penalty mattered to them.

Yeah, but they'd have to find the people who decided against killing
someone and ask them, otherwise they only have half the picture.
In other words, I guess, what else would death penalty opponents
be expected to say, just say what supports their position.

> I still don't believe it, though. Seems statistically "loose".

Killing someone does seem harsh to me. Whether it be the system
or the murderers. I wonder how many people would change their
mind if it was them being stabbed or whatever.

nancy

On Jul 11, 8:08 am, Omelet > wrote:
> In article >,
>
>
>
> "JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote:
> > "Peter" > wrote in message
> >news:jQSki.27843$tB5.10552@edtnps90...
>
> > > "JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >> "Phil Evans" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > >>>I believe its called premeditated murder if you plan it, so yes,
> > >>> under the present law there is a huge difference.
>
> > >>> Even so, I am not passing judgement on this one.
>
> > >> If you stop a killing, it *usually* will not be considered murder of any
> > >> kind, unless you're in one of the weird states.
>
> > > You are willing to let a loved one to be murdered in the name of your
> > > government because they prevented a murder of someone else and were
> > > charged by murder themselves?
>
> > WHAT?? :-)
>
> > Let's start over, so you understand where I'm coming from here. If someone
> > enters my home at 3:00 AM and my son is here, I will assume (correctly) that
> > they intend to harm us, and I will kill them instantly. There will be no
> > discussion, no warning, nothing. Just a simple process. When the cops are
> > done with their questions and paperwork, I will have an early breakfast and
> > continue as if nothing happened. Good ammo costs about 75 cents per round.
> > I'm a generous guy, and it would be rude not to share.
>
> > Now we can continue. What was your question?
>
> Interestingly enough, that is what is recommended. Intruders into your
> home to be shot on sight if you are SURE that it's a stranger that does
> not belong there.
>
> No warning.
>
> You do, of course, realize that unless you are one helluva good shot,
> there is no guarantee of a one shot kill.
>
> I have a shotgun loaded with buckshot, but still...
>
> I think the thing that bothers me is that many seem to worry more about
> the rights of the criminal versus the rights of their victims. It's ok
> for them to kill their victims, but we have to let them live?
>
> <sigh>

Some folks also object to killing people who are mistaken for
criminals, or the fact that keeping a loaded gun increases the chances
of killing a family member or other non-criminal. Gun control is the
single issue where I part company with fellow Progressives, not
because I believe in "gun rights." I don't, but I like the idea of
killing intruders. The thought makes me happy.
I am anti-death penalty, except for treason (because it is USEFUL in
that case), but I think if it is used on poor folks, it should be used
on white collar murderers as well.

> --
> Peace, Om

--Bryan

On Jul 11, 8:15 am, "Nancy Young" > wrote:
> "JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote
>
> > "Nancy Young" > wrote
> >> How does anyone know that? Maybe there are murders that
> >> didn't happen because someone was afraid of the death penalty.
>
> >> I'm just saying. I'm not an opponent or proponent. Just
> >> commenting on the idea anyone can make an unprovable statement
> >> like that.
> > Somewhat related: An author whose name I forget did interviews with
> > prisoners to get their views on homeowners being armed. Turns out they
> > were quite fearful of mistakenly burglarizing a house whose occupants were
> > home at the time.
>
> Burglars just want your stuff, they don't want to engage in hand to hand
> combat with you. Or any other kind.
>
> > Perhaps someone has also interviewed criminals to find out whether the
> > death penalty mattered to them.
>
> Yeah, but they'd have to find the people who decided against killing
> someone and ask them, otherwise they only have half the picture.
> In other words, I guess, what else would death penalty opponents
> be expected to say, just say what supports their position.
>
> > I still don't believe it, though. Seems statistically "loose".
>
> Killing someone does seem harsh to me. Whether it be the system
> or the murderers. I wonder how many people would change their
> mind if it was them being stabbed or whatever.

I'm all for killing an intruder on the spot, but I do object to the
state PREMEDITATEDLY killing someone whom they have already safely
locked up.
>
> nancy

--Bryan

"Bobo Bonobo®" > wrote in message
oups.com...

