GM kills Saturn after Penske ends deal. Obama Motors announces "Yugo" rebirth.

So that's pictures of the stuff that didn't exist? Amazing.

--
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

Assuming your question is serious...

We don't amputate limbs for any crimes. That would fall under the
category of cruel and unusual punishment.

We don't stone women for the "crime" of being raped.

We don't jail or execute people for the "crime" of changing their religion.

So I favor life in prison or even death for murderers? Yes. My guess
is that sharia law does the same (unless it's of your own daughter or
wife for being raped or for changing their religion or for speaking
against the great prophet).

Your question is truly ridiculous.

If I agree with in principle one particular punishment that sharia law
mandates (I'm not even sure there are any - putting someone in jail does
not equate to amputating a limb, and there is nothing in our law to
compare to stoning a woman for the crime of being raped), that wouldn't
mean I accepted all of what sharia law prescribes, which you seem to be
implying should be the case.

 

There was no doubt that he HAD had some WMD capability,
and I am speaking of chemical weapons.

We knew he had Russian jets, and set up the no-fly zone, remember.
There was also no doubt that he had the S-2 rockets. We took care
of some of them too.

Some of his jets went to Iran....I think that is rather accurately known.

He was working on nuclear enrichment when we smashed him the
first time. That work was stopped....abeit probably temporarily.

These pictures are interesting but do not document the time that
they were made, if they were serviceable,etc..

So I am not sure what this proves. maybe nothing.

Was he a bad dood? No doubt. Should we have waded in given the
amount of real informatio we had....history will tell. We are not the
policemen to the world.

I really think that Bush was pissed because Saddam put out a hit
on Bush Sr. And Cheney was ready to roll with it.

 

What are you actually trying to say?

 

So putting someone in jail for a long time for a victimless crime isn't
considered cruel and unusual punishment while punishing someone by
amputatation for stealing (which does have a victim) is?

You clearly haven't spent time reading sharia law.

But we do jail minors for having consensual sexual relations with other
minors.

Hardly. You're basing your arguments on second hand information, which
in itself is ridiculous.

You take away part of their life. There are many cases where someone
has spent decades in prison for a crime they didn't even commit. Are
you saying that's okay in your view?

Your arguments are meaningless as long as you rely on secondhand
information. Also, in some cases we have longer prison sentences for
drug possession than we do for rape.

My argument is that we don't need laws that punish people for victimless
crimes (whether it be drug possession or insulting a religion).

 

Hypothetically that is correct.

Don't kid yourself.

Who is "we"?

So you're going to skirt the changing religion scenario. You're dishonest.

Still want to claim I haven't spent time reading sharia law?

Again, don't kid yourself.

No, but neither is living in a lawless society because mistakes have
been made. Exactly what point about sharia law are you arguing now -
that they don't seriously punish innocent people - like women who have
been raped or people who change their religion?

And therefore what?

Exactly where did you make that point until that last sentence?

We don't need laws that punish the victims of crime like a woman who has
been raped, do we.

 

It's interesting you favor a legal system that gives the robber the
right to sue you if you or a hazard on your property results injuries to
him.

You're the one kidding yourself. I haven't found any source (either off
or online where the punishment for being raped is stoning).

You live in the US, you figure it out.

I'll assume you hadn't read to the end of the post when you wrote this,
but you're dishonest for not editing your reply and deleting this
sentence after reading the whole post.

I'll make two claims. First, you haven't spent time reading Sharia law.
Second, if my first claim is false, then I claim you have a reading
comprehension problem given your repeated claim that the specified
punishment for getting raped is stoning.

And therefore you appear to believe that it's reasonable to punish
people for victimless crimes more severely compared to a serious crime
with a traumatized victim.

That sentence doesn't make sense.

And you claim that I'm dishonest <rolls eyes>. I suggest you work on
your reading comprehension and take time to vet your sources when you
claim to have "spent time reading Sharia law."

 

Other side? Yes, I do. Those people are often attracted to the power
that police and government offer. But the idea that government some how
keeps us from killing our neighbors is assinine. The criminal element is
here regardless of government and often IS government.

Good people who band together can keep the criminal element in check
just as well if not better than a government that rules over all with
the use of violence. And the example would be the way the USA used to
be in much of the country.

And who is keeping the government from doing that these days?

The government's police don't protect. They write reports after the
fact. The courts have ruled as such.

That's not isolationism. That's not interventionism. And that does work.
Works for everyone but control freaks and do gooders who want to tell
other people how to live.

You want to know something, most of those people wouldn't care about the
USA if the USA wasn't messing around in their business all the time. Put
down the fox news, islamofascism coming to take over america is BS.

