Pilot's Political Orientation

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
. net...
>
> "Bill Denton" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Let me correct an obvious misperception you seem to have: people get
> killed
> > in prison, also!
> >
> > Life without parole is not an absolute deterrent; the death penalty
is...
> >
>
>
> Why do you believe that I think people don't get killed in prison?
>
> It's not that I'm against the death penalty, it's just that I am
frustrated
> that it doesn't seem to work all that well as a deterrent.

How do you know it doesn't? Does it work for you. :~)

> I say, step out of line whatsoever, and get the death penalty.
Everything.
> Speeding, flying over gross, unsubstianted tax deductions, EVERYTHING.
And
> no friggin appeals either. Screw these prisons wasting my tax dollars.
> Can't or won't live with our laws? Death. Don't like the religion of the
> president, elected by THE PEOPLE? Death. This should also help with this
> terrible traffic situation we have around here.

Well, so much for serious discussion.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Tom Sixkiller wrote:
>
> I think he's confusing "States" with "states".

Seems that way to me. I said it's defined by "the State", which is a pseudonym for
"the government." Seems he's added an "s" to "the State".

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
. net...
>
> So is life without parole.
>

True life without parole still allows for escape and another offense. Not
so the death penalty.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> It can be.
>

It can be? If murder is defined at the federal level and not at the state
level, wouldn't all murders have to be prosecuted at the federal level?


>
> But you're confusing "States" (as in United...) with "states" (a
> governmental jurisdiction").
>

Well, my mistake then. I wasn't aware the feds had exclusive jurisdiction
in murder cases.


>
> Every heard the term "statism"?
>

Yup. I didn't know that it included murder though.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Can you cite an authoritative source for that notion?
>

Fetus: The unborn offspring from the end of the 8th week after conception
(when the major structures have formed) until birth. Up until the eighth
week, the developing offspring is called an embryo.

Webster's New World Medical Dictionary, 2nd edition (January, 2003)

[Paul Sengupta]

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
. net...
> That being said, the death penalty doesn't seem to be a very effective
> deterrent anyhow.

It certainly cuts down on the number of re-offenders...

Paul

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > It can be.
> >
>
> It can be? If murder is defined at the federal level and not at the state
> level, wouldn't all murders have to be prosecuted at the federal level?

Yes...if that were the case, which it isn't.

> >
> > But you're confusing "States" (as in United...) with "states" (a
> > governmental jurisdiction").
> >
>
> Well, my mistake then. I wasn't aware the feds had exclusive jurisdiction
> in murder cases.

They don't...which is why the United STATES is compriased of the various
"states" (small 's').

> > Every heard the term "statism"?
> >
>
> Yup. I didn't know that it included murder though.

You don't know what the term "state" means, what the term "murder" means, or
what the legal definition of "human being" means either.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Can you cite an authoritative source for that notion?
> >
>
> Fetus: The unborn offspring from the end of the 8th week after conception
> (when the major structures have formed) until birth. Up until the eighth
> week, the developing offspring is called an embryo.
>
> Webster's New World Medical Dictionary, 2nd edition (January, 2003)

Now look up the terms in Blacks Law Dictionary.

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Paul Sengupta" > wrote in message
...
> "Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
> . net...
> > That being said, the death penalty doesn't seem to be a very effective
> > deterrent anyhow.
>
> It certainly cuts down on the number of re-offenders...
>

Like suicide bombers in Israel, there seems to be no shortage of new
offenders.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> Yes...if that were the case, which it isn't.
>

Well, which is it then? Is "murder" defined at the state level or not?


>
> They don't...which is why the United STATES is compriased of the various
> "states" (small 's').
>

How can small s states have jurisdiction over something they don't even
define?


>
> You don't know what the term "state" means, what the term "murder" means,
or
> what the legal definition of "human being" means either.
>

Can you provide the definitions?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> Now look up the terms in Blacks Law Dictionary.
>

The request was for an authoritative source so an authoritative source was
provided. If you're interested in what Blacks Law Dictionary says about it
then look it up yourself.

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> How can small s states have jurisdiction over something they don't even
> define?
>


Doesn't this happen all the time? Highway speed limits? School
imperatives? Tons of stuff. I think it's just a way of cost-shifting, a
bunch of federal laws (good or bad) that must be paid for by the states.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
.net...
>
> "Paul Sengupta" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
> > . net...
> > > That being said, the death penalty doesn't seem to be a very effective
> > > deterrent anyhow.
> >
> > It certainly cuts down on the number of re-offenders...
> >
>
> Like suicide bombers in Israel, there seems to be no shortage of new
> offenders.

Not entirely true. When they threatened to wrap them in pork skins, or
threatened their families, the rate dropped perceptibly. (It's a tough world
out there in the "real" world).

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Yes...if that were the case, which it isn't.
> >
>
> Well, which is it then? Is "murder" defined at the state level or not?

