Mounties Electrocute Airline Passenger

[Larry Dighera]

Is airline passenger abuse on the rise as a result of passenger
reaction to airline delays?


http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2007/10/14/bc-taser.html?ref=rss

Man dies after Taser shock by police at Vancouver airport
Last Updated: Sunday, October 14, 2007 | 5:04 PM ET

A man in his 40s died early Sunday morning after RCMP jolted him with
a Taser at the Vancouver International Airport, police said.

Airport security called the Mounties for assistance after an
unidentified man began pounding on windows and throwing chairs and
computer equipment in the customs area shortly after arriving on an
international flight at 1:30 a.m., Richmond RCMP Sgt. Pierre Lemaitre
told CBC News.

"We arrived and tried to calm the man," Lemaitre said. "We tried
through gestures to get him to put his hands down on the desk … to no
avail."

When he ignored orders to calm down, police used a stun gun on the
man.

The man dropped to the floor and police said it took three officers to
handcuff him. He then lost consciousness and appeared to go into
cardiac arrest and was pronounced dead at the airport, the CBC's Chris
Brown reported.

Few other details have been disclosed other than the man spoke an
Eastern European language and a flight from Poland touched down about
an hour before the incident, Brown said.

Taser devices are controversial because of the dozen North American
deaths resulting from their use. There has been debate about how safe
these devices are when dealing with certain kinds of people who are
delirious or wound up, Brown said.

Police are investigating and a toxicology report will be done to
determine whether there were drugs in the man's system. They will be
interviewing customs officers and flight attendants, Brown reported.

International arrivals were rerouted but there were no delays in
flight schedules.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

>
> Is airline passenger abuse on the rise as a result of passenger
> reaction to airline delays?
>
>
> http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2007/10/14/bc-
taser.htm
> l?ref=rss
>
> Man dies after Taser shock by police at Vancouver airport
> Last Updated: Sunday, October 14, 2007 | 5:04 PM ET
>
> A man in his 40s died early Sunday morning after RCMP jolted him with
> a Taser at the Vancouver International Airport, police said.
>
> Airport security called the Mounties for assistance after an
> unidentified man began pounding on windows and throwing chairs and
> computer equipment in the customs area shortly after arriving on an
> international flight at 1:30 a.m., Richmond RCMP Sgt. Pierre Lemaitre
> told CBC News.
>
> "We arrived and tried to calm the man," Lemaitre said. "We tried
> through gestures to get him to put his hands down on the desk … to no
> avail."
>
> When he ignored orders to calm down, police used a stun gun on the
> man.
>
> The man dropped to the floor and police said it took three officers to
> handcuff him. He then lost consciousness and appeared to go into
> cardiac arrest and was pronounced dead at the airport, the CBC's Chris
> Brown reported.
>
> Few other details have been disclosed other than the man spoke an
> Eastern European language and a flight from Poland touched down about
> an hour before the incident, Brown said.
>
> Taser devices are controversial because of the dozen North American
> deaths resulting from their use. There has been debate about how safe
> these devices are when dealing with certain kinds of people who are
> delirious or wound up, Brown said.
>
> Police are investigating and a toxicology report will be done to
> determine whether there were drugs in the man's system. They will be
> interviewing customs officers and flight attendants, Brown reported.
>
> International arrivals were rerouted but there were no delays in
> flight schedules.
>

Normally I loath airprt security. But i hate asshole pax even more..
too good for him, I say!

They should do the same to people who talk in movie theatres.


Bertie
>

[Tina]

The invention needed is a taser that can be aimed at a usernet poster
thru the screen, maybe configured so that whenever certain ones press
send they get a jolt.


I'm good at the big ideas, I'll leave it up to the engineers who post
here to work out the details.

..Tina

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Tina > wrote in news:1192625434.404953.245950
@y27g2000pre.googlegroups.com:

> The invention needed is a taser that can be aimed at a usernet poster
> thru the screen, maybe configured so that whenever certain ones press
> send they get a jolt.
>

I thought that was me.


No?


>
> I'm good at the big ideas, I'll leave it up to the engineers who post
> here to work out the details.


Well, if anyone can, anthony can.


Bertie

[Big John]

Tina

Don't they already have one???

Think it is called a cattle prod or some such.

Big John

*************************************************


On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 12:50:34 -0000, Tina >
wrote:

>The invention needed is a taser that can be aimed at a usernet poster
>thru the screen, maybe configured so that whenever certain ones press
>send they get a jolt.
>
>
>I'm good at the big ideas, I'll leave it up to the engineers who post
>here to work out the details.
>
>.Tina

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 12:50:34 -0000, Tina > wrote
in . com>:

>The invention needed is a taser that can be aimed at a usernet poster
>thru the screen, maybe configured so that whenever certain ones press
>send they get a jolt.

I can understand your frustration, and proposed Skinnerian solution,
but would you truly want to introduce censorship into this uniquely
egalitarian forum?

Personally, I'd prefer that those who find it beyond their ability to
restrain themselves from reacting had your negative reward device
installed. :-) That would improve the newsgroup's signal-to-noise
ratio far more than stifling the trolls.

[Jay Honeck]

> Normally I loath airprt security. But i hate asshole pax even more..
> too good for him, I say!
>
> They should do the same to people who talk in movie theatres.

Agree.

I hate the way these Taser stories are written, with all of their
unabashed phony horror and shock. What everyone forgets is that
before the Taser the police might have simply shot the guy, or (at
best) would have started swinging billy clubs -- risking injury to
themselves as well as to the perp.

The guy went berserk in a public place, and was a clear and present
danger to others. The Mounties did what they thought was best for the
public. The guy obviously had some pre-existing condition that caused
his ticker to quit. It happens.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Montblack]

("Larry Dighera" wrote)
> International arrivals were rerouted but there were no delays in flight
> schedules.


I have no idea what this means - they landed at another airport, but on
time?

It seems, in today's world, we've got people 'in authority' making what I
call hyper-cautious decisions, far too often.


Montblack

[Kloudy via AviationKB.com]

Larry Dighera wrote:

>
>Airport security called the Mounties for assistance after an
>unidentified man began pounding on windows and throwing chairs and
>computer equipment in the customs area shortly after arriving on an
>international flight at 1:30 a.m., Richmond RCMP Sgt. Pierre Lemaitre
>told CBC News.
>

Pretty simple.

Don't throw sh*t at the airport... stay alive.

Too bad for the dead guy. One less jerk we'll have to tolerate.

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

[Tina]

On Oct 17, 10:20 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 12:50:34 -0000, Tina > wrote
> in . com>:
You know, Medtronics found their implanted defibulators sometimes
caused unintended shocks. This may be an ideal application. . . . .


>
> >The invention needed is a taser that can be aimed at a usernet poster
> >thru the screen, maybe configured so that whenever certain ones press
> >send they get a jolt.
>
> I can understand your frustration, and proposed Skinnerian solution,
> but would you truly want to introduce censorship into this uniquely
> egalitarian forum?
>
> Personally, I'd prefer that those who find it beyond their ability to
> restrain themselves from reacting had your negative reward device
> installed. :-) That would improve the newsgroup's signal-to-noise
> ratio far more than stifling the trolls.

[Dave S]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> Is airline passenger abuse on the rise as a result of passenger
> reaction to airline delays?
>
>
> http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2007/10/14/bc-taser.html?ref=rss
>
> Man dies after Taser shock by police at Vancouver airport
> Last Updated: Sunday, October 14, 2007 | 5:04 PM ET
>
> A man in his 40s died early Sunday morning after RCMP jolted him with
> a Taser at the Vancouver International Airport, police said.

Had they physically overcame him without a tazer, and cuffed him, I am
betting dollars to donuts that this person would have died as a result
of the struggle.

People died being taken into custody for multiple reasons before tazers
came on the scene. Some, like hogtying, have been found to be harmful.
But the underlying cause is a suspect who for whatever reason, places
demands on his body that his body cant sustain, causing his heart to
fail. Wether its drugs, psychosis or stupidity, in a small group of
subjects the result is the same.

Tazers have actually been proven to REDUCE injury rates overall, both in
suspects AND in officers.. TREMENDOUSLY reduce them, and associated
workers comp claims.

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> Is airline passenger abuse on the rise as a result of passenger
> reaction to airline delays?
>
>
> http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2007/10/14/bc-taser.html?ref=rss


What passenger abuse? The man was out of control until the cops zapped him. He
must have had a weak heart... maybe helped along by some chemical recreational
aids.

You consider controlling a berserk person abuse? What should the cops have
tried first? Time out?



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Jim Logajan]

Larry Dighera > wrote:
[ Quoting from news story: ]
> Airport security called the Mounties for assistance after an
> unidentified man began pounding on windows and throwing chairs and
> computer equipment in the customs area shortly after arriving on an
> international flight at 1:30 a.m., Richmond RCMP Sgt. Pierre Lemaitre
> told CBC News.

Before too many more people pile onto the "he was just being a jerk"
bandwagon, I should point out that, based on the reported behavior, there
is possibility that the man may have been autistic.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Oct 17, 7:27 am, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> > Normally I loath airprt security. But i hate asshole pax even more..
> > too good for him, I say!
>
> > They should do the same to people who talk in movie theatres.
>
> Agree.
>
> I hate the way these Taser stories are written, with all of their
> unabashed phony horror and shock. What everyone forgets is that
> before the Taser the police might have simply shot the guy, or (at
> best) would have started swinging billy clubs -- risking injury to
> themselves as well as to the perp.
>
> The guy went berserk in a public place, and was a clear and present
> danger to others. The Mounties did what they thought was best for the
> public. The guy obviously had some pre-existing condition that caused
> his ticker to quit. It happens.

A couple of summers ago I flew he Mooney up to Vancouver. While at the
park with the kids I saw a Canadian officer (mountie, not sure)
walking around with a rather large gun. I thought this was interesting
because I didn't know they carried guns. I got a little closer and
realized what it was. No joke, it was a water gun!! Apparently he was
using it to spray an annoying squirrel. I thought the sight was so
funny I went back to the rental car to get my camera. Seeing me
approach with the camera, the mountie seemed annoyed and walked off.
How great would that have been to have caught a Canadian law
enforcement officer walking around with a giant side arm that carried
water!

-Robert

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 12:01:34 -0500, Dave S >
wrote in >:

>Tazers have actually been proven to REDUCE injury rates overall, both in
>suspects

Can you cite any evidence that supports that assertion?

>AND in officers.. TREMENDOUSLY reduce them,

I can see how that would be true.

>and associated workers comp claims.

Well, that's what's important. :-(

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 13:13:37 -0400, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
<mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote in
>:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>> Is airline passenger abuse on the rise as a result of passenger
>> reaction to airline delays?
>>
>>
>> http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2007/10/14/bc-taser.html?ref=rss
>
>
>What passenger abuse? The man was out of control until the cops zapped him.

It sounds like the passenger was maniacal well after that. Have you
any idea how long a Taser is capable of sustained high-voltage output?
Is it controllable by the LEO? Until a dart is removed, I would think
the LEO could continue to apply high-voltage until the battery was
exhausted.

>He >must have had a weak heart... maybe helped along by some chemical recreational
>aids.

Perhaps. I doubt the coroner will find the passenger to have expired
as a result of the Mounties arresting the passenger. It would be
interesting to know where the darts hit the passenger.

If it was across the chest, I can see how the Taser may have
precipitated a heart attack.

>You consider controlling a berserk person abuse? What should the cops have
>tried first? Time out?

Mace? Wrestle him to the floor? A net? Something with less lethal
potential than 100,000 volts?

[S Green]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...

> International arrivals were rerouted but there were no delays in
> flight schedules.

Cannot let the small matter of someone's death get in the way of business.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Larry Dighera wrote:

>
> Mace? Wrestle him to the floor? A net? Something with less lethal
> potential than 100,000 volts?

50,000 Volts, 18 Watts and 133 MilliAmps

[BDS[_2_]]

> Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> >
> > Mace? Wrestle him to the floor? A net? Something with less lethal
> > potential than 100,000 volts?

It's easy to make those kinds of suggestions when you're not the one doing
the wrestling.

It's also easy to avoid being shot with a tazer - don't resist arrest.
Probably works 99.99999999% of the time.

Disclaimer: This being the internet age and all (thanks Al) there is
probably the odd case someone could dig up where a perfectly innocent person
who was not resisting arrest was still shot with a tazer. I would suggest
that the chance of this happening is statistically far less than say, having
your engine fall out of your airplane.

BDS

[The Visitor[_2_]]

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:

He
> must have had a weak heart...

Yep, just like all those deaths during water boarding.
Weak heart. Nobody drowned.

Enough of a large portion of society has thes weak heart, perhaps the
tazer should be more exclusivly used. This person, while noisy and
attacking the furniture, was off in his own area and perhaps they could
have waited him out?

I thought he could have been is some kind of medical distress.
Well it will all be out soon.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 14:36:07 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
>:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>>
>> Mace? Wrestle him to the floor? A net? Something with less lethal
>> potential than 100,000 volts?
>
>50,000 Volts, 18 Watts and 133 MilliAmps
>

Where did you get that information?

Given W=EI if the voltage is 50KV and the current is 0.133 amps that
works out to:

50,000 volts * 0.133 amps = 6,650 Watts

(One milliamperes = 0.001 amperes; did you mean microamperes?)

The second paragraph of the citation below seems to disagree with your
numbers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroshock_gun
Principles of operation

Electroshock weapon technology uses a temporary
high-voltage low-current electrical discharge to override the
body's muscle-triggering mechanisms. The recipient feels great
pain, and can be momentarily paralyzed while an electric current
is being applied. It is reported that applying electroshock
devices to more sensitive parts of the body is more
painful.[citation needed] The relatively low electric current must
be pushed by high voltage to overcome the electrical resistance of
the human body. The resulting 'shock' is caused by muscles
twitching uncontrollably, appearing as muscle spasms. However,
because the amount of current is relatively low, there is
considered to be a 'margin' of safety by a number of medical
experts. Experts generally agree that this margin is highly
dependent on the overall health of the person subjected to the
shock. Usually, the higher the voltage, the more effective it is.
It may take several seconds to subdue a subject with 100 kV, but
only about a second with 1 MV (1,000 kV).[verification needed]

In current electroshock weapon models, the current is sometimes
relatively low (2.1 mA to 3.6 mA) which is based in part on the
electrical supply, (but for example M-26 Taser models produce a
peak current of 18 amperes in pulses that last for around 10
microseconds [1] and use eight AA batteries). Electrical current
above 10 mA at 60Hz AC is considered to be potentially lethal to
humans, though not all electroshock weapons pulse the current at
60 Hz.

The internal circuits of most electroshock weapons are fairly
simple, either based on an oscillator, resonant circuit and
step-up transformer or diode-capacitor voltage multipliers to
achieve the continuous, direct or alternating high-voltage
discharge may be powered by one or more 9 V battery depending on
manufacturer, and model. The output voltages without external
"load" (which would be the target's body) are claimed to be in the
range of 50 kV up to 1000 kV, with the most common being in the
200 to 300 kV range. However since air has a dielectric breakdown
(Emax) of 3000 kV/m, it is clear that the spacing of the
electrodes will not permit the upper range of claimed voltages
(900 kV representing a minimum electrode spacing of about 30 cm).
The output current upon contact with the target will depend on
various factors such as target's resistance, skin type, moisture,
bodily salinity, clothing, the electroshock weapon's internal
circuitry and battery conditions.[2][3]

According to the many sources, a shock of half a second duration
will cause intense pain and muscle contractions startling most
people greatly. Two to three seconds will often cause the subject
to become dazed and drop to the ground, and over three seconds
will usually completely disorient and drop an attacker for at
least several seconds and possibly for up to fifteen
minutes.[citation needed] TASER International warns law
enforcement agencies that “prolonged or continuous exposure(s) to
the TASER device’s electrical charge” may lead to medical risks
such as cumulative exhaustion and breathing impairment.[4] Because
there is no automatic stop on a taser gun, many officers have used
it repeatedly or for a prolonged period of time, thus potentially
contributing to suspects’ injuries or death.[5][6]


Taser

The M-26 TASER, the United States military version of a commercial
TASER.The name Taser is an acronym for "Thomas A. Swift's Electric
Rifle"[10]. Arizona inventor Jack Cover designed it in 1969;
naming it for the science fiction teenage inventor and adventurer
character Tom Swift.

Modern taser-type weapons fire small dart-like electrodes with
attached metal wires that connect to the gun, propelled by small
gas charges similar to some air rifle propellants. The maximum
range is up to 10 meters (30 feet). Earlier models of Taser needed
the dart-like electrodes to embed in the skin and superficial
muscle tissues layers; newer versions of the projectiles use a
shaped pulse/arc of electricity which disrupt nerve and muscle
function without needing the metal prongs on the projectile to
penetrate the skin. Early models had difficulty in penetrating
thick clothing, but the 'pulse' models are designed to bring down
a subject wearing up to a Level III body armor vest.[citation
needed]

Tasers are currently in use by a number of police forces worldwide
to try to reduce firearms-related deaths. The Phoenix Police
Department reported that officer shootings had dropped as a result
from the use of TASER technology as an alternative to deadly
force[citation needed]. Uses of a TASER device in this department
increased from 71 in the year 2002 to 164 in the year 2003.
Additionally, the number of officer-involved shootings decreased
by 7 during this time period. In Houston, however, police
shootings did not decline after the deployment of thousands of
TASERs.[11]

Although TASERs were originally proposed as alternatives to lethal
force, they have entered routine use as a method to gain
compliance at times when the use of firearms would not be
considered. For example, in the case of Fouad Kaady, a severely
burned man in shock and covered in blood sitting Indian style in
the road was ordered to lie down on his stomach to be handcuffed,
and within a few seconds was TASERed twice for failing to
comply.[12][13] An inquiry found that officers acted appropriately
in this case. In another well-publicized case, Andrew Meyer was
tasered while allegedly resisting arrest in an incident which
began with him exceeding his allotted time while asking a question
of John Kerry at a political rally.[14]

While they are not technically considered lethal, some authorities
and non-governmental organizations question both the degree of
safety presented by the weapon and the ethical implications of
using a weapon that some, such as Amnesty International, allege is
inhumane. As a result, a number of civil liberties groups would
like to see tasers banned.[citation needed] Amnesty International
has documented over 245 deaths that occurred after the use of
tasers.[15] The fact that a death occurred following use of a
taser does not necessarily indicate the taser was the cause of
death or even a contributing factor because correlation does not
imply causation, and as many of the deaths occurred in people with
serious medical conditions and/or severe drug intoxication, often
to the point of excited delirium. Tasers are often used as an
alternative to attacking the suspect with a baton or shooting him
with firearms both of which have a much higher chance of serious
injury and death than the taser, even using the highest estimates
of possible taser-related deaths. The term "less-lethal" is being
used more frequently when referring to weapons such as tasers
because many experts feel that no device meant to subdue a person
can be completely safe. The less-lethal category also includes
devices such as pepper spray, tear gas, and batons.There has been
one case report in the medical literature of a person suffering
spinal fractures after being shocked by a taser.[16] The US
National Institute of Justice has begun a two-year study into
taser-related deaths in custody.[17]

Tasers were introduced as a less-lethal weapon so that they could
be used by police to subdue fleeing, belligerent or potentially
dangerous criminal suspects, often when a lethal weapon would have
otherwise been used. However, tasers have not proved to
unequivocally reduce gun usage. For example, the Houston Police
Department has “shot, wounded and killed as many people as before
the widespread use of the stun guns” and has used tasers in
situations that would not warrant lethal or violent force, such as
verbal aggression.[11]

On Tuesday, 5 July, 2005 Michael Todd, Chief Constable of
Manchester, England, let himself be shot in the back with a taser,
to demonstrate his confidence that tasers can be used safely. This
was videoed, and the video was released to the BBC on 17 May 2007.
He was wearing a shirt and no jacket. When tased he fell forward
on his chest on the ground, and (he said afterwards) the shock
made him helpless; but soon after he recovered
completely.[18][19][20]

Although some police volunteers have shown tasers to function
appropriately on a healthy, calm individual, the real-life target
of a taser is, if not mentally or physically unsound, in a state
of high stress. According to the UK’s Defence Scientific Advisory
Council’s subcommittee on the Medical Implications of Less-lethal
Weapons (DoMILL), “The possibility that other factors such as
illicit drug intoxication, alcohol abuse, pre-existing heart
disease and cardioactive therapeutic drugs may modify the
threshold for generation of cardiac arrhythmias cannot be
excluded.” Additionally, taser experiments “do not take into
account real life use of tasers by law enforcement agencies, such
as repeated or prolonged shocks and the use of restraints”.[5]

[Jon]

On Oct 17, 8:50 am, Tina > wrote:
> The invention needed is a taser that can be aimed at a usernet poster
> thru the screen, maybe configured so that whenever certain ones press
> send they get a jolt.
>
> I'm good at the big ideas, I'll leave it up to the engineers who post
> here to work out the details.
>
> .Tina

Seen in a .sig file long ago:

"What the world needs now is killfiles that actually kill."

;)

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 14:36:07 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
> <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
> >:
>
>> Larry Dighera wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Mace? Wrestle him to the floor? A net? Something with less lethal
>>> potential than 100,000 volts?
>>
>> 50,000 Volts, 18 Watts and 133 MilliAmps
>>
>
> Where did you get that information?
>

From their website.

http://www.taser.org/m18l.html

second paragraph.

[Kloudy via AviationKB.com]

The Visitor wrote:
>
>This person, while noisy and
>attacking the furniture, was off in his own area and perhaps they could
>have waited him out?

Tantrums are prohibited after 3 years of age.

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200710/1

[Jim Logajan]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
> Larry Dighera wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 14:36:07 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
>> <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
>> >:
>>
>>> Larry Dighera wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Mace? Wrestle him to the floor? A net? Something with less lethal
>>>> potential than 100,000 volts?
>>>
>>> 50,000 Volts, 18 Watts and 133 MilliAmps
>>>
>>
>> Where did you get that information?
>>
>
> From their website.
>
> http://www.taser.org/m18l.html
>
> second paragraph.

They are intermixing peak and average values on that page - I'm not sure
why. I found a more informative page on their site containing more complete
power and energy computations:

http://www.taser.org/electrical-specifications.html

Peak values measured across 4000 Ohm are ~23,600 V, ~139,240 W, and ~5.9 A
with pulse duration of ~3.5 uS.

[Larry Dighera]

It's official! Airline pax are cattle suitable for "prodding" with
high-voltage. :-)

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 16:23:53 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
>:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 14:36:07 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
>> <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
>> >:
>>
>>> Larry Dighera wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Mace? Wrestle him to the floor? A net? Something with less lethal
>>>> potential than 100,000 volts?
>>>
>>> 50,000 Volts, 18 Watts and 133 MilliAmps
>>>
>>
>> Where did you get that information?
>>
>
>From their website.
>
>http://www.taser.org/m18l.html
>
>second paragraph.
>

That web site is not the Taser company's web site; it's some
retailer's.


Here are the manufacturer's specifications for their products:
http://www2.taser.com/research/science/pages/basicelectricprinciples.aspx

TASER® X26

The TASER X26 is programmed to deliver a very short electrical
pulse of approximately 100 microseconds' duration with about 100
microcoulombs of charge at 19 pulses per second for 5 seconds[2].
The voltage across the body is about 1,200 volts during the shock.

From the TASER X26 only 1,200 V peak, 400 V average over the
duration of the pulse, enter the body, or 0.76 V average
(one-second baseline).