I don't live in Britain. Never been to that apparently orwellian state.

 

Nope, never heard of Claws. Might try it sometime though, now that you mentioned it. -Dave

 

ORLY?
http://books.google.com/books?id=Fm...esult&ct=result&resnum=5#v=onepage&q=&f=false


BTW, the current US federal government has no problem with torture. So
there's no moral highground for said state to claim any longer.

 

BTW, what is a victimless crime?

The reason most western/democratic countries (the US being the notable
exception) have abolished the death sentence for all crimes -- in fact that
is a condition of joing the EU -- is that it is cruel and irreversible and
too may innocent people have been executed. Only the Almighty has the right
to take life, irrespective of how awful the crime. Most criminals awaiting
execution in the US have subnormal intelligence or something else wrong with
them.

Judicial physical mutilation is barbaric and, whilst not terminal, is
irreversible.

I can tell that in the UK the list of people on death row was displayed in
the Home Secretary's office (minister of the interior in most countries,
then also responsible for justice). Every single home secretary --
irrespective of the political party -- opposed the death penalty because he
did not wish to be responsible for the killing of anybody, especially
innocents.

A preson unjustly imprisoned can still live some normal life afterwards and
be compensated. A bit more difficult for a corpse or mutilated person.

DAS

To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"

 

Can we at least stay in the present tense? That has nothing to do with
our present legal system.

Where have you been the last 10 years? You obviously haven't been
paying attention at all and are making stuff up. Our civil system does
not allow torture period. You're talking about something different and
are making false claims even about that.

 

Would that have been while slavery was going on? I suspect there would
be plenty going on at that time that a reasonable moral person would
have a problem with.

Anyway - I believe that that is by definition a government - maybe
local, but nonetheless a government. If it doesn't start out being one,
it evolves into one.

The people, and doing a poor job of it for many years - but they are
waking up again.

There's a saying (I forget who said it - don't have time to Google it
right now) - something to the effect that our system of government is
the worst one - except for all the others.

Good luck finding your utopian society. Or have you found it, and if
so, where is it?

I agree that we have gotten away from some of the better way of the
past. But of course they were subject to abuse too. So what are you
going to do? Where else are you going to go that's better, and why
aren't you there already?

Fox News - you mean the ones that were helping to expose ACORN for what
everyone already knew it was but the that the mainstream outlets were
wearing blinders about until they couldn't ignore the outrage anymore -
that Fox News?

You are quite ignorant, and apparently willingly so.

Yep - I realized that after I hit send.

 

Something that only 'hurts' yourself.

Yet the UK, like the US likes to interfere in the affairs of other
nations leading to and directly killing people in the process.

 

You mean the present system where torture is acceptable.

Obviously you're not the one paying attention. First, police forces like
the chicago police have used torture for decades. Second, there is a new
popular device carried by police forces around the country used for
something they call 'pain compliance'. Third, the US government has
altered the law such that just about anyone can be declared an 'enemy
combatant' and under such a desgination be tortured. Welcome to America,
things are different since you last looked.

 

Government school teaches the civil war was fought to end slavery. It
was the excuse the US federal government used to get people to back the
war, so indeed it did work as a powerful motivation to get people to
end the practice in the US.

A very minimum government if that, not a set of rulers managing our
lives.

Yeah, the management team that is out of power always tries to appeal to
the freedom loving, then when it gets in power it's more control
freakism government.

The US system of government presently is quite poor and much better ones
have existed. At least many nations manage not to bankrupt
themselves by having a world-wide empire. Such 'better' nations include
the USA when the constitution was still followed for the most part
instead of mostly ignored as it is today.

Ahh.. you're just falling back on 'love it or leave it'. This tells
me to stop bothering right here. Anyway, been through this before... for
some damn reason if I don't accept the changes that take away what made
the USA better that I should leave it. Well, keep making those changes
and maybe one day you'll notice you're in a boiling pot wondering how
the water got so hot.

<snip, unread>

 

Puppy 4.0. It has an incredibly easy to use package manager. Will check it later for Claws. -Dave

 

Notice that you are using Sylpheed. Have you tried upgrading to Claws?
It is the successor program. I tried it on my Ubuntu box, and it was
very nice.

 

When Clinton was in the Whitehouse, there was no doubt about
who would be poled.

 

So why haven't we invaded North Korea? Libya? Iran?

The Bush administration came to office looking for a fight with Iraq.
That's documented. Right after 9/11, the intelligence community was
told to find a link to Iraq. That's also documented.