Yes.

>
>
> >
> > They don't...which is why the United STATES is compriased of the various
> > "states" (small 's').
> >
>
> How can small s states have jurisdiction over something they don't even
> define?

They do define it.

>
>
> >
> > You don't know what the term "state" means, what the term "murder"
means,
> or
> > what the legal definition of "human being" means either.
> >
>
> Can you provide the definitions?

Black's Law Dictionary, which I already referred you to. (I'm not about to
transcribe 20 pages if you insist on using terms from your minister (?),
rather than from your lawyer).

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
.net...
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > How can small s states have jurisdiction over something they don't even
> > define?
> >
>
>
> Doesn't this happen all the time? Highway speed limits? School
> imperatives? Tons of stuff. I think it's just a way of cost-shifting, a
> bunch of federal laws (good or bad) that must be paid for by the states.
>
It used to be a cliché, "Don't make a Federal case out of it...", but now
that's the rule rather than the exception (another cliché).

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Now look up the terms in Blacks Law Dictionary.
> >
>
> The request was for an authoritative source so an authoritative source was
> provided.

Not for legal definitons, it's not.

> If you're interested in what Blacks Law Dictionary says about it
> then look it up yourself.

I already did. Now you need to comprehend what is an appropriate
"authoritative source" when it comes to legal terms. You also need to
understand that biology texts are not an "authoritative source" when using
philosophic terms like "autonomous" and "human being", nor when using them
in a legal context.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
>
> Only to your posts. :)
>

I've observed responses of yours to other's posts that were just as stupid
as your responses to mine.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> Yes.
>

I thought so.


>
> Black's Law Dictionary, which I already referred you to. (I'm not about to
> transcribe 20 pages if you insist on using terms from your minister (?),
> rather than from your lawyer).
>

A simple "No." would have sufficed.

I don't have a minister.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> Not for legal definitons, it's not.
>

He didn't ask for a legal definition.


>
> I already did. Now you need to comprehend what is an appropriate
> "authoritative source" when it comes to legal terms.
>

Fetus is a medical term. You need to comprehend what is an appropriate
"authoritative source" when it comes to medical terms.


>
> You also need to
> understand that biology texts are not an "authoritative source" when using
> philosophic terms like "autonomous" and "human being", nor when using them
> in a legal context.
>

You need to understand law texts are not an "authoritative source" when
using medical terms.

[G.R. Patterson III]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
>
> True life without parole still allows for escape and another offense.

There also seems to be a spate of new trials 20-30 years down the road in some areas
of the country.

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.

[Teacherjh]

>>
> Only to your posts. :)

I've observed responses of yours to other's posts that were just as stupid
as your responses to mine.
<<

I guess I've learned well from you.

Jose


--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
>
> I guess I've learned well from you.
>

Unfortunately, it appears you haven't learned anything at all.

[Teacherjh]

>> Unfortunately, it appears you haven't learned anything at all.

Next to a master like you, my abilities are less than a faint candle.

Seriously - you respond in a very minimalist style - the absolute least you can
say that states your point or makes your challenge. Though I've learned stuff
from you, you do not post nearly enough supporting material to make the
correctness of your points clear (when they are correct). Since you do the
same when your points are matters of opinion, or are (gasp!) wrong, it becomes
an excercise in frustration to have a discussion that goes beyond mere
acceptance of the pearls of wisdom dropping from your ruby red lips.

So while "reading carefully" sometimes reveals gems, more often it does not,
and the putative bandwidth economy thus practiced leads to the expenditure of
many more ones and zeros than should be warranted.

We're running out of ones. (zeros are still in great supply). Sometimes
minimalism doesn't achieve the presumed goal.

Jose




--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Richard Hertz]

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
. net...
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > "Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
> > . net...
> > >
> > > Your misconceptions are astounding.
> > >
> > > That being said, the death penalty doesn't seem to be a very effective
> > > deterrent anyhow.
> > >
> >
> > It's deterred everyone that's received it.
> >
>
> So is life without parole.

So I get to pay to keep people in food, shelter and entertainment for doing
bad things? No thanks.

It warmed my heart when I moved to the south a few years back to see convict
road crews doing work. Now, maybe it costs us more to pay the guards to
watch them and for insurance, etc, but at least we get something out of it.


>
>

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Richard Hertz" > wrote in message
.net...
>
> So I get to pay to keep people in food, shelter and entertainment for
doing
> bad things? No thanks.
>

Hey, I don't like it either, but that's a separate issue from the deterrent
effect of different types of punishment.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 00:46:36 GMT, "Richard Hertz"
> wrote:

>It warmed my heart when I moved to the south a few years back to see convict
>road crews doing work. Now, maybe it costs us more to pay the guards to
>watch them and for insurance, etc, but at least we get something out of it.

My two ¢:

Convict laborers displace regular workers. A far better solution
would be to teach them the meaning of the word 'restitution.' That
way they truly pay for their crimes, and their victims are
compensated.

But the prison systems have become cash cows for private enterprise.
Prison operating contractors have no financial incentive to
rehabilitate inmates. Quite the opposite, there is incentive to
create more inmates, so that more prisons will be built and
Wackinhut's business will increase. Corporate self interest is at the
root of many of society's ills.

[Teacherjh]

>> Convict laborers displace regular workers.

Regular workers displace other regular workers.

>>
A far better solution
would be to teach them the meaning of the word 'restitution.' That
way they truly pay for their crimes, and their victims are
compensated.
<<

Assuming you mean with money, where do they get this money? If they work for
it, that displaces other workers. If they don't work for it, this uses up
paper and green ink.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Larry Dighera]

On 23 Jun 2004 13:40:26 GMT, (Teacherjh)
wrote:

>A far better solution
>would be to teach them the meaning of the word 'restitution.' That
>way they truly pay for their crimes, and their victims are
>compensated.
><<
>
>Assuming you mean with money, where do they get this money? If they work for
>it, that displaces other workers. If they don't work for it, this uses up
>paper and green ink.


Oh, there you go thinking logically <grin>. Far better minds than
mine have given the concept of convict restitution a lot of thought.
Here's a clue: http://tinyurl.com/22c25

[G.R. Patterson III]

Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> So I get to pay to keep people in food, shelter and entertainment for doing
> bad things? No thanks.

I just look at it as a bribe I pay the State to keep these people away from me.

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.

[Richard Hertz]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 00:46:36 GMT, "Richard Hertz"
> > wrote:
>
> >It warmed my heart when I moved to the south a few years back to see
convict
> >road crews doing work. Now, maybe it costs us more to pay the guards to
> >watch them and for insurance, etc, but at least we get something out of
it.
>
> My two ¢:
>
> Convict laborers displace regular workers. A far better solution
> would be to teach them the meaning of the word 'restitution.' That
> way they truly pay for their crimes, and their victims are
> compensated.
>
> But the prison systems have become cash cows for private enterprise.
> Prison operating contractors have no financial incentive to
> rehabilitate inmates. Quite the opposite, there is incentive to
> create more inmates, so that more prisons will be built and
> Wackinhut's business will increase. Corporate self interest is at the
> root of many of society's ills.
>

Um, no. Self-interest of humans is the root of many ills. Particularly
from criminals. if corporations behave in illegal manners, they are
punished, so too should criminals be punished. Blaming "corporations" for
the failing of people is a cop out.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Richard Hertz" > wrote in message
t...
>
> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > But the prison systems have become cash cows for private enterprise.
> > Prison operating contractors have no financial incentive to
> > rehabilitate inmates. Quite the opposite, there is incentive to
> > create more inmates, so that more prisons will be built and
> > Wackinhut's business will increase. Corporate self interest is at the
> > root of many of society's ills.
> >
>
> Um, no. Self-interest of humans is the root of many ills.

It's also the source (context, please) of all good. How is criminal behavior
and any way in ones "self-interest"?

> Particularly
> from criminals. if corporations behave in illegal manners, they are
> punished, so too should criminals be punished. Blaming "corporations" for
> the failing of people is a cop out.

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 01:02:19 GMT, "Richard Hertz"
> wrote:

>if corporations behave in illegal manners, they are punished

Oh, you mean like Enron was punished? :-)

Get real.

[Greg]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 01:02:19 GMT, "Richard Hertz"
> > wrote:
>
> >if corporations behave in illegal manners, they are punished
>
> Oh, you mean like Enron was punished? :-)

Enron is all but gone. Compare that with what it was doing on
the late 90s while the goverment looked the other way. Enron
leaders are now in prison, and more are expected to follow.

Get real yourself.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 13:51:34 -0400, Greg > wrote:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 01:02:19 GMT, "Richard Hertz"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >if corporations behave in illegal manners, they are punished
>>
>> Oh, you mean like Enron was punished? :-)
>
>Enron is all but gone.

It wasn't the current administration that closed Enron. It was a
moral Enron employee who blew the whistle on Enron's illegal practices
that hastened its bankruptcy.

>Compare that with what it was doing on
>the late 90s while the goverment looked the other way. Enron
>leaders are now in prison, and more are expected to follow.

Unfortunately, the leader of Enron, Kenneth Lay, is still free and
unindited with tens of millions of dollars (of what should have been
Enron's former employee's retirement money) safely in the bank. Do
you suppose that Kenneth Lay's being the largest contributor to the
baby Bush election campaign and a long time friend of the Bush family
has had any influence on this master mind of Enron's nefarious deeds
remaining beyond the reach of the law?

>Get real yourself.

Get informed yourself.