ADVANCED TASER® M26

The ADVANCED TASER M26 has an average (one second baseline)
voltage of 1.3 V, with a peak loaded voltage of 5,000 V, 1,500 V
average over duration of pulse.


There they say:

To say that 50,000 V is delivered to a person is sensationalistic
and very misleading.

Even though both the ADVANCED TASER M26 and the TASER X26 have
50,000 peak open circuit voltage, to jump the air gap, neither
TASER device delivers 50,000 V to a person's body.

Because of the high voltage generated, the darts from the TASER
device do not have to penetrate or even touch the skin. The high
voltage allows the TASER device electrical output to jump through
up to 2 inches of air or clothing to complete the circuit with the
target’s body.


Perhaps someone can explain to me how 50,000 volts is used to jump the
gap to the person's body, but 50,000 volts is not delivered to the
person. This sounds like double-speak to me.

Are Tasers routinely calibrated and certified by an independent
testing laboratory as vehicle speed radar/lidar are? If not, why not?

[Dave S]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 12:01:34 -0500, Dave S >
> wrote in >:
>
>> Tazers have actually been proven to REDUCE injury rates overall, both in
>> suspects
>
> Can you cite any evidence that supports that assertion?
>
>> AND in officers.. TREMENDOUSLY reduce them,
>
> I can see how that would be true.
>
>> and associated workers comp claims.
>
> Well, that's what's important. :-(
>

I will research that assertion and get back to you. Ive heard only
third-hand but from personally credible individuals that this is the
case where I live.

Overall the turds get injured less, and the cops get injured less. I
sincerely do not believe that the tasing itself is the causative factor
in apprehensive deaths. Turds.. I mean "suspects".. as a general rule
are directly responsible for the events leading to their apprehension,
and if injured, directly responsbible for causing an incident to
escalate to the point of their injury. Its really that simple.

Practically every officer in my region, to carry a taser, has to be
tased once: if this was lethal force, would they be doing that?

The workers comp thing wasn't meant to be coy. Less injured cops means
more police on the street, and more productive policing. Better use of
YOUR tax dollars at protecting YOU.

[Dave S]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 13:13:37 -0400, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
> <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote in
> >:
>
>> Larry Dighera wrote:
>>> Is airline passenger abuse on the rise as a result of passenger
>>> reaction to airline delays?
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2007/10/14/bc-taser.html?ref=rss
>>
>> What passenger abuse? The man was out of control until the cops zapped him.
>
> It sounds like the passenger was maniacal well after that. Have you
> any idea how long a Taser is capable of sustained high-voltage output?

Yes

> Is it controllable by the LEO?

In a fashion. Their only control with regards to this is to pull the
trigger. On or off.

Until a dart is removed, I would think the LEO could continue to apply
high-voltage until the battery was
> exhausted.

The ones in use in my locale (the 5 county area surrounding Houston,
Texas, by numerous city and county LEO's) have a 5 second burst per
trigger pull. They also have recording capability from a data standpoint.

I asked one officer I work with on a regular basis if he'd ever deployed
his for cause (not training or test) and he answered twice. Once for one
shock, and once for 7 shocks. The suspect in the 7 shock event didn't
understand that it was unnacceptable to keep lashing, lunging, kicking
or biting the police officers during apprehension, nor was it acceptable
to kick out the rear window of the transporting patrol car despite
repeated warnings. This event was deemed justified on review.





>
>> He >must have had a weak heart... maybe helped along by some chemical recreational
>> aids.
>
> Perhaps. I doubt the coroner will find the passenger to have expired
> as a result of the Mounties arresting the passenger. It would be
> interesting to know where the darts hit the passenger.
>
> If it was across the chest, I can see how the Taser may have
> precipitated a heart attack.

I cant. A taser is not a defibrillator, nor a cardioverter. All use
electricity, but in different manners. The energy involved is much
different. The capacitors involved in medical devices such as external
defibrillators are larger than the entire taser device, and the energy
involved is orders of magnitude larger.

The energy flows from dart to dart and the path of least resistance is
across the skin and skeletal muscles. Lungs, bone and other tissues have
increased resistance, which is why so much more energy is used for
medical purposes such as defibrillation. You AIM a taser at the center
of mass.. so by definition you are aiming at the chest and back.


>
>> You consider controlling a berserk person abuse? What should the cops have
>> tried first? Time out?
>
> Mace? Wrestle him to the floor? A net? Something with less lethal
> potential than 100,000 volts?

Maybe they should try asking the suspect nicely and offer him a hug.

[Montblack]

("Larry Dighera" wrote)
> Mace? Wrestle him to the floor? A net? Something with less lethal
> potential than 100,000 volts?


This scene in Planet of The Apes (1968) comes to mind: Taylor breaks free
and is running around the Ape compound (he's scaring the little ones!)
Eventually, a net is dropped over him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRG6ahCs_t0
"Take your stinking paws off me, you damned dirty ape!"

NAC (Necessary Aviation Content)
Paper airplane in the courtroom scene


Montblack
<http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/ApesShip/Sci-Fi&FantasyModels38/IllustrationPage5-A.jpg>
Icarus Spaceship

[Dave S]

Dave S wrote:
> Larry Dighera wrote:

>>
>> Perhaps. I doubt the coroner will find the passenger to have expired
>> as a result of the Mounties arresting the passenger. It would be
>> interesting to know where the darts hit the passenger.
>> If it was across the chest, I can see how the Taser may have
>> precipitated a heart attack.
>
> I cant. A taser is not a defibrillator, nor a cardioverter. All use
> electricity, but in different manners. The energy involved is much
> different. The capacitors involved in medical devices such as external
> defibrillators are larger than the entire taser device, and the energy
> involved is orders of magnitude larger.


Larry.. for further comparison..

http://www.taser.org/specifications.html has some data.
Most specifically.. each individual energy pulse is 1.76 Joules.

When I use a defibrillator on a patient in cardiac arrest, the
recommended energy ranges are 200-360 joules per discharge. They have to
JUST to be able to get 5-10 joules of energy to the heart itself (which
is the range of energy that INTERNAL defibrillators run at - devices
that have DIRECT electrical contact with the heart. Notice again, the
taser only puts out less than 2 joules.

A police car strobe light runs about 10 joules per flash.

Aircraft strobes run in the 30 joule range

Does this put things in a perspective?

[Dave S]

S Green wrote:
> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> International arrivals were rerouted but there were no delays in
>> flight schedules.
>
> Cannot let the small matter of someone's death get in the way of business.
>
>

Cannot let the small matter of violent, disruptive behavior get in the
way of others safety.

[The Visitor[_2_]]

I the taser is so insignificant, why is it so devastating?

The handheld thing are usually applied to the spine.

Ouch.



Dave S wrote:
> Dave S wrote:
>
>> Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>> Perhaps. I doubt the coroner will find the passenger to have expired
>>> as a result of the Mounties arresting the passenger. It would be
>>> interesting to know where the darts hit the passenger. If it was
>>> across the chest, I can see how the Taser may have
>>> precipitated a heart attack.
>>
>>
>> I cant. A taser is not a defibrillator, nor a cardioverter. All use
>> electricity, but in different manners. The energy involved is much
>> different. The capacitors involved in medical devices such as external
>> defibrillators are larger than the entire taser device, and the energy
>> involved is orders of magnitude larger.
>
>
>
> Larry.. for further comparison..
>
> http://www.taser.org/specifications.html has some data.
> Most specifically.. each individual energy pulse is 1.76 Joules.
>
> When I use a defibrillator on a patient in cardiac arrest, the
> recommended energy ranges are 200-360 joules per discharge. They have to
> JUST to be able to get 5-10 joules of energy to the heart itself (which
> is the range of energy that INTERNAL defibrillators run at - devices
> that have DIRECT electrical contact with the heart. Notice again, the
> taser only puts out less than 2 joules.
>
> A police car strobe light runs about 10 joules per flash.
>
> Aircraft strobes run in the 30 joule range
>
> Does this put things in a perspective?

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 18:45:08 -0500, Dave S >
wrote in >:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 12:01:34 -0500, Dave S >
>> wrote in >:
>>
>>> Tazers have actually been proven to REDUCE injury rates overall, both in
>>> suspects
>>
>> Can you cite any evidence that supports that assertion?
>>
>>> AND in officers.. TREMENDOUSLY reduce them,
>>
>> I can see how that would be true.
>>
>>> and associated workers comp claims.
>>
>> Well, that's what's important. :-(
>>
>
>I will research that assertion and get back to you. Ive heard only
>third-hand but from personally credible individuals that this is the
>case where I live.
>
>Overall the turds get injured less, and the cops get injured less. I
>sincerely do not believe that the tasing itself is the causative factor
>in apprehensive deaths. Turds.. I mean "suspects".. as a general rule
>are directly responsible for the events leading to their apprehension,
>and if injured, directly responsbible for causing an incident to
>escalate to the point of their injury. Its really that simple.
>
>Practically every officer in my region, to carry a taser, has to be
>tased once: if this was lethal force, would they be doing that?
>
>The workers comp thing wasn't meant to be coy. Less injured cops means
>more police on the street, and more productive policing. Better use of
>YOUR tax dollars at protecting YOU.

[[email protected]]

And how do you _know_ it was water and not a WMD?

Cheers
>
> A couple of summers ago I flew he Mooney up to Vancouver. While at the
> park with the kids I saw a Canadian officer (mountie, not sure)
> walking around with a rather large gun. I thought this was interesting
> because I didn't know they carried guns. I got a little closer and
> realized what it was. No joke, it was a water gun!! Apparently he was
> using it to spray an annoying squirrel. I thought the sight was so
> funny I went back to the rental car to get my camera. Seeing me
> approach with the camera, the mountie seemed annoyed and walked off.
> How great would that have been to have caught a Canadian law
> enforcement officer walking around with a giant side arm that carried
> water!
>
> -Robert

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 18:58:59 -0500, Dave S >
wrote in >:

>>Have you
>> any idea how long a Taser is capable of sustained high-voltage output?
>
>Yes
>
>> Is it controllable by the LEO?
>
>In a fashion. Their only control with regards to this is to pull the
>trigger. On or off.
>
>Until a dart is removed, I would think the LEO could continue to apply
>high-voltage until the battery was exhausted.
>
>The ones in use in my locale (the 5 county area surrounding Houston,
>Texas, by numerous city and county LEO's) have a 5 second burst per
>trigger pull. They also have recording capability from a data standpoint.

As you didn't mention any requirement for periodic inspection and
certification of Tasers carried by LEOs, I presume that isn't
occurring. Is it not possible that Tasers in the field are being
operated beyond their specifications accidentally or deliberately?

Do you know specifically what data are recorded by the Taser?

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 19:08:36 -0500, Dave S >
wrote in >:

>Dave S wrote:
>> Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Perhaps. I doubt the coroner will find the passenger to have expired
>>> as a result of the Mounties arresting the passenger. It would be
>>> interesting to know where the darts hit the passenger.
>>> If it was across the chest, I can see how the Taser may have
>>> precipitated a heart attack.
>>
>> I cant. A taser is not a defibrillator, nor a cardioverter. All use
>> electricity, but in different manners. The energy involved is much
>> different. The capacitors involved in medical devices such as external
>> defibrillators are larger than the entire taser device, and the energy
>> involved is orders of magnitude larger.
>
>
>Larry.. for further comparison..
>
>http://www.taser.org/specifications.html has some data.
>Most specifically.. each individual energy pulse is 1.76 Joules.
>
>When I use a defibrillator on a patient in cardiac arrest, the
>recommended energy ranges are 200-360 joules per discharge. They have to
>JUST to be able to get 5-10 joules of energy to the heart itself (which
>is the range of energy that INTERNAL defibrillators run at - devices
>that have DIRECT electrical contact with the heart. Notice again, the
>taser only puts out less than 2 joules.
>
>A police car strobe light runs about 10 joules per flash.
>
>Aircraft strobes run in the 30 joule range
>
>Does this put things in a perspective?

Yes. It does. Thank you for the information. I meant to research
that.

I'm not sure how comparing a defibrillator to a Taser justifys using
Tasers on suspects, but I personally find such use dehumanizing and
hazardous.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 18:45:08 -0500, Dave S >
wrote in >:

>Turds.. I mean "suspects".. as a general rule
>are directly responsible for the events leading to their apprehension,
>and if injured, directly responsbible for causing an incident to
>escalate to the point of their injury. Its really that simple.

Don't get me wrong, but I find your attitude toward SUSPECTS less than
respectful, to say the least. I'm sure you have encountered many
suspects who deserve to be called much worse, but in the US they are
_innocent_ suspects, regardless of how you feel toward them and
regardless of what information you may have about them, until they
have been convicted in a court of law (yes, that's the law in Texas
too). Such an attitude reflects badly on LEOs in general, and it
speaks volumes ...

I saw a piece on the NBC Nightly News recently about a patrol of four
Navy Seals on a mission in Iraq. It told the story of the soldier
leading them, and how, in the face of them surely informing Al Qaeda
about their patrol, he release some Iraqi civilians that the patrol
encountered, rather than silence them in cold blood. Sure enough, Al
Qaeda was informed, and launched 200 soldiers against the four man US
patrol that resulted in the death of the Seal who had released the
civilians. Despite the deadly danger it placed him in, he knew what
was right and just, and did it despite personal risk. That noble Seal
embodies the spirit of American justice, and he makes me proud to be
an American.

It seems many of us have forgotten that we Americans are not like much
of the world; our determination to uphold justice and freedom used to
set us apart, until the current regime in power in this country
started approving of torturing prisoners, warrantless invasion of
privacy, and trampling on our Constitution.

The leader of our country, while he was governor of Texas, put more
"criminals" to death than all the rest of the states combined, IIRC.
Perhaps such disrespect for human life and moral justice is unique to
Texas or a result of shallow insight, but it is reprehensible none the
less. It saddens me to see America losing its way through the
darkness of tyranny and injustice, and joining the unenlightened in
trampling human dignity. It always starts at the top.

[Jay Honeck]

> The leader of our country, while he was governor of Texas, put more
> "criminals" to death than all the rest of the states combined, IIRC.
> Perhaps such disrespect for human life and moral justice is unique to
> Texas or a result of shallow insight, but it is reprehensible none the
> less. It saddens me to see America losing its way through the
> darkness of tyranny and injustice, and joining the unenlightened in
> trampling human dignity. It always starts at the top.

Your knowledge of American history shows definite signs of a
revisionist education.

It's only been in the last 30 years that Americans turned into the
pansies of the world. What you now call "justice" and "nobility" most
of the world called "stupid" and "ineffective".

>From the debacle at Desert One (under our now media-revered Jimmy
Carter) until we invaded Afghanistan, America was viewed world-wide as
the superpower that was afraid of a fight. Sure, we'd launch a few
F-111s to drop bombs on bedouins, but it was widely assumed by tyrants
and petty dictators that America was too shell-shocked from Viet Nam
to ever put boots on the ground.

Even the Coalition's stunning success in Kuwait, during Desert Storm,
didn't fully dispel the notion that we wouldn't fight back. Guys like
Sadaam and bin Laden were encouraged by our failure to finish the
job.

IMHO, it was this perception that made us susceptible to attack. The
Islamo-Fascists continued their ever-escalating attacks through 9/11,
when America was finally shaken from its slumber and began kicking
back. Since then, the terrorists have been completely neutralized --
truly a great, historic American victory.

Of course, the liberal media won't present it that way, perhaps ever.
Remember, this is the same group that can't see Korea and Viet Nam as
anything but "American meddling in civil wars." Students of history
understand the significance of these battles, and the fact that they
were, in fact, different fronts in our (victorious) decades-long Cold
War with the Soviet Union and China.

The pendulum has now swung back, perhaps too far the other way.
Sadly, this is normal, in a republic like ours. I suspect it will be
corrected at the next election cycle. (Although, of course, it is
hopelessly simplistic to believe that anything substantive will change
as the result of a presidential election.)

Either way, I completely sympathize with Dave's point of view. Our
society has a large segment of easily identified, blatantly arrogant
scum that make up the lion's share of criminal perps. The cops know
who they are, and anyone with a brain stem knows who they are -- yet
most of the time society is at their mercy until they get caught red-
handed.

It's the domestic version of TSA strip-searching an old lady in order
to look like they're not "profiling". We know who the enemy is, but
we force our gendarmes to put on a huge show of "fairness", even if it
means shaming ourselves and making the streets more dangerous.

Dealing with that segment day after day -- as our "Thin Blue Line"
does -- would harden anyone. The police have my utmost respect.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[karl gruber[_1_]]

> I'm not sure how comparing a defibrillator to a Taser justifys using
> Tasers on suspects, but I personally find such use dehumanizing and
> hazardous.


Perfect!

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-10-18 03:42:51 -0700, Larry Dighera > said:

> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 19:08:36 -0500, Dave S >
> wrote in >:
>
>> Dave S wrote:
>>> Larry Dighera wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps. I doubt the coroner will find the passenger to have expired
>>>> as a result of the Mounties arresting the passenger. It would be
>>>> interesting to know where the darts hit the passenger.
>>>> If it was across the chest, I can see how the Taser may have
>>>> precipitated a heart attack.
>>>
>>> I cant. A taser is not a defibrillator, nor a cardioverter. All use
>>> electricity, but in different manners. The energy involved is much
>>> different. The capacitors involved in medical devices such as external
>>> defibrillators are larger than the entire taser device, and the energy
>>> involved is orders of magnitude larger.
>>
>>
>> Larry.. for further comparison..
>>
>> http://www.taser.org/specifications.html has some data.
>> Most specifically.. each individual energy pulse is 1.76 Joules.
>>
>> When I use a defibrillator on a patient in cardiac arrest, the
>> recommended energy ranges are 200-360 joules per discharge. They have to
>> JUST to be able to get 5-10 joules of energy to the heart itself (which
>> is the range of energy that INTERNAL defibrillators run at - devices
>> that have DIRECT electrical contact with the heart. Notice again, the
>> taser only puts out less than 2 joules.
>>
>> A police car strobe light runs about 10 joules per flash.
>>
>> Aircraft strobes run in the 30 joule range
>>
>> Does this put things in a perspective?
>
> Yes. It does. Thank you for the information. I meant to research
> that.
>
> I'm not sure how comparing a defibrillator to a Taser justifys using
> Tasers on suspects, but I personally find such use dehumanizing and
> hazardous.

But you do not find pepper spray, wrestling him to the ground, or other
methods dehumanizing or hazardous?

Perhaps you are putting to fine a point on it, Larry. No matter how you
do it, forcibly rendering someone harmless and throwing him to the
ground is going to be dehumanizing and hazardous.

The pepper spray would definitely have forced evacuation of the whole
terminal until it was cleared, but it probably would not have stopped
the person from throwing his tantrum. Allowing him to continue the
tantrum would only have endangered others and their property, and he
probably would have died anyway. He died of emotional upset, not of a
Taser

Of course, there is always soma-gas. It was basically harmless, and no
one thought that the Brave New World was dehumanizing or hazardous, did
they?
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-10-17 17:00:29 -0700, "Montblack"
> said:

> ("Larry Dighera" wrote)
>> Mace? Wrestle him to the floor? A net? Something with less lethal
>> potential than 100,000 volts?
>
>
> This scene in Planet of The Apes (1968) comes to mind: Taylor breaks free
> and is running around the Ape compound (he's scaring the little ones!)
> Eventually, a net is dropped over him.

I think that point of that scene was that the Apes were treating him
like a wild animal. Was that not dehumanizing and hazardous?


--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Jose]

> We know who the enemy is, but
> we force our gendarmes to put on a huge show of "fairness", even if it
> means shaming ourselves and making the streets more dangerous.

Perhaps it's the one thing that prevents us from becoming one of them.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 06:44:42 -0700, Jay Honeck >
wrote in om>:

>> The leader of our country, while he was governor of Texas, put more
>> "criminals" to death than all the rest of the states combined, IIRC.
>> Perhaps such disrespect for human life and moral justice is unique to
>> Texas or a result of shallow insight, but it is reprehensible none the
>> less. It saddens me to see America losing its way through the
>> darkness of tyranny and injustice, and joining the unenlightened in
>> trampling human dignity. It always starts at the top.
>
>Your knowledge of American history shows definite signs of a
>revisionist education.
>
>It's only been in the last 30 years that Americans turned into the
>pansies of the world. What you now call "justice" and "nobility" most
>of the world called "stupid" and "ineffective".

Of course you can provide objective evidence to substantiate that
claim. :-)

That validity of that assertion wouldn't surprise me, but what the
rest of the world calls the uniquely egalitarian American system of
justice is not very relevant in light of their less-than-just systems.
In any event, just because most of the world is still in the dark ages
culturally, doesn't make their opinions more valid than ours; quite
the contrary.

>From the debacle at Desert One (under our now media-revered Jimmy
>Carter) until we invaded Afghanistan, America was viewed world-wide as
>the superpower that was afraid of a fight. Sure, we'd launch a few
>F-111s to drop bombs on bedouins, but it was widely assumed by tyrants
>and petty dictators that America was too shell-shocked from Viet Nam
>to ever put boots on the ground.

Even if that were true, it would have been an incorrect opinion
obviously. Someone I admire once said, "Walk softly, but carry a big
stick." I prefer that policy to tramping around loudly rattling
sabers (at enormous cost in lives and money) and having nothing but a
display of bravado to show for it in the end.

>Even the Coalition's stunning success in Kuwait, during Desert Storm,
>didn't fully dispel the notion that we wouldn't fight back.

I would characterize that policy of limited engagement as prudent,
effective, and smart.

>Guys like Sadaam and bin Laden were encouraged by our failure to finish
>the job.

What failure? The job was finished. Saddam was reduced to a
militarily impotent potentate keeping the "peace" in the middle east.
Now the equilibrium is upset, and fighting is breaking out in Turkey,
Lebanon, Syria, ..., and probably Iran, Jordan, and elsewhere soon.
Not too smart, if stability is an important part of the goal.

They were encouraged by the impediment American freedom and justice
poses to persecution of suspects prior to their committing a terrorist
attack. That is one of the prices of American freedom and justice.

>IMHO, it was this perception that made us susceptible to attack.

It was American lack of draconian security measures and despotism that
provided terrorists the window of vulnerability, and still does to a
lesser extent today, IMO.

>The
>Islamo-Fascists continued their ever-escalating attacks through 9/11,
>when America was finally shaken from its slumber and began kicking
>back.

Violence begets violence. America's reaction to attack is a natural
human one, but a THINKING leader could have found cheaper, less overt
and more effective methods to neutralize terrorist organizations (for
example not releasing the Bin Laden family to fly out of the country
during the grounding of all civil aircraft immediately after the
September 11, 2001 attacks), if that was truly his objective.

>Since then, the terrorists have been completely neutralized --
>truly a great, historic American victory.

Well, MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! :-)

Terrorism will never be neutralized. Where did you ever get that
idea?

Violence is the sole effective weapon against indifference the
disenfranchised possess. Until (and if) that changes, and the
Russians run out of weapons to supply our enemies, terrorism will
continue. How naïve can you be? (shaking head in incredulity)

>Of course, the liberal media won't present it that way, perhaps ever.

So you have firsthand information that contradicts the mainstream news
media? Tell me more...

>Remember, this is the same group that can't see Korea and Viet Nam as
>anything but "American meddling in civil wars." Students of history
>understand the significance of these battles, and the fact that they
>were, in fact, different fronts in our (victorious) decades-long Cold
>War with the Soviet Union and China.

That war still seems to be alive and well today to some extent. It
would be a mistake for America to believe that we have won a complete
victory in the cold war.

It is unfortunate indeed for America to have such an ineffectual
Gilligan at its helm during this important period in history. The
sooner he is replaced with an intelligent, knowledgeable and creative
leader that other world leaders can be seen publicly respecting
without fear of reprisal from their constituency, the sooner progress
toward peace may resume.

>The pendulum has now swung back, perhaps too far the other way.
>Sadly, this is normal, in a republic like ours. I suspect it will be
>corrected at the next election cycle. (Although, of course, it is
>hopelessly simplistic to believe that anything substantive will change
>as the result of a presidential election.)

As long as the same corrupt and inept people continue to occupy their
Congressional and Executive seats, little will change. Nothing is
going to correct the immense debt our nation has incurred, and is
currently incurring, to the tune of $2-1/2-billion weekly.

Imagine if that huge amount of money had been used toward reducing
class size, and increasing the skill level of personnel involved in
public education, real research to replace petroleum as our nation's
fuel of choice, infrastructure maintenance, and fundamental scientific
research, instead of being flushed down a toilet called Iraq. Our
nation would become invincible instead of insolvent. But oh well....

>Either way, I completely sympathize with Dave's point of view. Our
>society has a large segment of easily identified, blatantly arrogant
>scum that make up the lion's share of criminal perps. The cops know
>who they are, and anyone with a brain stem knows who they are -- yet
>most of the time society is at their mercy until they get caught red-
>handed.

I hope you never find yourself the subject of a police arrest by an
LEO who mistakes you for one of those "scum." Or perhaps it would be
a fitting irony.

Regardless, ALL persons deserve to be treated with respect and
dignity, even murders, felons, and even illiterate, impoverished
rednecks. The price of that respect isn't nearly as high as the price
of the Gestapo's lost of respect for citizens.

Perhaps you see the Amish, who forgave the killer who coldheartedly
murdered their children recently, as stupid. I see them as
enlightened and noble. We need to surmount or primal instincts and
use our intelligence to learn a lesson, IMO.

>It's the domestic version of TSA strip-searching an old lady in order
>to look like they're not "profiling". We know who the enemy is, but
>we force our gendarmes to put on a huge show of "fairness", even if it
>means shaming ourselves and making the streets more dangerous.

A lack of arrests doesn't increase street hazards; it just doesn't
reduce them.

Because you haven't lived under an arbitrary system of (in)justice
that behaves as you seem to prefer (guilty until proven innocent), you
don't really have any idea of the consequences of what you seem to be
proposing.

>Dealing with that segment day after day -- as our "Thin Blue Line"
>does -- would harden anyone.

Agreed. It's evident in the attitude of many LEOs.

>The police have my utmost respect.

Some do and some don't. When I see a LEO needlessly using his
authority and might as an excuse to vent his vicious tendencies
against a helpless citizen overwhelmed by blue-suits, or the planting
of evidence on suspects as occurred in the LAPD Rampart case*, it
makes me cringe, and it should make you feel the same.

Perhaps the situation is different where you are, but citizens in Los
Angeles County and neighboring counties have almost as much to fear
from the LEOs as they do from gangsters and criminals.

It's time the people of our nation halt its progress toward
intolerance, retreat from the rule of law and justice, and demand they
be respected as set forth in our nation's Constitution: all created
equal. As soon as a privileged class exempt from obeying the law
emerges, the beginning of anarchy will be neigh.
</soapbox>


In any event, it is unfortunate that the unruly airline passenger (who
apparently threatened no one) died at the hands of Mounties in the
airline terminal. The incident should serve as impetus to refine
arrest methods and procedures.



* http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/lapd/scandal/cron.html

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 09:57:39 -0700, C J Campbell
> wrote in
<2007101809573916807-christophercampbell@hotmailcom>:

>He died of emotional upset, not of a Taser

I hadn't realized you personally conducted an autopsy on the foreign
airline passenger. I guess I'll have to defer to your superior
knowledge of the issue. :-)

Are you able to provide a credible citation that supports your
assertion?

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 09:57:39 -0700, C J Campbell
> > wrote in
> <2007101809573916807-christophercampbell@hotmailcom>:
>
>> He died of emotional upset, not of a Taser
>
> I hadn't realized you personally conducted an autopsy on the foreign
> airline passenger. I guess I'll have to defer to your superior
> knowledge of the issue. :-)
>
> Are you able to provide a credible citation that supports your
> assertion?


Since when does he need facts to make an assertion? I refer to the subject line
of this thread, which as I recall was chosen by you. You apparently have access
to information denied to the rest of us.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Montblack]

("Larry Dighera" wrote)
> The leader of our country, while he was governor of Texas, put more
> "criminals" to death than all the rest of the states combined, IIRC.
> Perhaps such disrespect for human life and moral justice is unique to
> Texas or a result of shallow insight, but it is reprehensible none the
> less. It saddens me to see America losing its way through the
> darkness of tyranny and injustice, and joining the unenlightened in
> trampling human dignity. It always starts at the top.


I see no difference between hitting the beaches at Normandy and hitting the
switch for the electric chair - both are necessary in combating
....."evil-doers".


Montblack

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-10-18 10:41:54 -0700, Larry Dighera > said:

> On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 09:57:39 -0700, C J Campbell
> > wrote in
> <2007101809573916807-christophercampbell@hotmailcom>:
>
>> He died of emotional upset, not of a Taser
>
> I hadn't realized you personally conducted an autopsy on the foreign
> airline passenger. I guess I'll have to defer to your superior
> knowledge of the issue. :-)

Ah. And I suppose you performed an autopsy before claiming that the
Mounties electrocuted him.

>
> Are you able to provide a credible citation that supports your
> assertion?

Are you?
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 14:53:57 -0400, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
<mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote in
>:

>You apparently have access to information denied to the rest of us.

To which specific information are you referring?

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-10-18 03:59:07 -0700, Larry Dighera > said:

>
> It seems many of us have forgotten that we Americans are not like much
> of the world; our determination to uphold justice and freedom used to
> set us apart, until the current regime in power in this country
> started approving of torturing prisoners, warrantless invasion of
> privacy, and trampling on our Constitution.
>
> The leader of our country, while he was governor of Texas, put more
> "criminals" to death than all the rest of the states combined, IIRC.
> Perhaps such disrespect for human life and moral justice is unique to
> Texas or a result of shallow insight, but it is reprehensible none the
> less. It saddens me to see America losing its way through the
> darkness of tyranny and injustice, and joining the unenlightened in
> trampling human dignity. It always starts at the top.

Which President did NOT order people tortured, detained without trial,
or snooped upon?

Wiretaps for a long time required no court order at all; they were
regularly used by the likes of Eliot Ness.

Now, perhaps you can give an example of a prisoner that was tortured
and the current administration actually approved of it?
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[NW_Pilot]

I Don't blame the guy that guy for going mad! US Customs or Department Of
Homeland (un)Security held me on 10/14 at that same airport promised to help
me get another flight if they detained me to long and missed my flight,
after I missed my flight almost 2 hours isolated I knew it was going to be a
long day answering dumb questions. Asked for some water after two and a half
hours of sitting I belive the customs agent tried to gave me toilet water.

Where were you born?
Why are you in Canada?
Who was your Client?
Who booked Your Flight?
Where did he live?
Who was the aircraft owner?
Do you have Proof who owned it?
Can we go and inspect this aircraft?
Where did you stay?
Why were you in Lebanon?
What were you doing in Angola & South Africa?
We believe your lying you cannot fly a Cessna 172 or a Piper across the
Atlantic please explain to us how it's done!
Did you Hear or see any anti-American activities when you were in Lebanon?
Why were you in Lebanon again?
Where did you stat & what did you do when you were there?
Are you a part of any organizations?
What's Baja Bush Pilots?
Isn't that an organization?
Do you have any Fire Arms? If So where are they located?
How often do you go to Mexico?
Who's your contact in Nicaragua?
Were you given any envelopes or audio recordings to bring back?
What on there unlabeled disks in your baggage?
Would you mind if we downloaded your address book from your phone and
laptop?
Do you have any plans to overthrow the federal government?
Explain to us again how you fly a 172 over the Atlantic ocean?
Dose the government know you are loading up that much fuel in a airplane?
Have you ever been approached to provide any flight instruction while in
Africa specifically Angola or Senegal?

Here is IBIS (Interagency Border Inspection System) fact sheet and a comment
card have a nice day?

What about my flight home? You need to go talk to your airline we cannot
help you with that good luck snicker snicker snicker!
Sir no your exit is this way? You have to finish airport security?
I need to check my bag!
Sorry sir you cannot check a bag for a flight that has already left! If you
do not continue to airport security we will be forced to detain you untill
monday!

A long day continues, I lost $250.00 worth of tools and stuff that was in my
normally checked bag as it was not allowed to be in carry on baggages becuse
they would not let me check it!!! Security tried to tell me I had to many
carry on's finally let me go after yet another U.S. customs search and
explainiation to supervisor. Alaska was friendly and let me on a later
flight was the last one for the night.

I am about ready to start walking across the border to get back in because
would be way simpler. This makes 4 times I have been arrested going through
U.S. customs to get back in the U.S. In orlando they held every one on the
plane and arrested me in front of all. They still cannot believe a 172 can
fly over the Atlantic, that it's illegal to fly tanked up and they always
ask the same questions.

I should have never taken the Lebanon Trip!!!! But it was Fun... Not worth
this customs hassle though.








"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Is airline passenger abuse on the rise as a result of passenger
> reaction to airline delays?
>
>
> http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2007/10/14/bc-taser.html?ref=rss
>
> Man dies after Taser shock by police at Vancouver airport
> Last Updated: Sunday, October 14, 2007 | 5:04 PM ET
>
> A man in his 40s died early Sunday morning after RCMP jolted him with
> a Taser at the Vancouver International Airport, police said.
>
> Airport security called the Mounties for assistance after an
> unidentified man began pounding on windows and throwing chairs and
> computer equipment in the customs area shortly after arriving on an
> international flight at 1:30 a.m., Richmond RCMP Sgt. Pierre Lemaitre
> told CBC News.
>
> "We arrived and tried to calm the man," Lemaitre said. "We tried
> through gestures to get him to put his hands down on the desk . to no
> avail."
>
> When he ignored orders to calm down, police used a stun gun on the
> man.
>
> The man dropped to the floor and police said it took three officers to
> handcuff him. He then lost consciousness and appeared to go into
> cardiac arrest and was pronounced dead at the airport, the CBC's Chris
> Brown reported.
>
> Few other details have been disclosed other than the man spoke an
> Eastern European language and a flight from Poland touched down about
> an hour before the incident, Brown said.
>
> Taser devices are controversial because of the dozen North American
> deaths resulting from their use. There has been debate about how safe
> these devices are when dealing with certain kinds of people who are
> delirious or wound up, Brown said.
>
> Police are investigating and a toxicology report will be done to
> determine whether there were drugs in the man's system. They will be
> interviewing customs officers and flight attendants, Brown reported.
>
> International arrivals were rerouted but there were no delays in
> flight schedules.
>

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 14:53:57 -0400, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
> <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote in
> >:
>
>> You apparently have access to information denied to the rest of us.
>
> To which specific information are you referring?


You chose the inflamatory word "electrocute". Do you know this for a fact? We
know the suspect was tazored but that is not the same as "electrocute". If it
were, the state would just tazor its inmates on death row. Look at all the
money we could save on electric chairs.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Jim Logajan]

"Montblack" > wrote:
> I see no difference between hitting the beaches at Normandy and
> hitting the switch for the electric chair - both are necessary in
> combating ...."evil-doers".

Are you sure its been generally agreed that it is okay to execute
prisoners-of-war? That's seems to be the moral equation you are accidently
implying. Wouldn't executing soldiers who surrender make surrender much
less common and battles cost many more lives, among other causal affects?

In other words, for the purposes of establishing moral code, one may
classify two sets (of probably many) of environments involved both for war
and for crime:

War: Active combat and post-surrender.
Crime: Active criminal activity and post-arrest.

An additional problem is that not all active criminal activity warrants
execution. Unless you don't mind being executed for minor traffic
violations, among other often broken laws.

[Montblack]

("C J Campbell" wrote)
> I think that point of that scene was that the Apes were treating him like
> a wild animal. Was that not dehumanizing and hazardous?


Yes, dehumanizing, and yes, hazardous.

"Don't Tase Me, Bro!" ....Good - most of the time.

Netting by security apes ....Bad - most of the time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRG6ahCs_t0
"Take your stinking paws off me, you damned dirty ape!"


Montblack
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDTkTAo_l2g&NR=1
"Don't tase me, bro!"

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 14:10:36 -0700, C J Campbell
> wrote in
<2007101814103675249-christophercampbell@hotmailcom>:

>On 2007-10-18 10:41:54 -0700, Larry Dighera > said:
>
>> On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 09:57:39 -0700, C J Campbell
>> > wrote in
>> <2007101809573916807-christophercampbell@hotmailcom>:
>>
>>> He died of emotional upset, not of a Taser
>>
>> I hadn't realized you personally conducted an autopsy on the foreign
>> airline passenger. I guess I'll have to defer to your superior
>> knowledge of the issue. :-)
>
>Ah. And I suppose you performed an autopsy before claiming that the
>Mounties electrocuted him.
>

I'll agree. The subject is phrased sensationally, but reasonably
accurately if the facts in the news stories I have read are correct.

>>
>> Are you able to provide a credible citation that supports your
>> assertion?
>
>Are you?

I posted a link or two to news articles up-thread, IIRC.

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 14:15:12 -0700, C J Campbell
> wrote in
<2007101814151250073-christophercampbell@hotmailcom>:

>On 2007-10-18 03:59:07 -0700, Larry Dighera > said:
>
>>
>> It seems many of us have forgotten that we Americans are not like much
>> of the world; our determination to uphold justice and freedom used to
>> set us apart, until the current regime in power in this country
>> started approving of torturing prisoners, warrantless invasion of
>> privacy, and trampling on our Constitution.
>>
>> The leader of our country, while he was governor of Texas, put more
>> "criminals" to death than all the rest of the states combined, IIRC.
>> Perhaps such disrespect for human life and moral justice is unique to
>> Texas or a result of shallow insight, but it is reprehensible none the
>> less. It saddens me to see America losing its way through the
>> darkness of tyranny and injustice, and joining the unenlightened in
>> trampling human dignity. It always starts at the top.
>
>Which President did NOT order people tortured, detained without trial,
>or snooped upon?
>
>Wiretaps for a long time required no court order at all; they were
>regularly used by the likes of Eliot Ness.

The problems with warrantless acquisition of private information, the
way I see it, are several. Consider the length of time the data are
archived, the potential for inappropriate use of private information
to influence a jury member, or profit in the stock market, or worse,
the violation of the fourth Constitutional amendment, the lack of due
process, the lack of security of government databases that seem to be
routinely misplaced in notebook computers, ... What steps has the
government implemented to address those issues?

Thinking people comprehend the inappropriateness of this invasion of
privacy in a twinkling. I haven't heard any convincing argument to
justify not obtaining a warrant; surely provisions could be made for
warrants to be easily accomplished. But then there would be records
and the attendant accountability and oversight...


>Now, perhaps you can give an example of a prisoner that was tortured
>and the current administration actually approved of it?

From what I believe to be reasonably accurate news reports from major
networks, I have heard that water-boarding (partial drowning) was used
and authorized by the current chief Executive office holder in a
letter. In an interview I saw last night, the new Attorney General
indicated that he considers warrantless wiretaps unconstitutional,
illegal, and a mistake that needs to be remedied pronto. That's good
enough for me.

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 14:16:21 -0700, "NW_Pilot"
> wrote in
>:

>I am about ready to start walking across the border to get back in because
>would be way simpler.

I'm sorry for the abuse you are suffering at the hands of government
minions, but it is ironic that you could probably easily cross the
border on foot!

Not only that, I recently heard that Bush signed an agreement with our
two bordering neighbors to form some sort of trading consortium
similar to the EU and "eliminate" the borders between the US and them!
I haven't researched that yet.

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 17:25:42 -0400, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
<mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote in
>:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 14:53:57 -0400, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
>> <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote in
>> >:
>>
>>> You apparently have access to information denied to the rest of us.
>>
>> To which specific information are you referring?
>
>
>You chose the inflamatory word "electrocute". Do you know this for a fact? We
>know the suspect was tazored but that is not the same as "electrocute". If it
>were, the state would just tazor its inmates on death row. Look at all the
>money we could save on electric chairs.

You are correct. I misused the word. I'm guilty of yellow journalism
at this point in time, but it's not over yet.

[Jay Honeck]

> >It's only been in the last 30 years that Americans turned into the
> >pansies of the world. What you now call "justice" and "nobility" most
> >of the world called "stupid" and "ineffective".
>
> Of course you can provide objective evidence to substantiate that
> claim. :-)

Yep. A prime example was called "The failed Clinton Administration."

> In any event, just because most of the world is still in the dark ages
> culturally, doesn't make their opinions more valid than ours; quite
> the contrary.

Agree 100%, but we're not talking about opinions, we're talking about
actions. The 1990s weres a period of American inactivity and
impotence that set the stage for 9/11.

> Even if that were true, it would have been an incorrect opinion
> obviously. Someone I admire once said, "Walk softly, but carry a big
> stick."

Teddy Roosevelt well understood the concept of power diplomacy.
Sadly, Clinton and his "launch a cruise missile to divert media
attention from Monica's stained dress" strategy only showed bin Laden
and his ilk that Americans were more concerned with blow jobs than
terrorists.

> I prefer that policy to tramping around loudly rattling
> sabers (at enormous cost in lives and money) and having nothing but a
> display of bravado to show for it in the end.

What "policy"? Do you actually think that Clinton's approach was a
"policy"? You have clearly mistaken a president reacting to the
latest opinion polls for policy-making and leadership.

Clinton never led anything or anyone. He followed the polls, period.
He was immensely popular with our allies because he asked for -- and
did -- precisely nothing. He was a nice-talking, chubby stuffed
shirt that they could put on their podiums without fear of making
waves, or stirring thought. He spoke in platitudes, and proposed good-
sounding, unrealistic tripe that no one could object to, because
everyone knew it was just silly stuff.

He was a feel-good guy in a feel-good time -- and he utterly failed to
see the storm brewing.

> >Even the Coalition's stunning success in Kuwait, during Desert Storm,
> >didn't fully dispel the notion that we wouldn't fight back.
>
> I would characterize that policy of limited engagement as prudent,
> effective, and smart.

Sadly, our enemies did not concur with your assessment.

> >Guys like Sadaam and bin Laden were encouraged by our failure to finish
> >the job.
>
> What failure? The job was finished. Saddam was reduced to a
> militarily impotent potentate keeping the "peace" in the middle east.

Right. Saddam was able to spin our "retreat" after Desert Storm into
a "victory" that only cemented his place in Middle Eastern
hierarchy. He was the guy who had successfully stuck his thumb in
the eye of the Superpower, and got away with it.

Apparently you have already forgotten the way he took great pride and
pleasure with throwing out the completely impotent United Nations
"inspectors" -- making the US (and UN) the laughing stock of the
world...

Invading Iraq has been precisely as costly as the military knew it
would be, given the relatively tiny commitment we were willing to
make. Personally, I would have much preferred taking out Saddam's
palaces with massive air raids, and then installing a puppet
government like the British used to do. Sadly, that would have taken
many more troops than we were willing to commit.

Had we followed the British recipe, we would be on our way home by
now... Now, we can only follow the strategy of fomenting unrest
between ethnic and religous groups under the cover of democratic
reform (also a British strategy, BTW) -- which will ultimately work
but will be MUCH messier.

> Now the equilibrium is upset, and fighting is breaking out in Turkey,
> Lebanon, Syria, ..., and probably Iran, Jordan, and elsewhere soon.
> Not too smart, if stability is an important part of the goal.

"Fighting is breaking out" in the Middle East? Stop the presses!

:-)

> Violence begets violence. America's reaction to attack is a natural
> human one, but a THINKING leader could have found cheaper, less overt
> and more effective methods to neutralize terrorist organizations (for
> example not releasing the Bin Laden family to fly out of the country
> during the grounding of all civil aircraft immediately after the
> September 11, 2001 attacks), if that was truly his objective.

I don't think it's possible to argue with success. The fact that we
have not been attacked since 9/11, despite massive efforts by the
enemy, speaks volumes as to the effectiveness of our strategy.

> >Since then, the terrorists have been completely neutralized --
> >truly a great, historic American victory.
>
> Well, MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! :-)
>
> Terrorism will never be neutralized. Where did you ever get that
> idea?

Of course it's an ongoing battle, with fluid tactics on all sides.

But I think it's safe and proper to declare "victory" every five years
or so. Pat yourself on the back and then get back to the war... We
have "won" the first five rounds.

> Violence is the sole effective weapon against indifference the
> disenfranchised possess. Until (and if) that changes, and the
> Russians run out of weapons to supply our enemies, terrorism will
> continue. How naïve can you be? (shaking head in incredulity)

Which "indifference"? Ours? Theirs?

Terrorism will continue until the futility of it all is made clear to
our enemies. It will not stop one minute before that revelation is
made.

> >Of course, the liberal media won't present it that way, perhaps ever.
>
> So you have firsthand information that contradicts the mainstream news
> media? Tell me more...

You don't seriously believe that the mainstream media would *ever*
report success in the war on terror, do you? I really didn't think
you were *that* naive!

I spent 21 years in newspapers, working closely with the newsrooms. I
can personally attest to the fact that there wasn't a card-carrying
conservative in the newsrooms at any of the four newpapers I worked
for and with. These people would rather die than admit that ANYTHING
G.W. Bush is doing might be working.

Bottom line: Bush can claim victory until America is successfully
attacked again. That's the only measurable in this war.

> >Remember, this is the same group that can't see Korea and Viet Nam as
> >anything but "American meddling in civil wars." Students of history
> >understand the significance of these battles, and the fact that they
> >were, in fact, different fronts in our (victorious) decades-long Cold
> >War with the Soviet Union and China.
>
> That war still seems to be alive and well today to some extent. It
> would be a mistake for America to believe that we have won a complete
> victory in the cold war.

True enough. Russia seems to be stumbling back onto the world stage,
like a drunk after a 3-day bender. And, of course, China has
discovered the way to beat us at our own game. But they are hardly
the same country as Mao's Red China....

> It is unfortunate indeed for America to have such an ineffectual
> Gilligan at its helm during this important period in history. The
> sooner he is replaced with an intelligent, knowledgeable and creative
> leader that other world leaders can be seen publicly respecting
> without fear of reprisal from their constituency, the sooner progress
> toward peace may resume.

If by "peace" you mean "retreat" and if by "creative" you mean
"isolationist", I agree. Cuz that's precisely what is coming down the
pike... If our next president is a Democrat, that is.

> As long as the same corrupt and inept people continue to occupy their
> Congressional and Executive seats, little will change.

You still haven't come to grips with the fact that our government is
only marginally controlled by elected officials? It's the "corrupt
and inept" career bureaucrats who run virtually EVERYTHING, and
patiently roll their eyes every time some new Gomer is elected,
knowing full-well that they are invulnerable to every attempt at
"reform". All they have to do is bide their time, and wait for the
next group of Congress-critters to roll into town, not knowing where
the rest rooms are...