> Some folks also object to killing people who are mistaken for
> criminals....

I've heard that from a few people. But, they often include the fact that
they don't lock their doors at night, so the intruder could be a drunk
neighbor. Talk about a stupid way to live...

My doors are locked & deadbolted at night. The basement door has a deadbolt,
since the cops say many burglars enter via cellar windows. The deadbolt
forces an intruder to make noise, which is what I want. If someone gets past
these barriers, they are definitely not lost neighbors.

"Nancy Young" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote
>
>> "Nancy Young" > wrote
>
>>> How does anyone know that? Maybe there are murders that
>>> didn't happen because someone was afraid of the death penalty.
>>>
>>> I'm just saying. I'm not an opponent or proponent. Just
>>> commenting on the idea anyone can make an unprovable statement
>>> like that.
>
>> Somewhat related: An author whose name I forget did interviews with
>> prisoners to get their views on homeowners being armed. Turns out they
>> were quite fearful of mistakenly burglarizing a house whose occupants
>> were home at the time.
>
> Burglars just want your stuff, they don't want to engage in hand to hand
> combat with you. Or any other kind.


Most of them. But, you *do* get the kind who are armed and have no problems
with doing something violent. How do you know which is which when you awaken
in the wee hours of the morning and you've got about 11 seconds to solve the
problem?

Nancy Young wrote:
> Yikes. Guess that'll teach him.
>
> http://www.marke****ch.com/news/stor...&dist=hplatest
>
>
>
> or
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2amfgp
>
> nancy
>
>
I wonder if they're also going to go after the heads of the
pharmaceutical companies that offered and paid the bribes in the first
place in order to get their products approved quickly?

On Jul 10, 10:36 am, "Nancy Young" > wrote:
> Yikes. Guess that'll teach him.
>
> http://www.marke****ch.com/news/stor...rmer-chief-foo...
>
> or
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2amfgp
>
> nancy

His crime was taking those huge kickbacks. It wasn't just that he was
incompetent. China deals very harshly with corporate crooks.

N.

In article >,
zxcvbob > wrote:

> Killing the the murderer after-the-fact does not bring back the victims.
> Killing him during-the-act does, so to speak. Stopping him without
> killing him is even better, but the primary goal is just to stop him
> (keep shooting until he is no longer a threat, then you stop shooting)
>
> IIRC, you claim to have a CCW license. You should have had this drilled
> into you during your training.
>
> I used to be for the death penalty. If someone did murder a friend or
> family member now, I think I would still be against executing them --
> but if the state executed them anyway, I don't think I'd be very upset
> about it. Or maybe I discover that I'm a hypocrite and I'll want to
> pull the switch myself. I'd just as soon not find out either way.
>
> Bob

Ooh, a Waffle.

Best dish of all. :-)

Don't get mad. I understand exactly what you are saying.
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

In article >, sf wrote:

> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:37:34 -0500, Omelet >
> wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > "Nancy Young" > wrote:
> >
> >> Yikes. Guess that'll teach him.
> >>
> >> http://www.marke****ch.com/news/stor...hief-food/stor
> >> y.a
> >> spx?guid=%7B970CDBD2-2C6C-4F26-BEE9-39C620BBAED0%7D&dist=hplatest
> >>
> >> or
> >>
> >> http://tinyurl.com/2amfgp
> >>
> >> nancy
> >
> >I heard about that on the radio this morning.
> >
> >Too bad we don't have that kind of "justice" here!
> >
> >Who knows how many people (and pets) that greedy bastid killed?
> >He was no better than any other mass murderer.
> >
> >Sorry to be so harsh, but he really did deserve it! I take public
> >service jobs pretty seriously.
>
>
> "The buck stops here" takes on a whole new meaning!
> --
>
> History is a vast early warning system
> Norman Cousins

Indeed.
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

In article >,
Blair P. Houghton > wrote:

> Nancy Young > wrote:
> >Yikes. Guess that'll teach him.
>
> We should do that to public officials who **** up and
> get over 3700 innocent Americans killed in unnecessary wars.
>
> --Blair

Word.
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson