Mounties Electrocute Airline Passenger

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

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

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?

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

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

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

"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.

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.

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

"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