Until THAT changes, NOTHING will change.

> Imagine if that huge amount of money had been used toward reducing
> class size, and increasing the skill level of personnel involved in
> public education, real research to replace petroleum as our nation's
> fuel of choice, infrastructure maintenance, and fundamental scientific
> research, instead of being flushed down a toilet called Iraq. Our
> nation would become invincible instead of insolvent. But oh well....

Or the space program. Or any of a zillion other things. Or -- better
yet -- let "We the People" actually KEEP our money? Wouldn't THAT be
nice?

> I hope you never find yourself the subject of a police arrest by an
> LEO who mistakes you for one of those "scum." Or perhaps it would be
> a fitting irony.

You need to ride with a cop for a week or two, preferably at night,
preferably in the inner city of a medium-sized (or larger) American
city. Within ten minutes you will be able to pick out the bad guys,
and even you will shake your head at how they control the streets.

Then let's talk all your nice feel-good BS, and we'll see how it
stands up to real-world scrutiny.

> Regardless, ALL persons deserve to be treated with respect and
> dignity, even murders, felons, and even illiterate, impoverished
> rednecks. The price of that respect isn't nearly as high as the price
> of the Gestapo's lost of respect for citizens.

No one said anything about not treating them with respect or
dignity. That has NOTHING to do with taking back our streets, and
our inner cities.

It's quite possible to treat perps with dignity and respect, as you
walk them into a prison cell.

> Perhaps you see the Amish, who forgave the killer who coldheartedly
> murdered their children recently, as stupid. I see them as
> enlightened and noble. We need to surmount or primal instincts and
> use our intelligence to learn a lesson, IMO.

Forgiveness is an admirable trait; it has nothing to do with
justice. I would forgive someone who stole my car -- but I would also
demand they do prison time.

> A lack of arrests doesn't increase street hazards; it just doesn't
> reduce them.

WTF? With that way of thinking why have police at all? Let's just
forgive all the bad guys, and quit ****ing away billions on police and
prisons.

> Because you haven't lived under an arbitrary system of (in)justice
> that behaves as you seem to prefer (guilty until proven innocent), you
> don't really have any idea of the consequences of what you seem to be
> proposing.

I want a fair and equitable legal system. Right now, the perps have
all the "rights" while the victims are ignored or worse. The pendulum
needs to swing...again.

> >The police have my utmost respect.
>
> Some do and some don't. When I see a LEO needlessly using his
> authority and might as an excuse to vent his vicious tendencies
> against a helpless citizen overwhelmed by blue-suits, or the planting
> of evidence on suspects as occurred in the LAPD Rampart case*, it
> makes me cringe, and it should make you feel the same.
>
> Perhaps the situation is different where you are, but citizens in Los
> Angeles County and neighboring counties have almost as much to fear
> from the LEOs as they do from gangsters and criminals.

People in Los Angeles County have turned paradise into the hell-hole
it is today -- an area where no good citizen may tread without fearing
for their life.

If the people there fear the police more than gangsters, I think it's
pretty clear why. Or are you that naive?

> It's time the people of our nation halt its progress toward
> intolerance, retreat from the rule of law and justice, and demand they
> be respected as set forth in our nation's Constitution: all created
> equal. As soon as a privileged class exempt from obeying the law
> emerges, the beginning of anarchy will be neigh.

The only "privileged class" that exists in our society today are the
inner city criminals who so out-number the police that the streets are
like Baghdad, where the "good guys" can only control areas for a few
hours before retreating to safe havens. This "class" knows full well
that they are immune from justice, cannot be prosecuted, and are able
to terrorize and convert any good folks who may still live in their
neighborhoods.

It's a national catastrophe that BOTH parties are ignoring -- with
ultimately long-term horrendous consequences.

> In any event, it is unfortunate that the unruly airline passenger (who
> apparently threatened no one) died at the hands of Mounties in the
> airline terminal. The incident should serve as impetus to refine
> arrest methods and procedures.

Agree.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-10-18 16:50:42 -0700, Larry Dighera > said:

> On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 14:15:12 -0700, C J Campbell
> > wrote in
> <2007101814151250073-christophercampbell@hotmailcom>:
>
>> On 2007-10-18 03:59:07 -0700, Larry Dighera > said:
>>
>>>
>>> It seems many of us have forgotten that we Americans are not like much
>>> of the world; our determination to uphold justice and freedom used to
>>> set us apart, until the current regime in power in this country
>>> started approving of torturing prisoners, warrantless invasion of
>>> privacy, and trampling on our Constitution.
>>>
>>> The leader of our country, while he was governor of Texas, put more
>>> "criminals" to death than all the rest of the states combined, IIRC.
>>> Perhaps such disrespect for human life and moral justice is unique to
>>> Texas or a result of shallow insight, but it is reprehensible none the
>>> less. It saddens me to see America losing its way through the
>>> darkness of tyranny and injustice, and joining the unenlightened in
>>> trampling human dignity. It always starts at the top.
>>
>> Which President did NOT order people tortured, detained without trial,
>> or snooped upon?
>>
>> Wiretaps for a long time required no court order at all; they were
>> regularly used by the likes of Eliot Ness.
>
> The problems with warrantless acquisition of private information, the
> way I see it, are several. Consider the length of time the data are
> archived, the potential for inappropriate use of private information
> to influence a jury member, or profit in the stock market, or worse,
> the violation of the fourth Constitutional amendment, the lack of due
> process, the lack of security of government databases that seem to be
> routinely misplaced in notebook computers, ... What steps has the
> government implemented to address those issues?
>
> Thinking people comprehend the inappropriateness of this invasion of
> privacy in a twinkling. I haven't heard any convincing argument to
> justify not obtaining a warrant; surely provisions could be made for
> warrants to be easily accomplished. But then there would be records
> and the attendant accountability and oversight...

You realize that *all* the NSA wiretaps are approved by a judge? People
are not going around listening in on Democratic Party headquarters, you
know. I find that the paranoia of the left wing Bush haters is every
bit as disturbing as the paranoia of the right wing Clinton haters. It
is paranoia. It is not an expression of patriotism or a desire for
civil liberties.

Perhaps you would like to explain how Clinton's or Roosevelt's or
Kennedy's or Truman's trampling on civil rights but that Bush or Nixon
or McCarthy or Eisenhower are somehow different? Frankly, if someone
like Roosevelt was in office, you would have been arrested for treason
long ago.

>
>
>> Now, perhaps you can give an example of a prisoner that was tortured
>> and the current administration actually approved of it?
>
> From what I believe to be reasonably accurate news reports from major
> networks, I have heard that water-boarding (partial drowning) was used
> and authorized by the current chief Executive office holder in a
> letter. In an interview I saw last night, the new Attorney General
> indicated that he considers warrantless wiretaps unconstitutional,
> illegal, and a mistake that needs to be remedied pronto. That's good
> enough for me.

The only people who have held that water-boarding is torture is
anti-war extremists. In fact, all military personnel are subjected to
water-boarding as part of their resistance training nowadays.

Wiretapping, IIRC, is not torture. There never were any warrantless
wiretaps. That was one of the criticisms of Gonzales from the left --
that the warrants he was getting were made under duress. You can't say
that and then say there are no warrants.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-10-18 16:29:04 -0700, Larry Dighera > said:

> On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 14:10:36 -0700, C J Campbell
> > wrote in
> <2007101814103675249-christophercampbell@hotmailcom>:
>
>> On 2007-10-18 10:41:54 -0700, Larry Dighera > said:
>>
>>> On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 09:57:39 -0700, C J Campbell
>>> > wrote in
>>> <2007101809573916807-christophercampbell@hotmailcom>:
>>>
>>>> He died of emotional upset, not of a Taser
>>>
>>> I hadn't realized you personally conducted an autopsy on the foreign
>>> airline passenger. I guess I'll have to defer to your superior
>>> knowledge of the issue. :-)
>>
>> Ah. And I suppose you performed an autopsy before claiming that the
>> Mounties electrocuted him.
>>
>
> I'll agree. The subject is phrased sensationally, but reasonably
> accurately if the facts in the news stories I have read are correct.
>
>>>
>>> Are you able to provide a credible citation that supports your
>>> assertion?
>>
>> Are you?
>
> I posted a link or two to news articles up-thread, IIRC.

Those news articles do not support an assertion that the Mounties
killed anybody.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Larry Dighera wrote:
>> You chose the inflamatory word "electrocute". Do you know this for a fact?
>> We know the suspect was tazored but that is not the same as "electrocute".
>> If it were, the state would just tazor its inmates on death row. Look at
>> all the money we could save on electric chairs.
>
> You are correct. I misused the word. I'm guilty of yellow journalism
> at this point in time, but it's not over yet.


Thank you for doing us the courtesy of answering civilly. I suppose if yellow
journalism is the worst you ever do, it's not such an awful world after all.
<G>



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Jim Logajan]

C J Campbell > wrote:
> The only people who have held that water-boarding is torture is
> anti-war extremists.

I never knew that John McCain was an anti-war extremist. You learn the
darndest things on Usenet!

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-10-18 14:16:21 -0700, "NW_Pilot"
> said:

> I Don't blame the guy that guy for going mad! US Customs or Department Of
> Homeland (un)Security held me on 10/14 at that same airport promised to help
> me get another flight if they detained me to long and missed my flight,
> after I missed my flight almost 2 hours isolated I knew it was going to be a
> long day answering dumb questions. Asked for some water after two and a half
> hours of sitting I belive the customs agent tried to gave me toilet water.

Sounds like you need a lawyer.


--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Jim Logajan]

C J Campbell > wrote:
> On 2007-10-18 14:16:21 -0700, "NW_Pilot"
> > said:
>
>> I Don't blame the guy that guy for going mad! US Customs or
>> Department Of Homeland (un)Security held me on 10/14 at that same
>> airport promised to help me get another flight if they detained me to
>> long and missed my flight, after I missed my flight almost 2 hours
>> isolated I knew it was going to be a long day answering dumb
>> questions. Asked for some water after two and a half hours of sitting
>> I belive the customs agent tried to gave me toilet water.
>
> Sounds like you need a lawyer.

That would just yield an expensive cup of toilet water.

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-10-18 19:28:47 -0700, Jim Logajan > said:

> C J Campbell > wrote:
>> On 2007-10-18 14:16:21 -0700, "NW_Pilot"
>> > said:
>>
>>> I Don't blame the guy that guy for going mad! US Customs or
>>> Department Of Homeland (un)Security held me on 10/14 at that same
>>> airport promised to help me get another flight if they detained me to
>>> long and missed my flight, after I missed my flight almost 2 hours
>>> isolated I knew it was going to be a long day answering dumb
>>> questions. Asked for some water after two and a half hours of sitting
>>> I belive the customs agent tried to gave me toilet water.
>>
>> Sounds like you need a lawyer.
>
> That would just yield an expensive cup of toilet water.

I hear toilet water is a great cure for the hiccups.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-10-18 19:21:40 -0700, Jim Logajan > said:

> C J Campbell > wrote:
>> The only people who have held that water-boarding is torture is
>> anti-war extremists.
>
> I never knew that John McCain was an anti-war extremist. You learn the
> darndest things on Usenet!

I forgot about that bigoted imbecile.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[BDS]

"Airbus" > wrote...
> In article <79d4c007f0701@uwe>, u33403@uwe says...
>
> >
> >Pretty simple.
> >
> >Don't throw sh*t at the airport... stay alive.
> >
>
> Why yes, that's very simple indeed. If I'm doing the math right, the
> corollary is : "Throw something at the airport = Death Penalty. . ." Nice
> to have things simple.

You have the formula wrong.

BDS

[Airbus]

In article <79d4c007f0701@uwe>, u33403@uwe says...

>
>Pretty simple.
>
>Don't throw sh*t at the airport... stay alive.
>

Why yes, that's very simple indeed. If I'm doing the math right, the
corollary is : "Throw something at the airport = Death Penalty. . ." Nice
to have things simple.



I really don't get the part about re-routing international arrivals!
Can't make up my mind whether they're worried about the taser-happy
Mountie, bouyed by his success, going after further international
arrivals passengers . . .

Or is it theat they felt the unruly passenger may be part of a
conspiracy,and his co-conspirators may be arrioving on following flights,
and before you know it hundreds of airport chairs would be hurtling
across Canada causing untold damage and increasing broken glass insurance
rates . . .

[Airbus]

In article >, says...
>
>
>Larry Dighera wrote:
>> Is airline passenger abuse on the rise as a result of passenger
>> reaction to airline delays?


>
>Tazers have actually been proven to REDUCE injury rates overall, both in
>suspects AND in officers.. TREMENDOUSLY reduce them, and associated
>workers comp claims.



I am confident that competent experts and due process will determine whether
excessive or inappropriate force was used to subdue the gentleman (do I sound
confident?)

The guy certainly had a problem, and would appear to be an excellent candidate
for denial of entry to the country, if such was his intention. After all, if he
cannot even get out of the arrivals lounge before the fixtures start flying,
then this is an exemplary opportunity to nip one in the bud!

On the other hand - he may have suffered abuse as a child. Perhaps, in his
youth, he was forced to take repeated flights on Iberia Airlines. Now, years
later, every time he flies the rage resurfaces from that psychological
mistreatment buried deep within. In this case we have no choice but to view him
as a perpetrator and victim . . .

[Airbus]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>"Airbus" > wrote...
>> In article <79d4c007f0701@uwe>, u33403@uwe says...
>>
>> >
>> >Pretty simple.
>> >
>> >Don't throw sh*t at the airport... stay alive.
>> >
>>
>> Why yes, that's very simple indeed. If I'm doing the math right, the
>> corollary is : "Throw something at the airport = Death Penalty. . ." Nice
>> to have things simple.
>
>You have the formula wrong.
>
>BDS
>
>

Perfect then - with such a wealth of detail I can only be reassured! ;-)

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Montblack" wrote:

> I see no difference between hitting the beaches at Normandy and hitting the
> switch for the electric chair - both are necessary in combating
> ...."evil-doers".

I've never believed that capital punishment is the ultimate crime deterrent.
(Never mind the fact that it's for poor folks; rich murderers can lawyer their
way out of it.)

Ask anyone: most people would rather be put to death than spend the rest of
their lives in prison. I certainly would. I know someone who's done some
hard time; "living hell" doesn't do justice to what he experienced.


--
Dan

"Hell hath no fury like a noncombatant."
-Mitchell Coffey

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"C J Campbell" wrote:

>>> The only people who have held that water-boarding is torture is
>>> anti-war extremists.
>>
>> I never knew that John McCain was an anti-war extremist. You learn the
>> darndest things on Usenet!
>
> I forgot about that bigoted imbecile.

Hmm. I have several political differences with McCain; I might even go as
far as "fool" WRT the war in Iraq.

But "bigoted imbecile?"

That's pretty strong.

--
Dan

"Sanity is not to be without fantasy, but to know reality, and remember the
difference."
- Clive James

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

C J Campbell > wrote in
news:200710181833568930-christophercampbell@hotmailcom:

>
> The only people who have held that water-boarding is torture is
> anti-war extremists.


People who are anti war are extremeists?

Just how many of them do you know?


Bertie

[Matt Whiting]

Dan Luke wrote:
> "Montblack" wrote:
>
>> I see no difference between hitting the beaches at Normandy and hitting the
>> switch for the electric chair - both are necessary in combating
>> ...."evil-doers".
>
> I've never believed that capital punishment is the ultimate crime deterrent.
> (Never mind the fact that it's for poor folks; rich murderers can lawyer their
> way out of it.)

I don't care if it is a deterrent in general, but it prevents repeat
offenses and that is good enough for me.


> Ask anyone: most people would rather be put to death than spend the rest of
> their lives in prison. I certainly would. I know someone who's done some
> hard time; "living hell" doesn't do justice to what he experienced.

I'm a kind person and believe in giving criminals what they want. Why
be cruel and keep them locked up for years taking up space that some
other deserving criminal could be using?

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Dan Luke wrote:
> "C J Campbell" wrote:
>
>>>> The only people who have held that water-boarding is torture is
>>>> anti-war extremists.
>>> I never knew that John McCain was an anti-war extremist. You learn the
>>> darndest things on Usenet!
>> I forgot about that bigoted imbecile.
>
> Hmm. I have several political differences with McCain; I might even go as
> far as "fool" WRT the war in Iraq.
>
> But "bigoted imbecile?"
>
> That's pretty strong.
>

And pretty wrong.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> C J Campbell > wrote in
> news:200710181833568930-christophercampbell@hotmailcom:
>
>> The only people who have held that water-boarding is torture is
>> anti-war extremists.
>
>
> People who are anti war are extremeists?

That isn't even close to what he wrote.

Matt

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Matt Whiting > wrote in news:KqwSi.413$2n4.20122
@news1.epix.net:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> C J Campbell > wrote in
>> news:200710181833568930-christophercampbell@hotmailcom:
>>
>>> The only people who have held that water-boarding is torture is
>>> anti-war extremists.
>>
>>
>> People who are anti war are extremeists?
>
> That isn't even close to what he wrote.
>


I cut and paste it...


So it's exactly what he wrote.


Bertie

[NW_Pilot]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 14:16:21 -0700, "NW_Pilot"
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>>I am about ready to start walking across the border to get back in because
>>would be way simpler.
>
> I'm sorry for the abuse you are suffering at the hands of government
> minions, but it is ironic that you could probably easily cross the
> border on foot!
>
> Not only that, I recently heard that Bush signed an agreement with our
> two bordering neighbors to form some sort of trading consortium
> similar to the EU and "eliminate" the borders between the US and them!
> I haven't researched that yet.
>
>
>

Yea, it's called the North American Union the currency will be the amero
just do a google search on The Amero you will find all sorts of info. Off i
go to the land up north again then on to the EU in another 172 then a diesel
182 to eastern africa. hope to be home by Cousumer Day!

[NW_Pilot]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
news:2007101819243227544-christophercampbell@hotmailcom...
> On 2007-10-18 14:16:21 -0700, "NW_Pilot"
> > said:
>
>> I Don't blame the guy that guy for going mad! US Customs or Department Of
>> Homeland (un)Security held me on 10/14 at that same airport promised to
>> help
>> me get another flight if they detained me to long and missed my flight,
>> after I missed my flight almost 2 hours isolated I knew it was going to
>> be a
>> long day answering dumb questions. Asked for some water after two and a
>> half
>> hours of sitting I belive the customs agent tried to gave me toilet
>> water.
>
> Sounds like you need a lawyer.
>
>
> --
> Waddling Eagle
> World Famous Flight Instructor
>

No I did not drink the water! The Gestapo usually give me sealed bottled
water or poor coffee out of a pot???? All this was beacuse from my Lebanon
trip. They keep telling me they don't have to let me back in to the U.S. the
country I was born!

[Matt Whiting]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Matt Whiting > wrote in news:KqwSi.413$2n4.20122
> @news1.epix.net:
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> C J Campbell > wrote in
>>> news:200710181833568930-christophercampbell@hotmailcom:
>>>
>>>> The only people who have held that water-boarding is torture is
>>>> anti-war extremists.
>>>
>>> People who are anti war are extremeists?
>> That isn't even close to what he wrote.
>>
>
>
> I cut and paste it...
>
>
> So it's exactly what he wrote.
>
>
> Bertie


He didn't say that people who are anti-war are extremists. He said that
people that hold a certain view are anti-war extremists. Huge difference.

Matt

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Dan Luke" > wrote:

> Ask anyone: most people would rather be put to death than spend the rest of
> their lives in prison. I certainly would. I know someone who's done some
> hard time; "living hell" doesn't do justice to what he experienced.

At least the guy in prison has a chance of being freed. The dead guy is dead
forever.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Jim Logajan]

"NW_Pilot" > wrote:
> All this was beacuse
> from my Lebanon trip. They keep telling me they don't have to let me
> back in to the U.S. the country I was born!

Heh. I suspect that eventually Canada (or whatever country you were
returning from) might put you on a plane headed back to the U.S. and deny
you reentry to their country for overstaying your visit!

I don't know much about it or whether your previous ferry trips have
already tainted any background checks they perform on you, but maybe
applying to one of the "Trusted Traveler" programs would reduce future
contact with low-I.Q. goons:

http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/travel/trusted_traveler/

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Matt Whiting > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Matt Whiting > wrote in news:KqwSi.413$2n4.20122
>> @news1.epix.net:
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> C J Campbell > wrote in
>>>> news:200710181833568930-christophercampbell@hotmailcom:
>>>>
>>>>> The only people who have held that water-boarding is torture is
>>>>> anti-war extremists.
>>>>
>>>> People who are anti war are extremeists?
>>> That isn't even close to what he wrote.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I cut and paste it...
>>
>>
>> So it's exactly what he wrote.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
>
> He didn't say that people who are anti-war are extremists. He said
> that people that hold a certain view are anti-war extremists. Huge
> difference.
>

Has he no tongue?


Bertie

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Bob Noel" wrote:

>> Ask anyone: most people would rather be put to death than spend the rest
>> of
>> their lives in prison. I certainly would. I know someone who's done some
>> hard time; "living hell" doesn't do justice to what he experienced.
>
> At least the guy in prison has a chance of being freed. The dead guy is
> dead
> forever.

Another argument against CP. Juries make mistakes.


--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[Montblack]

("Dan Luke" wrote)
> Another argument against CP. Juries make mistakes.


More than 42K people die on our highways every year - society views this as
an acceptable loss.

I would like to see a couple of things:

1. Jury votes of 9-3 to convict.

2. An understanding that society has needs, too.


Montblack

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Dan Luke" > wrote:

> >> Ask anyone: most people would rather be put to death than spend the rest
> >> of
> >> their lives in prison. I certainly would. I know someone who's done some
> >> hard time; "living hell" doesn't do justice to what he experienced.
> >
> > At least the guy in prison has a chance of being freed. The dead guy is
> > dead
> > forever.
>
> Another argument against CP. Juries make mistakes.

It is the probably the primary reason why I oppose CP.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Jim Logajan]

"Montblack" > wrote:
[ Comparing capital punishment to driving deaths. ]
> More than 42K people die on our highways every year - society views
> this as an acceptable loss.

Sigh. You're comparing an activity where an individual makes their _own_
decision of risk-vs-reward affecting _themselves_ (deciding whether to
drive or ride in a motor vehicle) versus an activity (capital punishment)
wherein _others_ decide an accused's fate.

Most people presume the context affects the moral and legal prerequisites,
so the activities aren't comparable. Just because people die from capital
punishment and from driving hardly makes them morally comparable.

> I would like to see a couple of things:
>
> 1. Jury votes of 9-3 to convict.

Some jurisdictions already allow several dissents in the case of civil
trials.

> 2. An understanding that society has needs, too.

So you're a socialist?

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Montblack > posted:

> ("Dan Luke" wrote)
>> Another argument against CP. Juries make mistakes.
>
>
> More than 42K people die on our highways every year - society views
> this as an acceptable loss.
>
There is no correlation between being killed during a self-elected
activity and being put to death by erroneous and/or malicious prosecution.

> I would like to see a couple of things:
>
> 1. Jury votes of 9-3 to convict.
>
> 2. An understanding that society has needs, too.
>
Have you ever served on a jury? I have, and frankly think that this is a
ludicrous suggestion.

Neil

[S Green]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
...
> Recently, Montblack > posted:
>
>> ("Dan Luke" wrote)
>>> Another argument against CP. Juries make mistakes.
>>
>>
>> More than 42K people die on our highways every year - society views
>> this as an acceptable loss.
>>
> There is no correlation between being killed during a self-elected
> activity and being put to death by erroneous and/or malicious prosecution.
>
>> I would like to see a couple of things:
>>
>> 1. Jury votes of 9-3 to convict.
>>
>> 2. An understanding that society has needs, too.
>>
> Have you ever served on a jury? I have, and frankly think that this is a
> ludicrous suggestion.

If he had he would have seen the number of morons who end up on juries.
People make mistakes.

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-10-20 17:15:05 -0600, "Dan Luke" > said:

>
> "C J Campbell" wrote:
>
>>>> The only people who have held that water-boarding is torture is
>>>> anti-war extremists.
>>>
>>> I never knew that John McCain was an anti-war extremist. You learn the
>>> darndest things on Usenet!
>>
>> I forgot about that bigoted imbecile.
>
> Hmm. I have several political differences with McCain; I might even go as
> far as "fool" WRT the war in Iraq.
>
> But "bigoted imbecile?"
>
> That's pretty strong.

McCain made some pretty ignorant remarks in an interview on belief.net.
Asked if he thought that Romney or a Muslim could be President, he
managed to offend all the non-Christians by stating that America was a
'Christian' country, ignoring the Constitutional provision against a
state religion. He also managed to offend more than 12 million Mormons,
who are Christians despite the ranting of a few over-the-top
evangelists who have appointed themselves the privilege of deciding who
is a Christian and who is not.

Indeed, if you want to find an 'American' religion, you would have a
tough time finding one that is more 'American' than the Mormons.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-10-21 03:36:30 -0600, Bertie the Bunyip > said:

> Matt Whiting > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Matt Whiting > wrote in news:KqwSi.413$2n4.20122
>>> @news1.epix.net:
>>>
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>> C J Campbell > wrote in
>>>>> news:200710181833568930-christophercampbell@hotmailcom:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The only people who have held that water-boarding is torture is
>>>>>> anti-war extremists.
>>>>>
>>>>> People who are anti war are extremeists?
>>>> That isn't even close to what he wrote.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I cut and paste it...
>>>
>>>
>>> So it's exactly what he wrote.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>>
>> He didn't say that people who are anti-war are extremists. He said
>> that people that hold a certain view are anti-war extremists. Huge
>> difference.
>>
>
> Has he no tongue?
>
>
> Bertie

Unlike you, I actually have a life outside of Usenet. We have been
traveling the last few days. For me, posting on Usenet is a very low
priority.

I did not say that all people who oppose the war are extremists. I said
that some people who oppose the war are extremists. Some people who
support the war are extremists.

Personally, I favor peace and, as far as the war in Iraq goes, do not
have a strong view either way. It will not be the deciding issue for me
in the coming election.

I am pro-business and, to be frank, the Republicans have been doing a
poor job lately of protecting their title as the party of business. The
party seems to have been taken over by tax-and-spend Republicans and
populist social special interests which I find distracting. I have
difficulty supporting a party that promotes scientific ignorance, for
example.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-10-20 18:42:02 -0600, "NW_Pilot"
> said:

>
> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 14:16:21 -0700, "NW_Pilot"
>> > wrote in
>> >:
>>
>>> I am about ready to start walking across the border to get back in because
>>> would be way simpler.
>>
>> I'm sorry for the abuse you are suffering at the hands of government
>> minions, but it is ironic that you could probably easily cross the
>> border on foot!
>>
>> Not only that, I recently heard that Bush signed an agreement with our
>> two bordering neighbors to form some sort of trading consortium
>> similar to the EU and "eliminate" the borders between the US and them!
>> I haven't researched that yet.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Yea, it's called the North American Union the currency will be the amero
> just do a google search on The Amero you will find all sorts of info. Off i
> go to the land up north again then on to the EU in another 172 then a diesel
> 182 to eastern africa. hope to be home by Cousumer Day!

The first place you might want to check for information on the "Amero"
is on Snopes. The "Amero" has been around for years as a fake currency
that appeals to coin collectors.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-10-20 18:52:13 -0600, "NW_Pilot"
> said:

>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> news:2007101819243227544-christophercampbell@hotmailcom...
>> On 2007-10-18 14:16:21 -0700, "NW_Pilot"
>> > said:
>>
>>> I Don't blame the guy that guy for going mad! US Customs or Department Of
>>> Homeland (un)Security held me on 10/14 at that same airport promised to
>>> help
>>> me get another flight if they detained me to long and missed my flight,
>>> after I missed my flight almost 2 hours isolated I knew it was going to
>>> be a
>>> long day answering dumb questions. Asked for some water after two and a
>>> half
>>> hours of sitting I belive the customs agent tried to gave me toilet
>>> water.
>>
>> Sounds like you need a lawyer.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Waddling Eagle
>> World Famous Flight Instructor
>>
>
> No I did not drink the water! The Gestapo usually give me sealed bottled
> water or poor coffee out of a pot???? All this was beacuse from my Lebanon
> trip. They keep telling me they don't have to let me back in to the U.S. the
> country I was born!
>
>
>

They are lying. They not only have to let you back into the country,
they cannot hold you against your will. You possibly have a civil suit
for conspiracy to deprive you of your civil rights, but I would also
look at pressing criminal charges against the individuals involved.
Conspiracy, kidnapping, false arrest, and some other possible crimes
come to mind. They are not afraid that you will sue, because the
government pays the settlements. But the government will not serve
their prison terms for them.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-10-20 17:09:56 -0600, "Dan Luke" > said:

>
> "Montblack" wrote:
>
>> I see no difference between hitting the beaches at Normandy and hitting the
>> switch for the electric chair - both are necessary in combating
>> ...."evil-doers".
>
> I've never believed that capital punishment is the ultimate crime deterrent.
> (Never mind the fact that it's for poor folks; rich murderers can lawyer their
> way out of it.)
>
> Ask anyone: most people would rather be put to death than spend the rest of
> their lives in prison. I certainly would. I know someone who's done some
> hard time; "living hell" doesn't do justice to what he experienced.

It may not be the ultimate crime deterrent, but there is a question of
justice. If life in prison is actually worse than capital punishment,
then it is worse than the crime committed and therefore unjust.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

C J Campbell > wrote in
news:2007102118540175249-christophercampbell@hotmailcom:

> On 2007-10-21 03:36:30 -0600, Bertie the Bunyip > said:
>
>> Matt Whiting > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> Matt Whiting > wrote in news:KqwSi.413$2n4.20122
>>>> @news1.epix.net:
>>>>
>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>> C J Campbell > wrote in
>>>>>> news:200710181833568930-christophercampbell@hotmailcom:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The only people who have held that water-boarding is torture is
>>>>>>> anti-war extremists.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> People who are anti war are extremeists?
>>>>> That isn't even close to what he wrote.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I cut and paste it...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So it's exactly what he wrote.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>
>>>
>>> He didn't say that people who are anti-war are extremists. He said
>>> that people that hold a certain view are anti-war extremists. Huge
>>> difference.
>>>
>>
>> Has he no tongue?
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Unlike you, I actually have a life outside of Usenet.

I have only your word for that, of course.

We have been
> traveling the last few days. For me, posting on Usenet is a very low
> priority.
>


M, kay.


> I did not say that all people who oppose the war are extremists. I
said
> that some people who oppose the war are extremists. Some people who
> support the war are extremists.
>
> Personally, I favor peace and, as far as the war in Iraq goes, do not
> have a strong view either way. It will not be the deciding issue for
me
> in the coming election.
>
> I am pro-business and, to be frank, the Republicans have been doing a
> poor job lately of protecting their title as the party of business.

Ya think?


The
> party seems to have been taken over by tax-and-spend Republicans and
> populist social special interests which I find distracting. I have
> difficulty supporting a party that promotes scientific ignorance, for
> example.


Good for you. And here I was thinking you were all on the back side of
the bell curve.

Well, ya's did vote for bush,. can you blame me?


Bertie

[Jay Honeck]

> Indeed, if you want to find an 'American' religion, you would have a
> tough time finding one that is more 'American' than the Mormons.

This is a comfort?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-10-21 19:34:52 -0600, Bertie the Bunyip > said:

> C J Campbell > wrote in
> news:2007102118540175249-christophercampbell@hotmailcom:
>
>> On 2007-10-21 03:36:30 -0600, Bertie the Bunyip > said:
>>
>>> Matt Whiting > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>> Matt Whiting > wrote in news:KqwSi.413$2n4.20122
>>>>> @news1.epix.net:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>>> C J Campbell > wrote in
>>>>>>> news:200710181833568930-christophercampbell@hotmailcom:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The only people who have held that water-boarding is torture is
>>>>>>>> anti-war extremists.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> People who are anti war are extremeists?
>>>>>> That isn't even close to what he wrote.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I cut and paste it...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So it's exactly what he wrote.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bertie
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> He didn't say that people who are anti-war are extremists. He said
>>>> that people that hold a certain view are anti-war extremists. Huge
>>>> difference.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Has he no tongue?
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>> Unlike you, I actually have a life outside of Usenet.
>
> I have only your word for that, of course.
>
> We have been
>> traveling the last few days. For me, posting on Usenet is a very low
>> priority.
>>
>
>
> M, kay.
>
>
>> I did not say that all people who oppose the war are extremists. I
> said
>> that some people who oppose the war are extremists. Some people who
>> support the war are extremists.
>>
>> Personally, I favor peace and, as far as the war in Iraq goes, do not
>> have a strong view either way. It will not be the deciding issue for
> me
>> in the coming election.
>>
>> I am pro-business and, to be frank, the Republicans have been doing a
>> poor job lately of protecting their title as the party of business.
>
> Ya think?

You really have to consider how much it would take to alienate Alan
Greenspan, but they managed it.

>
>
> The
>> party seems to have been taken over by tax-and-spend Republicans and
>> populist social special interests which I find distracting. I have
>> difficulty supporting a party that promotes scientific ignorance, for
>> example.
>
>
> Good for you. And here I was thinking you were all on the back side of
> the bell curve.
>
> Well, ya's did vote for bush,. can you blame me?

Yeah, I can as a matter of fact. My views should be well known by now.
Too many people want to pigeonhole people such as me with the Religious
Right, forgetting that the Religious Right historically has tried to
exterminate Mormons and shows every sign of being willing to try it
again. Mitt Romney might be a Mormon, but so is Harry Reid. Who is to
say which one better represents our values?

The trouble is, the Democrats are misreading the whole thing and
reverting to form. They think that disaffection with the Republicans
means an acceptance of traditional Democratic values: pro-labor, big
government, high taxes, etc., plus the Democrats have their own lunatic
fringe with its own special social interests.

If they think they are going to pick up a lot of disaffected
Republicans with an anti-business agenda while remaining soft on crime
and foreign policy they are grossly mistaken. Plus, business people do
not trust the rampant corruption in the Democratic party and the
absolute refusal of the party to police its own people.

One might support libertarianism, but the Libertarian party is anything
but libertarian. Besides, the libertarians that remain among the
Republicans are too often gold bugs who cannot admit that Ayn Rand
might have been wrong about a few things -- gold, for example.

So, I do not see anyone being particularly pro-business right now.
Every candidate seems hung up either on the war in Iraq or on abortion
or building a fence on the border, none of which is critical to
financial growth. Every one of them has expressed trade protectionist
views which range from disturbing to downright alarming. Whatever
happened to "Free trade and free men!" which was the historical battle
cry of the GOP? Who carries that banner today?

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Don Tuite]

Y'know, Chris, I suspect there are dozens of important things we
disagree on, but, over and over on this forum, you inevitably earn my
respect.,

Don

[Jim Logajan]

Jay Honeck > wrote:
> C J Campbell" wrote:
>> Indeed, if you want to find an 'American' religion, you would have a
>> tough time finding one that is more 'American' than the Mormons.
>
> This is a comfort?

I presume he merely meant that Mormonism clearly originated within the
geographic and temporal boundaries of the political entity known as the
USA. (Sorry for the fancy way of saying that.)

By that definition Scientology is just as "American".

[Jim Logajan]

C J Campbell > wrote:
> One might support libertarianism, but the Libertarian party is anything
> but libertarian.

What, the aliens got to them too!?

"Well that's great, that's just ****in' great man. Now what the **** are we
supposed to do? We're in some real pretty **** now man... That's it man,
game over man, game over! What the **** are we gonna do now? What are we
gonna do?"

Ripley: I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the
only way to be sure.
Hudson: ****ing A!
Burke: Hold on one second. This installation has a substantial dollar
value attached to it.
Ripley: They can bill me.
Burke: Okay, look. This is an emotional moment for all of us, okay? I know
that. But let's not make snap judgments, please. This is clearly,
clearly an important species we're dealing with and I don't think
you or I or anybody has the right to arbitrarily exterminate them.
Ripley: Wrong.
Vasquez:Yeah. Watch us.
Hudson: Hey, maybe you haven't been keeping up on current events, but we
just got our asses kicked, pal!

> So, I do not see anyone being particularly pro-business right now.

I prefer pro-free-enterprise over pro-business. Already had plenty of pro-
big-business politicos in DC and freedom was getting its ass kicked.

> Every candidate seems hung up either on the war in Iraq or on abortion
> or building a fence on the border, none of which is critical to
> financial growth. Every one of them has expressed trade protectionist
> views which range from disturbing to downright alarming. Whatever
> happened to "Free trade and free men!" which was the historical battle
> cry of the GOP? Who carries that banner today?

Beats me. According to you the powerless party I've been throwing away my
vote on also isn't what I thought it was.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

C J Campbell > wrote in
news:2007102120113877923-christophercampbell@hotmailcom:

> On 2007-10-21 19:34:52 -0600, Bertie the Bunyip > said:
>
>> C J Campbell > wrote in
>> news:2007102118540175249-christophercampbell@hotmailcom:
>>
>>> On 2007-10-21 03:36:30 -0600, Bertie the Bunyip > said:
>>>
>>>> Matt Whiting > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>> Matt Whiting > wrote in news:KqwSi.413$2n4.20122
>>>>>> @news1.epix.net:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>>>> C J Campbell > wrote in
>>>>>>>> news:200710181833568930-christophercampbell@hotmailcom:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The only people who have held that water-boarding is torture
is
>>>>>>>>> anti-war extremists.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> People who are anti war are extremeists?
>>>>>>> That isn't even close to what he wrote.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I cut and paste it...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So it's exactly what he wrote.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> He didn't say that people who are anti-war are extremists. He
said
>>>>> that people that hold a certain view are anti-war extremists.
Huge
>>>>> difference.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Has he no tongue?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>
>>> Unlike you, I actually have a life outside of Usenet.
>>
>> I have only your word for that, of course.
>>
>> We have been
>>> traveling the last few days. For me, posting on Usenet is a very
low
>>> priority.
>>>
>>
>>
>> M, kay.
>>
>>
>>> I did not say that all people who oppose the war are extremists. I
>> said
>>> that some people who oppose the war are extremists. Some people who
>>> support the war are extremists.
>>>
>>> Personally, I favor peace and, as far as the war in Iraq goes, do
not
>>> have a strong view either way. It will not be the deciding issue for
>> me
>>> in the coming election.
>>>
>>> I am pro-business and, to be frank, the Republicans have been doing
a
>>> poor job lately of protecting their title as the party of business.
>>
>> Ya think?
>
> You really have to consider how much it would take to alienate Alan
> Greenspan, but they managed it.
>
>>

Yep, I have an almost begrudging admiration for them for that.


>>
>> The
>>> party seems to have been taken over by tax-and-spend Republicans and
>>> populist social special interests which I find distracting. I have
>>> difficulty supporting a party that promotes scientific ignorance,
for
>>> example.
>>
>>
>> Good for you. And here I was thinking you were all on the back side
of
>> the bell curve.
>>
>> Well, ya's did vote for bush,. can you blame me?
>
> Yeah, I can as a matter of fact. My views should be well known by now.
> Too many people want to pigeonhole people such as me with the
Religious
> Right, forgetting that the Religious Right historically has tried to
> exterminate Mormons and shows every sign of being willing to try it
> again. Mitt Romney might be a Mormon, but so is Harry Reid. Who is to
> say which one better represents our values?
>

Wow, you not only read between the lines, you insert entire volumes
between them.


> The trouble is, the Democrats are misreading the whole thing and
> reverting to form. They think that disaffection with the Republicans
> means an acceptance of traditional Democratic values: pro-labor, big
> government, high taxes, etc., plus the Democrats have their own
lunatic
> fringe with its own special social interests.
>
> If they think they are going to pick up a lot of disaffected
> Republicans with an anti-business agenda while remaining soft on crime
> and foreign policy they are grossly mistaken. Plus, business people do
> not trust the rampant corruption in the Democratic party and the
> absolute refusal of the party to police its own people.
>
> One might support libertarianism, but the Libertarian party is
anything
> but libertarian. Besides, the libertarians that remain among the
> Republicans are too often gold bugs who cannot admit that Ayn Rand
> might have been wrong about a few things -- gold, for example.
>
> So, I do not see anyone being particularly pro-business right now.
> Every candidate seems hung up either on the war in Iraq or on abortion
> or building a fence on the border, none of which is critical to
> financial growth. Every one of them has expressed trade protectionist
> views which range from disturbing to downright alarming. Whatever
> happened to "Free trade and free men!" which was the historical battle
> cry of the GOP? Who carries that banner today?
>


You need a new guy. One who will truly represent your values and lead
you on to a better and brighter republican future in the tradition of
Ronald Reagan.


Too bad foster Brooks is gone.

Bertie

[Neil Gould]

Recently, S Green > posted:

> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Recently, Montblack > posted:
>>
>>> ("Dan Luke" wrote)
>>>> Another argument against CP. Juries make mistakes.
>>>
>>>
>>> More than 42K people die on our highways every year - society views
>>> this as an acceptable loss.
>>>
>> There is no correlation between being killed during a self-elected
>> activity and being put to death by erroneous and/or malicious
>> prosecution.
>>
>>> I would like to see a couple of things:
>>>
>>> 1. Jury votes of 9-3 to convict.
>>>
>>> 2. An understanding that society has needs, too.
>>>
>> Have you ever served on a jury? I have, and frankly think that this
>> is a ludicrous suggestion.
>
> If he had he would have seen the number of morons who end up on
> juries. People make mistakes.
>
I see it a little differently... it's the morons that do all they can to
avoid jury duty. Those that serve are trying to make our system of justice
work as it was intended.

Many (if not most) issues presented to a jury are complex and require a
level of knowledge and experience just to comprehend them, much less to
correctly assess the guilt of the accused. When lawyers reject jurors for
cause that are capable of such understanding, I see it as malfeasance and
an attempt to undermine our system of justice. Yet, there is no punishment
for those actions. It's amazing that the system ever works right.

It would be quite entertaining to see Montblack squirm on the receiving
end of that process. My bet is that he would quickly want to reinstate the
other 3 opinions regarding his guilt. Indeed, society does have needs,
too. Unfortunately too many are willing to subvert those needs for their
own personal comfort or gain.

Neil

[Airbus]

In article >,
says...

>
>Even if that were true, it would have been an incorrect opinion
>obviously. Someone I admire once said, "Walk softly, but carry a big
>stick."

You admire people who misquote former presidents?
Or is this Teddy Roosevelt doing a Nike commercial?

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-10-21 18:52:48 -0700, Jay Honeck > said:

>> Indeed, if you want to find an 'American' religion, you would have a
>> tough time finding one that is more 'American' than the Mormons.
>
> This is a comfort?

A Christian religion that preaches democratic values, good citizenship,
and teaches that the Constitution is divinely inspired, yes.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-10-21 22:44:53 -0700, Jim Logajan > said:

>
>
>> So, I do not see anyone being particularly pro-business right now.
>
> I prefer pro-free-enterprise over pro-business. Already had plenty of pro-
> big-business politicos in DC and freedom was getting its ass kicked.

Fine. Pro-free-enterprise it is, then.

>
>> Every candidate seems hung up either on the war in Iraq or on abortion
>> or building a fence on the border, none of which is critical to
>> financial growth. Every one of them has expressed trade protectionist
>> views which range from disturbing to downright alarming. Whatever
>> happened to "Free trade and free men!" which was the historical battle
>> cry of the GOP? Who carries that banner today?
>
> Beats me. According to you the powerless party I've been throwing away my
> vote on also isn't what I thought it was.

It certainly is not what it used to be. The party that preserved the
Union, industrialized the North, abolished slavery, and opened the
borders to trade is now talking about protectionist trade barriers and
reduced to fretting over stem cells and illegal aliens.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-10-22 01:16:39 -0700, Bertie the Bunyip > said:

>
>
> You need a new guy. One who will truly represent your values and lead
> you on to a better and brighter republican future in the tradition of
> Ronald Reagan.
>
>
> Too bad foster Brooks is gone.
>
> Bertie

A Ronald Reagan would be too much to hope for. Barry Goldwater would do.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[S Green]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
news:2007102118462516807-christophercampbell@hotmailcom...
> On 2007-10-20 17:15:05 -0600, "Dan Luke" > said:
>
>>
>> "C J Campbell" wrote:
>>
>>>>> The only people who have held that water-boarding is torture is
>>>>> anti-war extremists.
>>>>
>>>> I never knew that John McCain was an anti-war extremist. You learn the
>>>> darndest things on Usenet!
>>>
>>> I forgot about that bigoted imbecile.
>>
>> Hmm. I have several political differences with McCain; I might even go
>> as
>> far as "fool" WRT the war in Iraq.
>>
>> But "bigoted imbecile?"
>>
>> That's pretty strong.
>
> McCain made some pretty ignorant remarks in an interview on belief.net.
> Asked if he thought that Romney or a Muslim could be President, he managed
> to offend all the non-Christians by stating that America was a 'Christian'
> country, ignoring the Constitutional provision against a state religion.
> He also managed to offend more than 12 million Mormons, who are Christians
> despite the ranting of a few over-the-top evangelists who have appointed
> themselves the privilege of deciding who is a Christian and who is not.
>
> Indeed, if you want to find an 'American' religion, you would have a tough
> time finding one that is more 'American' than the Mormons.

Its like Disney - all American.

[Jim Logajan]

C J Campbell > wrote:
> On 2007-10-21 22:44:53 -0700, Jim Logajan > said:
>> Beats me. According to you the powerless party I've been throwing
>> away my vote on also isn't what I thought it was.
>
> It certainly is not what it used to be. The party that preserved the
> Union, industrialized the North, abolished slavery, and opened the
> borders to trade is now talking about protectionist trade barriers and
> reduced to fretting over stem cells and illegal aliens.

Clarification needed: I vote for Libertarian candidates when they are on
the ballet and the candidate is also not a goof (no party appears immune to
these sorts). Otherwise I elect not to vote on anyone for a given office if
I don't like any of the candidates.

So the "powerless" party I meant is the Libertarian party, not Republican.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

C J Campbell > wrote in
news:2007102210383750073-christophercampbell@hotmailcom:

> On 2007-10-22 01:16:39 -0700, Bertie the Bunyip > said:
>
>>
>>
>> You need a new guy. One who will truly represent your values and lead
>> you on to a better and brighter republican future in the tradition of
>> Ronald Reagan.
>>
>>
>> Too bad foster Brooks is gone.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> A Ronald Reagan would be too much to hope for. Barry Goldwater would do.

AuH2O408?

Never happen.


You'd best get used to the idea that it's going to be hillary.

Bertie

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote

> Clarification needed: I vote for Libertarian candidates when they are on
> the ballet and the candidate is also not a goof (no party appears immune
> to
> these sorts). Otherwise I elect not to vote on anyone for a given office
> if
> I don't like any of the candidates.
>
> So the "powerless" party I meant is the Libertarian party, not Republican.

So in other words, by voting for a candidate that has no choice of winning
office, you threw away your vote.

Sad, but that is the reality of it.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote

> You'd best get used to the idea that it's going to be hillary.

Not going to happen.

There are far too many that are not ready to vote for a woman for president,
male and female, Republican and Democrat.

Add to that, her association of the former Clinton president, and she is
doomed.
--
Jim in NC

[Kloudy via AviationKB.com]

Airbus wrote:
>>Pretty simple.
>>
>>Don't throw sh*t at the airport... stay alive.
>

>
>Or is it theat they felt the unruly passenger may be part of a
>conspiracy,and his co-conspirators may be arrioving on following flights,
>and before you know it hundreds of airport chairs would be hurtling
>across Canada causing untold damage and increasing broken glass insurance
>rates . . .

And thousands would be dead. I'm tellin' ya it really is simple.

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200710/1

[Kloudy via AviationKB.com]

>Burke: Okay, look. This is an emotional moment for all of us, okay? I know
> that. But let's not make snap judgments, please. This is clearly,
> clearly an important species we're dealing with and I don't think
> you or I or anybody has the right to arbitrarily exterminate them.

Unless, of course, they start tossing workstations.

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote
>
>> You'd best get used to the idea that it's going to be hillary.
>
> Not going to happen.
>
> There are far too many that are not ready to vote for a woman for
> president, male and female, Republican and Democrat.
>
> Add to that, her association of the former Clinton president, and she
> is doomed.

We'll see.


bertie

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Morgans wrote:
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote
>
>> You'd best get used to the idea that it's going to be hillary.
>
> Not going to happen.
>
> There are far too many that are not ready to vote for a woman for
> president, male and female, Republican and Democrat.
>
> Add to that, her association of the former Clinton president, and she
> is doomed.


Yep, looks like about half the "likely voters" feel that way.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1376

And what's real bad for Hillary is that the groups that likes her the least
is the group that votes the most and the group that is the most likely to
vote for her is the group that votes the least.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
news:2007102210304216807-christophercampbell@hotmailcom...
> On 2007-10-21 18:52:48 -0700, Jay Honeck > said:
>
>>> Indeed, if you want to find an 'American' religion, you would have a
>>> tough time finding one that is more 'American' than the Mormons.
>>
>> This is a comfort?
>
> A Christian religion that preaches democratic values, good citizenship,
> and teaches that the Constitution is divinely inspired, yes.

One that taugh the basis of liberty would be better. Every fascist/staist
regime ever taugh "good citzenship".

But their "hereafter" is downright zany.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
news:2007102210364375249-christophercampbell@hotmailcom...
> On 2007-10-21 22:44:53 -0700, Jim Logajan > said:
>
>>
>>
>>> So, I do not see anyone being particularly pro-business right now.
>>
>> I prefer pro-free-enterprise over pro-business. Already had plenty of
>> pro-
>> big-business politicos in DC and freedom was getting its ass kicked.
>
> Fine. Pro-free-enterprise it is, then.

Using what basis?

>
>>
>>> Every candidate seems hung up either on the war in Iraq or on abortion
>>> or building a fence on the border, none of which is critical to
>>> financial growth. Every one of them has expressed trade protectionist
>>> views which range from disturbing to downright alarming. Whatever
>>> happened to "Free trade and free men!" which was the historical battle
>>> cry of the GOP? Who carries that banner today?
>>
>> Beats me. According to you the powerless party I've been throwing away my
>> vote on also isn't what I thought it was.
>
> It certainly is not what it used to be. The party that preserved the
> Union, industrialized the North, abolished slavery, and opened the borders
> to trade

Ummm, like Clinton's NAFTA?

> is now talking about protectionist trade barriers and reduced to fretting
> over stem cells and illegal aliens.

The north was already industrialized by 1860...they were using tariffs to
keep that advantage over south (i.e., forcing the south to "buy American"
even then).

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
news:2007102210383750073-christophercampbell@hotmailcom...
> On 2007-10-22 01:16:39 -0700, Bertie the Bunyip > said:
>
>>
>>
>> You need a new guy. One who will truly represent your values and lead
>> you on to a better and brighter republican future in the tradition of
>> Ronald Reagan.
>>
>>
>> Too bad foster Brooks is gone.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> A Ronald Reagan would be too much to hope for. Barry Goldwater would do.

A Barry Goldwater would be even better than a Reagan.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> Morgans wrote:
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote
>>
>>> You'd best get used to the idea that it's going to be hillary.
>>
>> Not going to happen.
>>
>> There are far too many that are not ready to vote for a woman for
>> president, male and female, Republican and Democrat.
>>
>> Add to that, her association of the former Clinton president, and she
>> is doomed.
>
>
> Yep, looks like about half the "likely voters" feel that way.
>
> http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1376
>
> And what's real bad for Hillary is that the groups that likes her the
> least is the group that votes the most and the group that is the most
> likely to vote for her is the group that votes the least.
i.e.: single females, particularly single moms.

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-10-22 11:54:47 -0700, Jim Logajan > said:

> C J Campbell > wrote:
>> On 2007-10-21 22:44:53 -0700, Jim Logajan > said:
>>> Beats me. According to you the powerless party I've been throwing
>>> away my vote on also isn't what I thought it was.
>>
>> It certainly is not what it used to be. The party that preserved the
>> Union, industrialized the North, abolished slavery, and opened the
>> borders to trade is now talking about protectionist trade barriers and
>> reduced to fretting over stem cells and illegal aliens.
>
> Clarification needed: I vote for Libertarian candidates when they are on
> the ballet and the candidate is also not a goof (no party appears immune to
> these sorts). Otherwise I elect not to vote on anyone for a given office if
> I don't like any of the candidates.
>
> So the "powerless" party I meant is the Libertarian party, not Republican.

Well, you know the Libertarians are far from 'powerless.' But there are
too many issues where they have their own special social interest
groups that are actually working for *more* government regulation, not
less. Particularly here in Washington State, the Libertarians can get a
little strange sometimes, like the French Anarchists who rioted when
the government proposed relaxing some union regulations. Those are some
bourgeois anarchists they got there in France... but I digress. We have
bourgeois Libertarians.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-10-22 14:25:38 -0700, "Morgans" > said:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote
>
>> You'd best get used to the idea that it's going to be hillary.
>
> Not going to happen.
>
> There are far too many that are not ready to vote for a woman for president,
> male and female, Republican and Democrat.
>
> Add to that, her association of the former Clinton president, and she is
> doomed.

It is unfortunate, as Hilary is the most pro-business of the Democrats.
Her association with Bill is the real killer. That and her
mega-government health care theories, her insistence that it takes a
village to raise a child, and other weird tangents she runs off into.
Not the most trustworthy candidate to come along, not by a long shot.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Jim Logajan]

"Morgans" > wrote:
> "Jim Logajan" > wrote
>
>> Clarification needed: I vote for Libertarian candidates when they are
>> on the ballet and the candidate is also not a goof (no party appears
>> immune to
>> these sorts). Otherwise I elect not to vote on anyone for a given
>> office if
>> I don't like any of the candidates.
>>
>> So the "powerless" party I meant is the Libertarian party, not
>> Republican.
>
> So in other words, by voting for a candidate that has no choice of
> winning office, you threw away your vote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kang_and_Kodos
(Treehouse of Horror VII)

> Sad, but that is the reality of it.

Aye.
' Just then they came in sight of thirty or forty windmills that rise
from that plain. And no sooner did Don Quixote see them that he said to his
squire, "Fortune is guiding our affairs better than we ourselves could have
wished. Do you see over yonder, friend Sancho, thirty or forty hulking
giants? I intend to do battle with them and slay them. With their spoils we
shall begin to be rich for this is a righteous war and the removal of so
foul a brood from off the face of the earth is a service God will bless."

"What giants?" asked Sancho Panza.

"Those you see over there," replied his master, "with their long arms.
Some of them have arms well nigh two leagues in length."

"Take care, sir," cried Sancho. "Those over there are not giants but
windmills. Those things that seem to be their arms are sails which, when
they are whirled around by the wind, turn the millstone."'

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"C J Campbell" wrote:

>>> Indeed, if you want to find an 'American' religion, you would have a
>>> tough time finding one that is more 'American' than the Mormons.
>>
>> This is a comfort?
>
> A Christian religion that preaches democratic values, good citizenship, and
> teaches that the Constitution is divinely inspired, yes.

It is the opposite of a comfort; it is alarming.

Any religion that attempts to assign credit for the Constitution to its
particular deity should be regarded with profound distrust.

In fact, ALL religions attempting to connect themselves with government in any
way should be distrusted.

--
Dan

"Sanity is not to be without fantasy, but to know reality, and remember the
difference."
- Clive James

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"C J Campbell" wrote:

> Not the most trustworthy candidate to come along, not by a long shot.

She seems the most trustworthy, to me.

She has been through a hellishly public family drama and maintained her
composure and dignity.

Add to that the that fact that she is known and respected around the world,
and you have the most appealing of the Democratic candidates, IMO.

In comparison, the Republican hopefuls are a bunch of wimps. Fred Thompson?
Mitt Romney? It is to laugh.

--
Dan

"Sanity is not to be without fantasy, but to know reality, and remember the
difference."
- Clive James

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Jim Logajan" wrote:

> "Giants...."


AKA "WMD."

--
Dan

"Sanity is not to be without fantasy, but to know reality, and remember the
difference."
- Clive James

[Doug Carter]

On 2007-10-23, Dan Luke > wrote:
>
> "C J Campbell" wrote:
>
>> Not the most trustworthy candidate to come along, not by a long shot.
>
> She seems the most trustworthy, to me.

.... and to a lot of Chinese dishwashers... oops, no, she had to refund those
donations too :(

If the Hsu fits...

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "C J Campbell" wrote:
>
>>>> Indeed, if you want to find an 'American' religion, you would have a
>>>> tough time finding one that is more 'American' than the Mormons.
>>>
>>> This is a comfort?
>>
>> A Christian religion that preaches democratic values, good citizenship,
>> and teaches that the Constitution is divinely inspired, yes.
>
> It is the opposite of a comfort; it is alarming.
>
> Any religion that attempts to assign credit for the Constitution to its
> particular deity should be regarded with profound distrust.
>
> In fact, ALL religions attempting to connect themselves with government in
> any way should be distrusted.
>
Any SUPERSTITION (okay...same thing; ironic that we, as a species, can't get
past that) as well.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "C J Campbell" wrote:
>
>> Not the most trustworthy candidate to come along, not by a long shot.
>
> She seems the most trustworthy, to me.
>
> She has been through a hellishly public family drama and maintained her
> composure and dignity.

Are you serious?
>
> Add to that the that fact that she is known and respected around the
> world, and you have the most appealing of the Democratic candidates, IMO.

She's considered a pathological liar like her old man.

>
> In comparison, the Republican hopefuls are a bunch of wimps. Fred
> Thompson? Mitt Romney? It is to laugh.

Thinking of Hillary going up again the Muslims is to shudder.

Who said these things? Josef Stalin, Karl Marx or Fidel Castro?

(1) "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

(2) "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by
the few, and for the few, and to replace it with shared prosperity."

(3) "(We) can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something
has to be taken away from some people."

(4) "We have to build a political consensus, and that requires people to
give up a little bit of their own turf in order to create this common
ground."

(5) "I certainly think the free-market has failed."

(6) "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most
profitable sector in (the) entire economy -
that they are being watched."


Now you might think these were the famous words of the Father of communism,
Karl Marx. And you would be on the right track in thinking so, but you would
be wrong. These pearls of socialist Marxist wisdom are from none other than
our very own, home-grown Marxist. . . . Hillary Clinton!

Comments made on:
(1) 6/29/04
(2) 5/29/07
(3) 6/4/07
(4) 6/4/07
(5) 6/4/07
(6) 9/2/05
_______
This is a dangerous lady, folks.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Doug Carter" > wrote in message
...
> On 2007-10-23, Dan Luke > wrote:
>>
>> "C J Campbell" wrote:
>>
>>> Not the most trustworthy candidate to come along, not by a long shot.
>>
>> She seems the most trustworthy, to me.
>
> ... and to a lot of Chinese dishwashers... oops, no, she had to refund
> those
> donations too :(
>
> If the Hsu fits...

She didn't refuse them...

[Jim Logajan]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote:
[ On Hillary Clinton. ]
> She's considered a pathological liar like her old man.

Wait a minute - wouldn't that mean she was lying when she made all the
statements you quoted her as saying? ;-)

I don't like her philosophy at all and would not vote for her even for
local dog catcher. It appears the list of quotes you provided has already
made it to Snopes, who put context to the statements:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/marxist.asp

[Montblack]

("Dan Luke" wrote)
> She seems the most trustworthy, to me.


So you entered a coma in 1991, and came out of it in 2000. I see. That
explains much. <g>

One problem with Billary is she's smart, and she's very good at this. She
has a certain Richard Nixon quality about her - only with much, much better
media savvy.


Montblack

[Ash Wyllie]

Morgans opined

>"Jim Logajan" > wrote

>> Clarification needed: I vote for Libertarian candidates when they are on
>> the ballet and the candidate is also not a goof (no party appears immune
>> to
>> these sorts). Otherwise I elect not to vote on anyone for a given office
>> if
>> I don't like any of the candidates.
>>
>> So the "powerless" party I meant is the Libertarian party, not Republican.

>So in other words, by voting for a candidate that has no choice of winning
>office, you threw away your vote.

>Sad, but that is the reality of it.


The Progressives never won an election in the first part of the last century,
but by 1940 most of their platform had beenenacted.

Small parties can drive the big parties by "stealing" votes, so voting for
Nader, a Libertarian or a green is not wasted vote. Not in the long run.


-ash
Cthulhu in 2007!
Why wait for nature?

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
> ...
>> Morgans wrote:
>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote
>>>
>>>> You'd best get used to the idea that it's going to be hillary.
>>>
>>> Not going to happen.
>>>
>>> There are far too many that are not ready to vote for a woman for
>>> president, male and female, Republican and Democrat.
>>>
>>> Add to that, her association of the former Clinton president, and
>>> she is doomed.
>>
>>
>> Yep, looks like about half the "likely voters" feel that way.
>>
>> http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1376
>>
>> And what's real bad for Hillary is that the groups that likes her the
>> least is the group that votes the most and the group that is the most
>> likely to vote for her is the group that votes the least.
> i.e.: single females, particularly single moms.

Well actually I was referring to the age groups polled.

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-10-22 20:31:35 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> said:

>
> "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "C J Campbell" wrote:
>>
>>>>> Indeed, if you want to find an 'American' religion, you would have a
>>>>> tough time finding one that is more 'American' than the Mormons.
>>>>
>>>> This is a comfort?
>>>
>>> A Christian religion that preaches democratic values, good citizenship,
>>> and teaches that the Constitution is divinely inspired, yes.
>>
>> It is the opposite of a comfort; it is alarming.
>>
>> Any religion that attempts to assign credit for the Constitution to its
>> particular deity should be regarded with profound distrust.
>>
>> In fact, ALL religions attempting to connect themselves with government in
>> any way should be distrusted.
>>
> Any SUPERSTITION (okay...same thing; ironic that we, as a species, can't get
> past that) as well.

That would pretty much eliminate anyone from being trusted, which is
why we have the system of government that we do.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-10-22 22:51:19 -0700, "Montblack"
> said:

> ("Dan Luke" wrote)
>> She seems the most trustworthy, to me.
>
>
> So you entered a coma in 1991, and came out of it in 2000. I see. That
> explains much. <g>
>
> One problem with Billary is she's smart, and she's very good at this. She
> has a certain Richard Nixon quality about her - only with much, much better
> media savvy.
>
>
> Montblack

That describes her exactly. Tricky Dick on estrogen.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Gig 601XL Builder]

C J Campbell wrote:
>
> That describes her exactly. Tricky Dick on estrogen.

I recently read a book set in ~2025. It is set in a future where the US is
in all out world war with Islam. The aircraft carier the book is centered
around is the "USS Hillary Clinton". There is a quote in the book that
Hillary was the country's "finest war-time president."

I laughed for several minutes after reading that.

[Doug Carter]

On 2007-10-23, C J Campbell > wrote:
> On 2007-10-22 22:51:19 -0700, "Montblack"
> said:
>
>> ("Dan Luke" wrote)
>>> She seems the most trustworthy, to me.
>>
>> One problem with Billary is she's smart, and she's very good at this. She
>> has a certain Richard Nixon quality about her - only with much, much better
>> media savvy.
>>
>> Montblack
>
> That describes her exactly. Tricky Dick on estrogen.

Where she not Bill's most enduring victim she would never made the radar
screen for Senator much less President. There many more qualified crooked
lawyers to choose from; albeit few with a stronger committment to Marxism.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote:
> [ On Hillary Clinton. ]
>> She's considered a pathological liar like her old man.
>
> Wait a minute - wouldn't that mean she was lying when she made all the
> statements you quoted her as saying? ;-)

:~) indeed!

>
> I don't like her philosophy at all and would not vote for her even for
> local dog catcher. It appears the list of quotes you provided has already
> made it to Snopes, who put context to the statements:
>
> http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/marxist.asp

Well, Snopes context is akin to Bubba's what "is" means.

Barbara Mikkelson has a minimal grasp of economics (particularly free-market
econ) and a strong leftist bent. ("And that means something HAS (my
emphasis) to be taken away from some people")

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Yep, looks like about half the "likely voters" feel that way.
>>>
>>> http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1376
>>>
>>> And what's real bad for Hillary is that the groups that likes her the
>>> least is the group that votes the most and the group that is the most
>>> likely to vote for her is the group that votes the least.
>> i.e.: single females, particularly single moms.
>
> Well actually I was referring to the age groups polled.

Okay...I gave that point some expansion.

I heard a few months back that because of his stint on L&O, Fred Thompson
has a HUGH edge on any of the other candidates, particularly Shrillary who
he beats like 4:1.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> "Matt Barrow" > wrote:
>> [ On Hillary Clinton. ]
>>> She's considered a pathological liar like her old man.
>>
>> Wait a minute - wouldn't that mean she was lying when she made all
>> the statements you quoted her as saying? ;-)
>
>> ~) indeed!
>
>>
>> I don't like her philosophy at all and would not vote for her even
>> for local dog catcher. It appears the list of quotes you provided
>> has already made it to Snopes, who put context to the statements:
>>
>> http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/marxist.asp
>
> Well, Snopes context is akin to Bubba's what "is" means.
>
> Barbara Mikkelson has a minimal grasp of economics (particularly free-
> market econ) and a strong leftist bent. ("And that means something
> HAS (my emphasis) to be taken away from some people")

If you read some of the comments IN CONTEXT they come off worse than the out
of context remarks.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
> ...
>> Matt Barrow wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yep, looks like about half the "likely voters" feel that way.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1376
>>>>
>>>> And what's real bad for Hillary is that the groups that likes her
>>>> the least is the group that votes the most and the group that is
>>>> the most likely to vote for her is the group that votes the least.
>>> i.e.: single females, particularly single moms.
>>
>> Well actually I was referring to the age groups polled.
>
> Okay...I gave that point some expansion.
>
> I heard a few months back that because of his stint on L&O, Fred
> Thompson has a HUGH edge on any of the other candidates, particularly
> Shrillary who he beats like 4:1.

I saw that as well but it looks like some of the luster has come off Mr.
Thompson's run. I had high hopes for him and have donated to his campaign
but I'm concerned his heart really isn't in it.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Matt Barrow" < wrote

> I heard a few months back that because of his stint on L&O, Fred Thompson
> has a HUGH edge

L&O ?
--
Jim in NC

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Morgans > posted:

> "Matt Barrow" < wrote
>
>> I heard a few months back that because of his stint on L&O, Fred
>> Thompson has a HUGH edge
>
> L&O ?
>
"Law and Order"

Neil

[Jay Honeck]

> >> I heard a few months back that because of his stint on L&O, Fred
> >> Thompson has a HUGH edge
>
> > L&O ?
>
> "Law and Order"

Good show, but that sure doesn't make him a better candidate, IMHO.

It's scary how our political system works. Personally, the more I
see of it, the more I understand and appreciate the Electoral College.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 17:42:02 -0700, "NW_Pilot"
> wrote in
>:


>Yea, it's called the North American Union...

The first I heard of this was from the mouth of Vincente Fox:

http://aftermathnews.wordpress.com/category/resistance/
Vicente Fox admits to wanting a North American Union on Jon
Stewart Show

Stewart’s applauding audience believes flooding the US with
illegals, surrendering our sovereignty to Mexico (and vice-versa)
and ripping up the US constitution is a good idea apparently
[video]



Below is some information about this issue:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=North_American_Union
North American Union
From SourceWatch
Jump to: navigation, search
The "plan to create" a North American Union in 2010 as a regional
government—comprising a collective government for the United
States, Canada, and Mexico—is "directly stated only" in the May
2005 task force report Building a North American Community
published by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), Jerome Corsi
wrote June 26, 2006.

The "blueprint" which President George W. Bush is following to
create a North American Union was "laid out" in the May 2005
report, Corsi wrote May 19, 2006. "The CFR report connects the
dots between the Bush administration's actual policy on illegal
immigration and the drive to create the North American Union."

Bush is "pursuing a globalist agenda to create a North American
Union, effectively erasing our borders with both Mexico and
Canada," which, Corsi wrote, is "the hidden agenda behind the Bush
administration's true open borders policy."

The plan, Corsi wrote, is "contained" in the Security and
Prosperity Partnership of North America, "little noticed" by the
mainstream media when President Bush, Mexico's President Vicente
Fox, and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin "created it" March
23, 2005, in a summit held at Waco, Texas.

A North American Union is being created "through a process of
governmental regulations" and without ever "having to bring the
issue before the American people for a clear referendum or vote,"
Corsi wrote May 24, 2006.

Contents [hide]
1 Partnership for Prosperity
2 SPP Working Groups
3 NAFTA Super-Highways
4 Permanent Tribunal
5 Biometric Border Pass
6 North American Emergency Management
7 Bilateral and Trilateral Partnerships and Agreements
8 U.S. Legislation & Executive Orders
9 Testimony, Publications and Reports
10 News Releases
10.1 2001
10.2 2002
10.3 2003
10.4 2004
10.5 2005
10.6 2006
11 Published Works
12 External Links
12.1 General Information
12.2 Websites
12.3 Articles & Commentary
12.3.1 Series of Articles
12.3.2 1990-1999
12.3.3 2000-2004
12.3.4 2005
12.3.5 2006
12.3.6 2007
13 Related SourceWatch Resources
...
----------------------------------------------------------

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBmFrYWPoG8
YouTube - NAFTA Superhighway

----------------------------------------------------------

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst103006.htm
The NAFTA Superhighway

October 30, 2006

By now many Texans have heard about the proposed “NAFTA
Superhighway,” which is also referred to as the trans-Texas
corridor. What you may not know is the extent to which plans for
such a superhighway are moving forward without congressional
oversight or media attention.

This superhighway would connect Mexico, the United States, and
Canada, cutting a wide swath through the middle of Texas and up
through Kansas City. Offshoots would connect the main artery to
the west coast, Florida, and northeast. Proponents envision a
ten-lane colossus the width of several football fields, with
freight and rail lines, fiber-optic cable lines, and oil and
natural gas pipelines running alongside.

This will require coordinated federal and state eminent domain
actions on an unprecedented scale, as literally millions of people
and businesses could be displaced. The loss of whole communities
is almost certain, as planners cannot wind the highway around
every quaint town, historic building, or senior citizen apartment
for thousands of miles.

Governor Perry is a supporter of the superhighway project, and
Congress has provided small amounts of money to study the
proposal. Since this money was just one item in an enormous
transportation appropriations bill, however, most members of
Congress were not aware of it.

The proposed highway is part of a broader plan advanced by a
quasi-government organization called the “Security and Prosperity
Partnership of North America,” or SPP.

The SPP was first launched in 2005 by the heads of state of
Canada, Mexico, and the United States at a summit in Waco.

The SPP was not created by a treaty between the nations involved,
nor was Congress involved in any way. Instead, the SPP is an
unholy alliance of foreign consortiums and officials from several
governments. One principal player is a Spanish construction
company, which plans to build the highway and operate it as a toll
road. But don’t be fooled: the superhighway proposal is not the
result of free market demand, but rather an extension of
government-managed trade schemes like NAFTA that benefit
politically-connected interests.

The real issue is national sovereignty. Once again, decisions
that affect millions of Americans are not being made by those
Americans themselves, or even by their elected representatives in
Congress. Instead, a handful of elites use their government
connections to bypass national legislatures and ignore our
Constitution-- which expressly grants Congress the sole authority
to regulate international trade.

The ultimate goal is not simply a superhighway, but an integrated
North American Union--complete with a currency, a cross-national
bureaucracy, and virtually borderless travel within the Union.
Like the European Union, a North American Union would represent
another step toward the abolition of national sovereignty
altogether.

A new resolution, introduced by Representative Virgil Goode of
Virginia, expresses the sense of Congress that the United States
should not engage in the construction of a NAFTA superhighway, or
enter into any agreement that advances the concept of a North
American Union. I wholeheartedly support this legislation, and
predict that the superhighway will become a sleeper issue in the
2008 election.

Any movement toward a North American Union diminishes the ability
of average Americans to influence the laws under which they must
live. The SPP agreement, including the plan for a major
transnational superhighway through Texas, is moving forward
without congressional oversight-- and that is an outrage. The
administration needs a strong message from Congress that the
American people will not tolerate backroom deals that threaten our
sovereignty.

----------------------------------------------------------

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=17142

What appears to be going on within SPP.gov is not simply a
dialogue, but a massive and on-going re-writing of U.S.
administrative law to “integrate” or “harmonize” our
administrative law with the corresponding administrative law of
Mexico and Canada. A wide range of public policy areas are
involved in the SPP re-write of U.S. administrative law, ranging
from e-commerce, through air travel, steel policy, textile policy,
energy policy, environmental issues, trusted trader programs,
trusted traveler programs and biometric cards issued to citizens
of the three countries. The resulting “trilateral agreements” are
being achieved by SPP all without specific disclosure to the U.S.
public or direct oversight examination by Congress.

Charges of this magnitude demand we consider the possibility that
an executive branch coup d’etat is underway to create a new
regional government below the radar of media, public, or
congressional understanding or scrutiny. ...
------------------------------------------------

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070827/hayes
article | posted August 9, 2007 (August 27, 2007 issue)
The NAFTA Superhighway
Christopher Hayes

When completed, the highway will run from Mexico City to Toronto,
slicing through the heartland like a dagger sunk into a heifer at
the loins and pulled clean to the throat. It will be four football
fields wide, an expansive gully of concrete, noise and exhaust,
swelled with cars, trucks, trains and pipelines carrying water,
wires and God knows what else. Through towns large and small it
will run, plowing under family farms, subdevelopments, acres of
wilderness. Equipped with high-tech electronic customs monitors,
freight from China, offloaded into nonunionized Mexican ports,
will travel north, crossing the border with nary a speed bump,
bound for Kansas City, where the cheap goods manufactured in
booming Far East factories will embark on the final leg of their
journey into the nation's Wal-Marts.

And this NAFTA Superhighway, as it is called, is just the
beginning, the first stage of a long, silent coup aimed at
supplanting the sovereign United States with a multinational North
American Union.

Even as this plot unfolds in slow motion, the mainstream media are
silent; politicians are in denial. Yet word is getting out. Like
samizdat, info about the highway has circulated in niche media
platforms old and new, on right-wing websites like WorldNetDaily,
in the pages of low-circulation magazines like the John Birch
Society's The New American and increasingly on the letters to the
editor page of local newspapers.
more:
--------------------------------------------------------------


http://www.newswithviews.com/DeWeese/tom63.htm
The truth is, on March 23, 2005, President Bush met at his ranch
in Crawford, Texas with Vicente Fox and Paul Martin (then PM of
Canada) in what they called a Summit. The three heads of state
then drove to Baylor University in Waco, where they issued a press
release announcing their signing of an agreement to form the
Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP).

This year, on March 31, 2006, Bush. Fox and new Canadian PM,
Stephen Harper met in Cancun, Mexico. This time their press
release celebrated what they called the first anniversary of the
SPP.

The use of the word “dialog” is a carefully selected euphemism
designed to make the SPP sound like an innocent discussion among
friends. To admit that it is anything more would force the
government to provide Constitutional justification for its
actions.

Moreover, the SPP says it won’t change our court system or
legislative process and that it respects the sovereignty of each
nation. And, says the SPP Myths and Facts document, it strongly
rejects the idea that it is creating a European Union-like
structure.

That defense is almost laughable in light of the massive
activity-taking place in the SPP office located in the Commerce
Department.

First one must know that the European Union was also originally
sold to the nations on the European continent as simply a trade
and security framework. The idea, said proponents, was to create
an economic structure to allow a combined European economy to
compete with the United States and other economic powerhouses.
Only a few years later nations were told they needed a common
currency to provide seamless trade. At the same time, the working
groups organizing the EU policy began to morph into what today has
become a European Union parliament, which now is working to create
a means of taxation, regulation of commerce and a court system.

Now, in offices buried in the bureaucratic structures of the
United States, Canada and Mexico, twenty “working groups” are hard
at work writing policy initiatives for the SPP, covering a wide
range of issues including, the manufacture and movement of goods
across the borders of the three North American nations: creating a
common energy policy and common environmental regulations over the
three nations; regulating E-commerce and information
communications and technologies; establishing financial services,
including loan policy and foreign aid policy; overseeing business
facilitation, creating the rules under which businesses will
operate in the three nations; establishing food and agriculture
policy; and overseeing transportation and health policy.

These policy directives will infringe on every aspect of our
lives. Can anyone seriously accept the Administration’s
explanation that nothing really important is going on here? That
this is only a friendly discussion taking place? That nothing will
change in the way our government operates? If that were so, then
why are we doing it? Why are so much time, money and energy being
taken up in an effort that means nothing? The answer, of course,
is that lots is going on.

It’s no accident that the SPP is working out of the NAFTA office
of the Department of Commerce. The North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA) was the precursor to the Security and Prosperity
Partnership. According to investigative journalist, Jerome Corsi,
a key part of the SPP plan is to expand the NAFTA tribunals into a
North American Union court system.

Under Chapter 11 of the NAFTA Agreement, a tribunal conducts a
behind closed-doors “trial” to decide the cases dealing with how
state and federal laws may damage NAFTA business. If NAFTA
investors believe state or federal laws damage their NAFTA
businesses, under the tribunal the investor may sue the government
and taxpayers will foot the bill. The NAFTA tribunal decision
trumps the U.S. courts, all the way to the Supreme Court. Yet, the
Bush Administration insists the SPP will have no effect on our
court system.
...
-----------------------------------------


http://itshappeninghere.blogspot.com/2006/06/north-american-union-update-bush.html
Bush Administration Quietly Plans NAFTA Super Highway

by Jerome R. Corsi
Posted Jun 12, 2006

Quietly but systematically, the Bush Administration is advancing
the plan to build a huge NAFTA Super Highway, four
football-fields-wide, through the heart of the U.S. along
Interstate 35, from the Mexican border at Laredo, Tex., to the
Canadian border north of Duluth, Minn.


Once complete, the new road will allow containers from the Far
East to enter the United States through the Mexican port of Lazaro
Cardenas, bypassing the Longshoreman’s Union in the process. The
Mexican trucks, without the involvement of the Teamsters Union,
will drive on what will be the nation’s most modern highway
straight into the heart of America. The Mexican trucks will cross
border in FAST lanes, checked only electronically by the new
“SENTRI” system. The first customs stop will be a Mexican customs
office in Kansas City, their new Smart Port complex, a facility
being built for Mexico at a cost of $3 million to the U.S.
taxpayers in Kansas City.

As incredible as this plan may seem to some readers, the first
Trans-Texas Corridor segment of the NAFTA Super Highway is ready
to begin construction next year. Various U.S. government agencies,
dozens of state agencies, and scores of private NGOs
(non-governmental organizations) have been working behind the
scenes to create the NAFTA Super Highway, despite the lack of
comment on the plan by President Bush. The American public is
largely asleep to this key piece of the coming “North American
Union” that government planners in the new trilateral region of
United States, Canada and Mexico are about to drive into reality.

Just examine the following websites to get a feel for the
magnitude of NAFTA Super Highway planning that has been going on
without any new congressional legislation directly authorizing the
construction of the planned international corridor through the
center of the country.

* NASCO, the North America SuperCorridor Coalition Inc., is a
“non-profit organization dedicated to developing the world’s first
international, integrated and secure, multi-modal transportation
system along the International Mid-Continent Trade and
Transportation Corridor to improve both the trade competitiveness
and quality of life in North America.” Where does that sentence
say anything about the USA? Still, NASCO has received $2.5 million
in earmarks from the U.S. Department of Transportation to plan the
NAFTA Super Highway as a 10-lane limited-access road (five lanes
in each direction) plus passenger and freight rail lines running
alongside pipelines laid for oil and natural gas. One glance at
the map of the NAFTA Super Highway on the front page of the NASCO
website will make clear that the design is to connect Mexico,
Canada, and the U.S. into one transportation system.

* Kansas City SmartPort Inc. is an “investor based organization
supported by the public and private sector” to create the key hub
on the NAFTA Super Highway. At the Kansas City SmartPort, the
containers from the Far East can be transferred to trucks going
east and west, dramatically reducing the ground transportation
time dropping the containers off in Los Angeles or Long Beach
involves for most of the country. A brochure on the SmartPort
website describes the plan in glowing terms: “For those who live
in Kansas City, the idea of receiving containers nonstop from the
Far East by way of Mexico may sound unlikely, but later this month
that seemingly far-fetched notion will become a reality.”

* The U.S. government has housed within the Department of Commerce
(DOC) an “SPP office” that is dedicated to organizing the many
working groups laboring within the executive branches of the U.S.,
Mexico and Canada to create the regulatory reality for the
Security and Prosperity Partnership. The SPP agreement was signed
by Bush, President Vicente Fox, and then-Prime Minister Paul
Martin in Waco, Tex., on March 23, 2005. According to the DOC
website, a U.S.-Mexico Joint Working Committee on Transportation
Planning has finalized a plan such that “(m)ethods for detecting
bottlenecks on the U.S.-Mexico border will be developed and low
cost/high impact projects identified in bottleneck studies will be
constructed or implemented.” The report notes that new SENTRI
travel lanes on the Mexican border will be constructed this year.
The border at Laredo should be reduced to an electronic speed bump
for the Mexican trucks containing goods from the Far East to enter
the U.S. on their way to the Kansas City SmartPort.

* The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) is overseeing the
Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC) as the first leg of the NAFTA Super
Highway. A 4,000-page environmental impact statement has already
been completed and public hearings are scheduled for five weeks,
beginning next month, in July 2006. The billions involved will be
provided by a foreign company, Cintra Concessions de
Infraestructuras de Transporte, S.A. of Spain. As a consequence,
the TTC will be privately operated, leased to the Cintra
consortium to be operated as a toll-road.
...
------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.vdare.com/misc/070416_sheehy.htm
April 16, 2007

Chertoff, Gutierrez, Rice: Plotting Bush’s North American Union
By Daniel Sheehy


Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff is a busy guy these
days securing our border with Mexico—at least that’s what the
"mainstream media" wants Americans to think.

During President Bush’s tour of Yuma, Arizona on April 9, we were
shown pictures of Bush and Chertoff posing in front of a Predator
B unmanned aerial vehicle, implying that the Predator is being
used along the border to catch illegal aliens.

Other pictures showed Bush pointing to fencing that has been
erected at the border since he visited the same spot one year ago.
"This border is more secure, and America is safer as a result,"
the president told several hundred border agents, National Guard
personnel, and local law enforcement officials during his visit to
Yuma. "I appreciate the hard work of Secretary Michael Chertoff."

(Read about Bush’s April 9 tour of Yuma in, The One Hundred Year
Fence, by Glenn Spencer, one of the people featured in my book,
Fighting Immigration Anarchy: American Patriots Battle to Save the
Nation. Apparently, a mere 2 ½ miles of double-layered fencing has
been constructed along the border with Mexico since Congress
approved and Bush signed into law The Secure Fence Act of 2006
just before the November election.)

On February 8, in a story titled Immigration drive kicks into high
gear by Nicole Gaouette, the Los Angeles Times reported that
Chertoff took "members of Congress on a helicopter tour of the
southern U.S. border to promote the administration’s stepped-up
enforcement measures." Accompanying the story was a photo of
Chertoff welding a chunk of fence along the Arizona-Mexico border.
These staged photos and appearances are part of a massive
propaganda campaign to convince the American people that the
border is, or soon will be, under control—so it is time to pass a
"comprehensive immigration reform" bill, which is code for a
massive new "guest-worker" program and an illegal-alien amnesty.

This is why we are increasingly hearing about federal authorities
arresting "illegal immigrants" in various cities across the U.S.
Of course, arresting a few dozen illegal aliens once a week is
barely a drop in the bucket when there are more than 20 million in
the U.S. and thousands flooding across the southern border every
day. The arrests are not meant to fix the crisis, but just to give
the impression that the government is cracking down.

In a March 29 story titled "Immigrant plan quietly in the works",
the Los Angeles Times’ Gaouette reported that Chertoff and
Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez have been meeting several
times a week behind closed doors on Capitol Hill with
"influential" Republican senators and aides to advance
"immigration reform."

"We are working very hard on this," Gutierrez was quoting as
saying.

What the L.A. Times and other elitist-controlled major media
outlets do not report is that also behind closed doors, and
without legally required congressional oversight, Chertoff and
Gutierrez, along with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, have
been working together for two years on the economic and political
merger of the United States with Mexico and Canada. This is why
Bush, Chertoff, Gutierrez, and others are pushing so hard for
"comprehensive immigration reform."

The three conspiratorial Cabinet secretaries are coordinating the
gradual integration of the three countries into a borderless North
American Union patterned after the European Union.

(Here are some interesting facts about these three Cabinet
secretaries: Global corporate elitist Gutierrez was earning $7.4
million in 2004 as CEO of Kellogg before becoming Commerce
Secretary in early 2005. Rice, before becoming Bush’s National
Security Advisor in early 2001, sat on the boards of several
multinational corporations, including Chevron, which named an oil
tanker after her. Rice was sworn in as Secretary of State in early
2005. Chertoff is co-author of the misnamed Patriot Act, signed
into law just six weeks after 9/11. Chertoff was Assistant
Attorney General before becoming the second Homeland Security
Secretary, also in early 2005. Again, all three were named to
their Cabinet posts in early 2005. You will see the relevance of
this when you read my bullet points. It also should be noted that
when President Bill Clinton fired all U.S. attorneys in 1993, the
only one not canned was Chertoff, who was U.S. attorney in New
Jersey. I want to know why.)

Others traitors are involved in this overthrow of the U.S.
government and Constitution, but Chertoff, Gutierrez, and Rice
appear to be coordinating the merger for the Bush administration,
according to my analysis of government reports and meetings.

This also explains why Chertoff has said he won’t build the more
than 700 miles of double-layered fencing on our southern border.

The promoters of a EU-style North American Union began during the
George H.W. Bush administration, with the North American Free
Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which is a developing economic and
political union of the U.S., Mexico, and Canada. Congress approved
the 1,700-page pact into law in 1993 and President Clinton
immediately signed it in 1994.

George H.W. Bush, a long-time internationalist and former CIA
chief who stated his goal for a "new world order" when he was
president from 1988-1992, was vice president when President Reagan
signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) in 1986,
which rewarded about three million illegal aliens, mostly from
Mexico, with amnesty and a path to U.S. citizenship. I wonder how
much influence Bush had on Reagan’s decision.

So-called "free trade" agreements such as NAFTA benefit the rich
and hurt the rest of us, both north and south of our borders. The
implementation of NAFTA in 1994 coincides with the largest wave of
illegal immigration and drugs into the U.S. from Mexico ever,
especially under the current Bush administration.

In 2005, "as many as four to 10 million illegal aliens" and tens
of millions of pounds of cocaine and marijuana entered the U.S.,
according to a congressional report titled A Line in the Sand:
Confronting the Threat at the Southwest Border. Does this mean
there were 11,000 to 27,000 new job openings in America every day
in 2005? After all, President Bush tells us these "good-hearted"
people are just coming here to do jobs Americans won’t do. To the
best of my knowledge, the only "mainstream" media outlet reporting
those jaw-dropping numbers was the Houston Chronicle on October
17, 2006, when the report was released. I wrote about the report
on October 20.

The congressional report also states that the U.S. Border Patrol
apprehended approximately 650 illegal aliens from countries "that
could export individuals that could bring harm to our country in
the way of terrorism." Federal law enforcement estimates that only
10 percent to 30 percent of illegals are actually apprehended when
they cross the border, according to the report. This means that
perhaps thousands of people from countries that could "bring harm"
to the U.S. snuck across our southern border in 2005.

In addition, the report says, "Members of Hezbollah have already
entered the United States across the Southwest border."

...
------------------------------------------------------------------


http://www.infowars.com/articles/nwo/north_american_union_superstate_docss.htm
The American Union is Already Here
Bush 'super-state' documents sought, FOIA request filed to expose
plans for 'North American union'

World Net Daily | June 20 2006

RELATED:
Bush Administration Quietly Plans NAFTA Super Highway

North American Union Already Starting to Replace USA

New World Order Chieftans Openly Discuss Dismantling US Border and
Bringing Us into the Pan-American Union

NAFTA Turned U.S., Canada And Mexico Into Single Giant Market

Texas: Keystone State of the FTAA

Task force urges creation of 'Fortress America'

New PNAC/neocon front group pushing tri-national ID on 9/11 corpse

Experts call for common North America border

Panel calls for secured border perimeter with U.S., Canada, Mexico

Internationalizing US Roads

Mexico and U.S. put “Security Perimeter” on fast-track



Author Jerome Corsi filed a Freedom of Information Act request
yesterday asking for full disclosure of the activities of an
office implementing a trilateral agreement with Mexico and Canada
that apparently could lead to a North American union, despite
having no authorization from Congress.

As WorldNetDaily reported, the White House has established working
groups, under the North American Free Trade Agreement office in
the Department of Commerce, to implement the Security and
Prosperity Partnership, or SPP, signed by President Bush, Mexican
President Vicente Fox and then-Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin
in Waco, Texas, March 23, 2005.


Corsi specifically has requested the partnership's membership
lists, constitutive documents, meeting minutes, meeting agendas
and meeting schedules as well as all findings, reports,
presentations or memoranda.
He also wants all comments to representatives of the "Prosperity
Working Groups" or other working groups, committees or task forces
associated with the partnership along with internal and external
interagency or intra-agency memoranda of understanding, letters of
intent, agreements, initiatives and budgeting documents.

Corsi believes President Bush effectively agreed to erase U.S.
borders with Mexico and Canada when he signed the SPP.

...

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Ash Wyllie"> wrote
>
> Small parties can drive the big parties by "stealing" votes, so voting for
> Nader, a Libertarian or a green is not wasted vote. Not in the long run.

Unfortunately, that is often exactly what you don't want to see, if the
person that would be the "better of the bad" is who they steal from, which
is how it usually works.
--
Jim in NC

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-10-23 17:38:46 -0700, Larry Dighera > said:

> On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 17:42:02 -0700, "NW_Pilot"
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>
>> Yea, it's called the North American Union...
>
> The first I heard of this was from the mouth of Vincente Fox:
>
> http://aftermathnews.wordpress.com/category/resistance/
> Vicente Fox admits to wanting a North American Union on Jon
> Stewart Show
>
> Stewart’s applauding audience believes flooding the US with
> illegals, surrendering our sovereignty to Mexico (and vice-versa)
> and ripping up the US constitution is a good idea apparently
> [video]

So, if all this giant conspiracy with George Bush involved really
exists, why haven't all the Democratic candidates made a major issue of
it?


--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>> >> I heard a few months back that because of his stint on L&O, Fred
>> >> Thompson has a HUGH edge
>>
>> > L&O ?
>>
>> "Law and Order"
>
> Good show, but that sure doesn't make him a better candidate, IMHO.

No, it doesn't.

> It's scary how our political system works.

When one considers how the majority of people get their news, plus how the
public schools "prepare" them to evaluate issues and candidates, it's like a
country trying to committ suicide.

> Personally, the more I
> see of it, the more I understand and appreciate the Electoral College.

One thing I've done these past 10-15 years is to stop blaming "politicians"
and targeting more the people that put them in office.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Morgans > posted:

> "Ash Wyllie"> wrote
>>
>> Small parties can drive the big parties by "stealing" votes, so
>> voting for Nader, a Libertarian or a green is not wasted vote. Not
>> in the long run.
>
> Unfortunately, that is often exactly what you don't want to see, if
> the person that would be the "better of the bad" is who they steal
> from, which is how it usually works.
>
The real problem lies in the bad choices as only options. Considering
where we are today, after 8 years of massive and possibly unrecoverable
screw-ups on many fronts, those who voted outside "the system" are among
the few not culpable. Not that it matters. We really need to wake up.

Neil

[Kevin Clarke]

Neil Gould wrote:
>
> The real problem lies in the bad choices as only options. Considering
> where we are today, after 8 years of massive and possibly unrecoverable
> screw-ups on many fronts, those who voted outside "the system" are among
> the few not culpable. Not that it matters. We really need to wake up.
>
I'm not sure that they are bad choices per se. These candidates are all
very accomplished people (except maybe Fred Thompson). The problem is
the lack of real leadership. No one wants to say anything definitive for
fear of offending someone. We need real leaders, people who aren't
afraid to say, "this will be unpopular but we have to do this because of
X, Y and Z". Lincoln did it, FDR did it, Johnson did it, Reagan did it.
Paint the picture, and pull people together to solve the problems.
Honest dialog with a mostly intelligent public.

So much of what passes for discourse today is just propaganda spun from
both sides of the spectrum and spoon fed to us in the 24hr news cycle.
It is poisoning the greatest social experiment the world has ever known,
the USofA.

KC

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Kevin Clarke wrote:
> I'm not sure that they are bad choices per se. These candidates are
> all very accomplished people (except maybe Fred Thompson).

Fred Thompson not accomplished? I think you ought to compare his resume up
against any of the other cnadidates on either side.

Here are some high points.

He earned his undergraduate degree in philosophy and political science from
Memphis State University in 1964 and his law degree from Vanderbilt
University in 1967, working his way through school.

In 1969, Thompson was named an assistant United States attorney in
Nashville, where he earned the reputation as a tough prosecutor. Three years
later, he would help manage U.S. Senator Howard Baker's re-election
campaign. In 1973, at the age of 30, he was off to Washington, where he
served under the glaring spotlight of the Watergate scandal as minority
counsel to the Senate Watergate Committee.

Thompson would return to Tennessee, where he maintained law offices in
Nashville and Washington. His practice varied from pro bono work to
representing the state of Tennessee and large corporations, such as
Westinghouse.

He served as special counsel to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in
1980 and the Senate Intelligence Committee in 1982.

Thompson ran to fill the remaining two years of an unexpired Senate term. It
was a tough race; his Democrat opponent was a 6 term Congressman. Two years
later, in 1996, the people of Tennessee returned him to office with more
votes than any candidate for any office in the state's history.

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 19:55:38 -0700, C J Campbell
> wrote in
<2007102319553816807-christophercampbell@hotmailcom>:

>On 2007-10-23 17:38:46 -0700, Larry Dighera > said:
>
>> On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 17:42:02 -0700, "NW_Pilot"
>> > wrote in
>> >:
>>
>>
>>> Yea, it's called the North American Union...
>>
>> The first I heard of this was from the mouth of Vincente Fox:
>>
>> http://aftermathnews.wordpress.com/category/resistance/
>> Vicente Fox admits to wanting a North American Union on Jon
>> Stewart Show
>>
>> Stewart’s applauding audience believes flooding the US with
>> illegals, surrendering our sovereignty to Mexico (and vice-versa)
>> and ripping up the US constitution is a good idea apparently
>> [video]
>
>So, if all this giant conspiracy with George Bush involved really
>exists, why haven't all the Democratic candidates made a major issue of
>it?

I just heard about it and did some research. As it was Clinton, as I
recall, who signed NAFTA, how can Democrats tactfully pursue this
issue? I suspect we will hear more about this issue as time goes on
because of Fox's comments being broadcast.

Vincente Fox seems willing to tell all:

http://www.billmaher.com/?page_id=213
MAHER: Oh, if only we would have – if only we would have
presidents just disappearing. [laughter] But…but I – I know you
have very mixed feelings about President Bush. I know you are
friendly with him because he came and visited you during his early
days in office. That was a very gratifying thing for you. But that
doesn’t really stack up against some of his giant boners like the
Iraq war, does it? [laughter]

FOX: No.

MAHER: [overlapping] And – and you’ve called him a “windshield
cowboy”? What is that?

FOX: Yeah. You know, in that visit, I noticed when I took him to
see this beautiful stallion that I ride, and having rided [sic]
all my life since I was two years old, I noticed that he was a
little bit trembling, a little bit afraid of touching the horse.
[laughter] And then I invited him to ride it. He said, “No, no,
no, security would not allow me to ride that horse.” [laughter]
[applause]

And then…and then I paid a visit back here in Texas, and he
invited me to go around his farm there. By the way, a very modest
home that he’s got there. And he was driving this pickup,
beautiful pickup. And so I could notice that he knows how to drive
a pickup, but he doesn’t know how to ride a horse. [laughter]
[applause]

MAHER: Well…and – and a couple—

FOX: He’s a good friend, huh?

MAHER: Yeah, well, if you like a friend like that, sure.
[laughter] But, I remember a couple of years ago, at one of the
correspondents’ dinners in Washington, his wife, Laura Bush, got
up and told a story—

FOX: [overlapping] Great lady.

MAHER: What?

FOX: Great lady.

MAHER: Great lady. Well, sure, look who she’s standing next to.
[laughter] But – but she said that – she told a story that—[he
laughs]—and she said that she remembered an instance where the
president – before he was president – tried to “milk” a horse.
[laughter] And she said it was a male horse. [laughter] Which is
an unsettling image on either side of the border, I think you’d
agree. [laughter]




http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/09/vicente_fox_cowboy_bush_is_scared_of_horses.php

Vicente Fox: "Cowboy" Bush Is Scared Of Horses
By Eric Kleefeld - September 21, 2007, 9:20AM
Here's another fun detail from Vicente Fox's upcoming
autobiography: He says that despite President Bush's cowboy image,
the man is actually scared of horses.

Fox tells the story of the two men meeting in Mexico in early
2001, in which he invited Bush to ride a large horse. Bush
nervously backed away. "A horse lover can always tell when others
don't share our passion," Fox wrote.

Fun fact: Bush's Crawford ranch, purchased in 1999 in order to
help create a down-home image for his presidential campaign, does
not have any horses.




Fox was the first President of Mexico in twenty hears that was not
part of the corrupt party that held power there for so long. But they
aren't dead yet:

http://aftermathnews.wordpress.com/category/resistance/
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/14/world/main3365380.shtml
Protestors Tear Down Vicente Fox Statue
Statue Of Former Mexican President Destroyed Right Before
Dedication

BOCA DEL RIO, Mexico, Oct. 14, 2007
(CBS/AP) Opposition protesters have torn down a bronze statue of
former Mexican President Vicente Fox, just hours after it was
erected this morning.

Workers put up the commemorative 10-foot statue before dawn in the
city of Boca del Rio, in Veracruz state.

But by midmorning a crowd of about 100 angry protesters began
egging the statue, fastened a rope around its neck and pulled it
to the ground.

Many were members of the centrist Revolutionary Institutional
Party, which governed Mexico for much of the 20th century until
Fox (of the conservative National Action Party) won a presidential
election in 2000.

The statue's inauguration ceremony, scheduled for tomorrow, has
been canceled.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Kevin Clarke > posted:

> Neil Gould wrote:
>>
>> The real problem lies in the bad choices as only options. Considering
>> where we are today, after 8 years of massive and possibly
>> unrecoverable screw-ups on many fronts, those who voted outside "the
>> system" are among the few not culpable. Not that it matters. We
>> really need to wake up.
>>
> I'm not sure that they are bad choices per se. These candidates are
> all very accomplished people (except maybe Fred Thompson). The
> problem is the lack of real leadership.
>
How is it not "...bad choices per se" if the candidates for _leader_ of
the U.S. lack the ability to provide real leadership? We really need to
wake up.

Neil

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> Fox was the first President of Mexico in twenty hears that was not
> part of the corrupt party that held power there for so long.

No he is a member of another corrupt party. Mexican politics makes Louisiana
politics look good.

[Ash Wyllie]

Larry Dighera opined


> Many were members of the centrist Revolutionary Institutional
> Party, which governed Mexico for much of the 20th century until
> Fox (of the conservative National Action Party) won a presidential
> election in 2000.

I'm not sure that the PRI can be called centrist.

-ash
Cthulhu in 2007!
Why wait for nature?

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrote:

> Fred Thompson not accomplished?

http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion/if_elected_i_will_have_the

[Jim Logajan]

"Dan Luke" > wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" wrote:
>
>> Fred Thompson not accomplished?
>
> http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion/if_elected_i_will_have_the

Oh. Gee, I didn't know that. Too bad he instantly loses half the vote. ;-)

[The Visitor[_2_]]

Update


http://tinyurl.com/3cvkdq












Larry Dighera wrote:
> Is airline passenger abuse on the rise as a result of passenger
> reaction to airline delays?
>
>
> http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2007/10/14/bc-taser.html?ref=rss
>
> Man dies after Taser shock by police at Vancouver airport
> Last Updated: Sunday, October 14, 2007 | 5:04 PM ET
>
> A man in his 40s died early Sunday morning after RCMP jolted him with
> a Taser at the Vancouver International Airport, police said.
>
> Airport security called the Mounties for assistance after an
> unidentified man began pounding on windows and throwing chairs and
> computer equipment in the customs area shortly after arriving on an
> international flight at 1:30 a.m., Richmond RCMP Sgt. Pierre Lemaitre
> told CBC News.
>
> "We arrived and tried to calm the man," Lemaitre said. "We tried
> through gestures to get him to put his hands down on the desk … to no
> avail."
>
> When he ignored orders to calm down, police used a stun gun on the
> man.
>
> The man dropped to the floor and police said it took three officers to
> handcuff him. He then lost consciousness and appeared to go into
> cardiac arrest and was pronounced dead at the airport, the CBC's Chris
> Brown reported.
>
> Few other details have been disclosed other than the man spoke an
> Eastern European language and a flight from Poland touched down about
> an hour before the incident, Brown said.
>
> Taser devices are controversial because of the dozen North American
> deaths resulting from their use. There has been debate about how safe
> these devices are when dealing with certain kinds of people who are
> delirious or wound up, Brown said.
>
> Police are investigating and a toxicology report will be done to
> determine whether there were drugs in the man's system. They will be
> interviewing customs officers and flight attendants, Brown reported.
>
> International arrivals were rerouted but there were no delays in
> flight schedules.
>

[Gig 601XL Builder]

The Visitor wrote:
> Update
>
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3cvkdq
>
>


I've been frustrated with governmental processes (including customs) for
over 30 years and so far no police agency has found the need to Tazer me.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 10:30:57 -0400, The Visitor
> wrote in
>:

>Update
>
>
>http://tinyurl.com/3cvkdq
>

It looks like the videos will tell the truth:



http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071025.wtaser1026/BNStory/National/home
Questions hang over taser death
He spent 10 hours frustrated by airport bureaucracy. Just 24
seconds later, police shot him with tasers

MARK HUME AND SUNNY DHILLON

From Friday's Globe and Mail

October 26, 2007 at 3:19 AM EDT

VANCOUVER — Dazed and confused after more than 15 hours of travel,
unable to communicate in English and scared because he couldn't
find his mother, Polish immigrant Robert Dziekanski was jolted by
a taser just 24 seconds after being confronted by police in
Vancouver International Airport.

That allegation was made Thursday by a lawyer for Mr. Dziekanski's
family who says video evidence will show that the RCMP took him
down with a taser jolt moments after approaching him.

"I've been in touch with witnesses. I have viewed a video, which
was taken by a bystander, which is not going to be released until
at least the time of the inquest. From my observation, the
interaction between the police and this individual, who didn't
appear to me to be posing a danger to anybody at the time … was 24
seconds, roughly, before he was tasered," Walter Kosteckyj said
...

A CTV News report Thursday night, based on emergency radio logs,
shows police arrived at the scene at 1:28 a.m. and, two minutes
later, it was reported a "male has been tasered." ...

The radio log does not indicate when police first approached Mr.
Dziekanski, just that he was down two minutes after they arrived —
and that by 1:32 he had lost consciousness.

CTV reported there was a 12-minute delay before medical help
arrived. Mr. Dziekanski died shortly after being tasered — only 10
hours after arriving in the country that was to be his new home.
...

Police have described a much more measured response in which
officers gave a wildly agitated Mr. Dziekanski two jolts from a
taser just to subdue him long enough to put handcuffs on him. The
RCMP say they too have videos, but they can't be released because
an investigation is under way. ...

He said Mr. Dziekanski's journey to Canada began in Poland about 3
a.m., when he left his home town of Pieszyce to get to an airport
for his first airplane flight. The 40-year-old construction
worker, who had never left Poland before, was immigrating to
Canada to join his mother, 61, who lives in Kamloops, about a
five-hour drive from Vancouver.

They had arranged to meet at the baggage carousel in the
international terminal at YVR. What neither of them seemed to
know, however, was that the baggage area is inside a secure area
just past Canada Customs and Immigration. There is no line of
sight into the Arrivals Hall from the public waiting area, except
for a short distance through sliding glass doors.

Mr. Dziekanski arrived at about 3 p.m. on Sunday, Oct. 14.

"He made his way to primary customs in the ordinary fashion … he
went through there in the normal time frame … he then proceeded
through and was directed to secondary customs, which is normal for
someone who doesn't speak English and is immigrating to the
country," Mr. Kosteckyj said. His papers were in order and he
proceeded without difficulty.

But what happened after that was far from normal. For nearly 10
hours, Mr. Dziekanski stayed in the Arrivals Hall, growing
increasingly frustrated and eventually becoming frantic.

Outside, in the public area, his mother spent nearly six hours
pacing the corridors and, in broken English, asking airport
officials for help in locating her son.

Mr. Kosteckyj said she visited one booth in international arrivals
"at least three to four times and conveyed to them that she was
concerned about her son being in the area and she wanted to get a
message to him and how could she do that? They wrote her name down
and said that they would make inquiries."

At about 10 p.m., she was told he wasn't there. She made the long
drive home, only to find a phone message waiting, saying her son
had been found.

"She called back to immigration when she got in, which would have
been around 2 a.m., and spoke to someone there and was advised
that her son was somewhere in the area and was fine. And she
advised, you know, 'Please take care of him because he can't speak
English and I'll get there as soon as I can.' And of course he had
died, been killed really, some time on or about 1 or 1:30," Mr.
Kosteckyj said.

At a news conference, Ms. Cisowski said she had dreamed of opening
a small business in Kamloops with her son. "I've lost my only
family," she said. "I studied English during the day and at night
I saved money to get my son to Canada."

Mr. Dziekanski arrived with three bags, two of which were filled
with geography books.

[NW_Pilot]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> "NW_Pilot" > wrote:
>> All this was beacuse
>> from my Lebanon trip. They keep telling me they don't have to let me
>> back in to the U.S. the country I was born!
>
> Heh. I suspect that eventually Canada (or whatever country you were
> returning from) might put you on a plane headed back to the U.S. and deny
> you reentry to their country for overstaying your visit!
>
> I don't know much about it or whether your previous ferry trips have
> already tainted any background checks they perform on you, but maybe
> applying to one of the "Trusted Traveler" programs would reduce future
> contact with low-I.Q. goons:
>
> http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/travel/trusted_traveler/

It's not any other country but my own raising a stink! I have been
a_rrested/detained twice on return to the U.S. once upon leaving the plane
(entering the jetway) and once on the plane rather interesting looks I got
on that one.

Renunciation of U.S. Citizenship

A. THE IMMIGRATION & NATIONALITY ACT

Section 349(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) is the
section of law that governs the ability of a United States citizen to
renounce his or her U.S. citizenship. That section of law provides for the
loss of nationality by voluntarily performing the following act with the
intent to relinquish his or her U.S. nationality:

"(5) making a formal renunciation of nationality before a diplomatic or
consular officer of the United States in a foreign state , in such form as
may be prescribed by the Secretary of State" (emphasis added).


B. ELEMENTS OF RENUNCIATION

A person wishing to renounce his or her U.S. citizenship must voluntarily
and with intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship:

appear in person before a U.S. consular or diplomatic officer,
in a foreign country (normally at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate); and
sign an oath of renunciation

Renunciations that do not meet the conditions described above have no legal
effect. Because of the provisions of section 349(a)(5), Americans cannot
effectively renounce their citizenship by mail, through an agent, or while
in the United States. In fact, U.S. courts have held certain attempts to
renounce U.S. citizenship to be ineffective on a variety of grounds, as
discussed below.

C. REQUIREMENT - RENOUNCE ALL RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES

In the recent case of Colon v. U.S. Department of State , 2 F.Supp.2d 43
(1998), plaintiff was a United States citizen and resident of Puerto Rico,
who executed an oath of renunciation before a consular officer at the U.S.
Embassy in Santo Domingo. The U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia rejected Colon's petition for a writ of mandamus directing the
Secretary of State to approve a Certificate of Loss of Nationality in the
case because the plaintiff wanted to retain one of the primary benefits of
U.S. citizenship while claiming he was not a U.S. citizen. The Court
described the plaintiff as a person, "claiming to renounce all rights and
privileges of United States citizenship, [while] Plaintiff wants to continue
to exercise one of the fundamental rights of citizenship, namely to travel
freely throughout the world and when he wants to, return and reside in the
United States." See also Jose Fufi Santori v. United States of America ,
1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 16299 (1994) for a similar case.

A person who wants to renounce U.S. citizenship cannot decide to retain some
of the privileges of citizenship, as this would be logically inconsistent
with the concept of citizenship. Thus, such a person can be said to lack a
full understanding of renouncing citizenship and/or lack the necessary
intent to renounce citizenship, and the Department of State will not approve
a loss of citizenship in such instances.

D. DUAL NATIONALITY / STATELESSNESS

Persons intending to renounce U.S. citizenship should be aware that, unless
they already possess a foreign nationality, they may be rendered stateless
and, thus, lack the protection of any government. They may also have
difficulty traveling as they may not be entitled to a passport from any
country. Even if they were not stateless, they would still be required to
obtain a visa to travel to the United States, or show that they are eligible
for admission pursuant to the terms of the Visa Waiver Pilot Program (VWPP).
If found ineligible for a visa or the VWPP to come to the U.S., a
renunciant, under certain circumstances, could be permanently barred from
entering the United States. Nonetheless, renunciation of U.S. citizenship
may not prevent a foreign country from deporting that individual back to the
United States in some non-citizen status.

E. TAX & MILITARY OBLIGATIONS /NO ESCAPE FROM PROSECUTION

Also, persons who wish to renounce U.S. citizenship should also be aware
that the fact that a person has renounced U.S. citizenship may have no
effect whatsoever on his or her U.S. tax or military service obligations
(contact the Internal Revenue Service or U.S. Selective Service for more
information). In addition, the act of renouncing U.S. citizenship will not
allow persons to avoid possible prosecution for crimes which they may have
committed in the United States, or escape the repayment of financial
obligations previously incurred in the United States.

F. RENUNCIATION FOR MINOR CHILDREN

Parents cannot renounce U.S. citizenship on behalf of their minor children.
Before an oath of renunciation will be administered under Section 349(a)(5)
of the INA, a person under the age of eighteen must convince a U.S.
diplomatic or consular officer that he/she fully understands the nature and
consequences of the oath of renunciation and is voluntarily seeking to
renounce his/her U.S. citizenship. United States common law establishes an
arbitrary limit of age fourteen under which a child's understanding must be
established by substantial evidence.

G. IRREVOCABILITY OF RENUNCIATION

Finally, those contemplating a renunciation of U.S. citizenship should
understand that the act is irrevocable, except as provided in section 351 of
the INA, and cannot be canceled or set aside absent successful
administrative or judicial appeal. (Section 351(b) of the INA provides that
an applicant who renounced his or her U.S. citizenship before the age of
eighteen can have that citizenship reinstated if he or she makes that desire
known to the Department of State within six months after attaining the age
of eighteen. See also Title 22, Code of Federal Regulations, section 50.20).

Renunciation is the most unequivocal way in which a person can manifest an
intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship. Please consider the effects of
renouncing U.S. citizenship, described above, before taking this serious and
irrevocable action. If you have any further questions regarding this matter,
please contact the Director, Office of Policy Review & Interagency Liaison,
Bureau of Consular Affairs, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC 20520.

[The Visitor[_2_]]

Well the video and results are out.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/

I can't bring myself to watch it.
The story says no drugs or alcohol in his system.






Larry Dighera wrote:
> Is airline passenger abuse on the rise as a result of passenger
> reaction to airline delays?
>
>
> http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2007/10/14/bc-taser.html?ref=rss
>
> Man dies after Taser shock by police at Vancouver airport
> Last Updated: Sunday, October 14, 2007 | 5:04 PM ET
>
> A man in his 40s died early Sunday morning after RCMP jolted him with
> a Taser at the Vancouver International Airport, police said.
>
> Airport security called the Mounties for assistance after an
> unidentified man began pounding on windows and throwing chairs and
> computer equipment in the customs area shortly after arriving on an
> international flight at 1:30 a.m., Richmond RCMP Sgt. Pierre Lemaitre
> told CBC News.
>
> "We arrived and tried to calm the man," Lemaitre said. "We tried
> through gestures to get him to put his hands down on the desk … to no
> avail."
>
> When he ignored orders to calm down, police used a stun gun on the
> man.
>
> The man dropped to the floor and police said it took three officers to
> handcuff him. He then lost consciousness and appeared to go into
> cardiac arrest and was pronounced dead at the airport, the CBC's Chris
> Brown reported.
>
> Few other details have been disclosed other than the man spoke an
> Eastern European language and a flight from Poland touched down about
> an hour before the incident, Brown said.
>
> Taser devices are controversial because of the dozen North American
> deaths resulting from their use. There has been debate about how safe
> these devices are when dealing with certain kinds of people who are
> delirious or wound up, Brown said.
>
> Police are investigating and a toxicology report will be done to
> determine whether there were drugs in the man's system. They will be
> interviewing customs officers and flight attendants, Brown reported.
>
> International arrivals were rerouted but there were no delays in
> flight schedules.
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

The Visitor > wrote in
:

> Well the video and results are out.
>
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/
>
> I can't bring myself to watch it.
> The story says no drugs or alcohol in his system.
>


Any sex or car chases in it though?

Bertie

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:18:24 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote in >:

>The Visitor > wrote in
:
>
>> Well the video and results are out.
>>
>> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/



http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071114.wtaser1114a/BNStory/National/home
Tasered man's last moments
IAN BAILEY

Globe and Mail Update

November 14, 2007 at 10:18 PM EST

VANCOUVER — Astonishing video footage released yesterday shows
Polish immigrant Robert Dziekanski did not resist police or
confront them before officers zapped him with a taser, setting off
a struggle that ended in his death in the international arrivals
area of Vancouver's International Airport.

The footage, shot by Victoria resident Paul Pritchard, was
released to the news media yesterday and widely broadcast,
providing a raw look at events that have prompted a furious debate
in B.C. about the police use of tasers. ...

He began acting erratically after more than 10 hours being
processed — the footage picks up as he was positioning chairs and
a table in a manner that caused the automatic doors to remain
open. Security guards look on.

He appears to turn and move away from officers, putting up his
hands in frustration. He appears to pick up a stapler on a
counter. He is then tasered with a 50,000-volt shock, and
jittering he drops, screaming in pain.

Someone yells "hit him again." He was tasered twice. Police pile
on, seeking to restrain him. One officer places his knee on Mr.
Dziekanski's neck.

Mr. Dziekanski went into medical distress and died there. The
footage shows officers attending to him. One man in a suit checks
for a pulse. It is impossible to tell from the footage whether he
is dead at that point, although he appears non-responsive.

An autopsy later found no sign of drugs or alcohol in Mr.
Dziekanski's system, but failed to come up with any specific cause
of death. ...

"I was expecting to see a confrontation, a discussion and things
go sideways, then the tasering. That's not what you see," he said.

"The biggest thing that surprises me is there were four
professional police officers there, and that the four officers
showed up on the scene, [and] none of them seemed to take the
time, not one of them, to go and talk to the crowd of people, the
witnesses that were there and get some background on what was
going on," he said. ...

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:





> "The biggest thing that surprises me is there were four
> professional police officers there, and that the four officers
> showed up on the scene, [and] none of them seemed to take the
> time, not one of them, to go and talk to the crowd of people, the
> witnesses that were there and get some background on what was
> going on," he said. ...



http://www.bizbag.com/Click/click.htm


Bertie

[Larry Dighera]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/video/vs?id=RTGAM.20071026.wvtaser1026&sid=
Airport taser death
Internal airport documents prompt troubling questions


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/video/vs?id=RTGAM.20071016.wvtaser1016&sid=
The taser debate
Cell phone images of man before taser incident at the Vancouver
International Airport


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/video/vs?id=RTGAM.20071114.wvtaser_death1114
Taser death video
Warning graphic content: Footage of final moments of Robert
Dziekanski's life


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/video/vs?id=RTGAM.20071026.wvtaser1026