Bush Has Thanksgiving Dinner with Troops in Baghdad

[Jim Thompson]

Bush Has Thanksgiving Dinner with Troops in Baghdad.

Just came over the Fox News.

...Jim Thompson

[Paul Burridge]

On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 10:59:55 -0700, Jim Thompson

Post by Jim Thompson
Bush Has Thanksgiving Dinner with Troops in Baghdad.

He must *love* air travel. A 26hr round-trip for a 2hr visit! I only
wish I were that keen on flying.

[Robert Monsen]

Post by Paul Burridge
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 10:59:55 -0700, Jim Thompson

Post by Jim Thompson
Bush Has Thanksgiving Dinner with Troops in Baghdad.

He must *love* air travel. A 26hr round-trip for a 2hr visit! I only
wish I were that keen on flying.

Flying in AF1 isn't like coach... Also, he isn't footing the bill. I bet
they got lots of nice photos that'll be splattered all over TV news tonight.
Great PR.

[Jim Thompson]

On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 20:29:09 GMT, "Robert Monsen"

Post by Robert Monsen

Post by Paul Burridge
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 10:59:55 -0700, Jim Thompson

Post by Jim Thompson
Bush Has Thanksgiving Dinner with Troops in Baghdad.

He must *love* air travel. A 26hr round-trip for a 2hr visit! I only
wish I were that keen on flying.

Flying in AF1 isn't like coach... Also, he isn't footing the bill. I bet
they got lots of nice photos that'll be splattered all over TV news tonight.
Great PR.

Yep. Has a nice conventional bedroom with *all* the amenities ;-)

...Jim Thompson

[Ken Taylor]

Post by Jim Thompson
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 20:29:09 GMT, "Robert Monsen"

Post by Robert Monsen

Post by Paul Burridge
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 10:59:55 -0700, Jim Thompson

Post by Jim Thompson
Bush Has Thanksgiving Dinner with Troops in Baghdad.

He must *love* air travel. A 26hr round-trip for a 2hr visit! I only
wish I were that keen on flying.

Flying in AF1 isn't like coach... Also, he isn't footing the bill. I bet
they got lots of nice photos that'll be splattered all over TV news tonight.
Great PR.

Yep. Has a nice conventional bedroom with *all* the amenities ;-)
...Jim Thompson
--

Including hot and cold running women?

Ken

[Roger Gt]

"Ken Taylor" wrote in message

"Jim Thompson" wrote in message

Post by Jim Thompson

"Paul Burridge" wrote in message

Post by Paul Burridge

Post by Jim Thompson
Bush Has Thanksgiving Dinner with Troops in Baghdad.

He must *love* air travel. A 26hr round-trip for a 2hr visit! I only
wish I were that keen on flying.

Flying in AF1 isn't like coach... Also, he isn't footing the bill. I bet
they got lots of nice photos that'll be splattered all over TV news

tonight. Great PR.

Post by Jim Thompson
Yep. Has a nice conventional bedroom with *all* the amenities ;-)
...Jim Thompson
--

Including hot and cold running women?
Ken

Hey, Clinton is out!

[CWatters]

I'll be glad when the election campaign is over :-)

[Harry Conover]

Post by Robert Monsen

Post by Paul Burridge
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 10:59:55 -0700, Jim Thompson

Post by Jim Thompson
Bush Has Thanksgiving Dinner with Troops in Baghdad.

He must *love* air travel. A 26hr round-trip for a 2hr visit! I only
wish I were that keen on flying.

Flying in AF1 isn't like coach... Also, he isn't footing the bill. I bet
they got lots of nice photos that'll be splattered all over TV news tonight.
Great PR.

Then too, you have to give the guy credit for having the character and
the guts to pull this trip off. After all, landing AF1 at Bagdad
Airport takes more than a small bit of character and courage.

It is to be expeced that many of the Democratic hopefuls will bitch
and moan, which hopefully will tend to thin the herd. I note that ALL
of the more serious Democratic contenders said that it was the right
thing for Bush to do.

Then too, we all know who the "Black Horse" candidate who will carry
the Democratic banner in 2004 will be, and IMHO it isn't any one of
the already announced candidates! Wait and see.

Harry C.

[Jim Thompson]

Post by Harry Conover

Post by Robert Monsen

Post by Paul Burridge
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 10:59:55 -0700, Jim Thompson

Post by Jim Thompson
Bush Has Thanksgiving Dinner with Troops in Baghdad.

He must *love* air travel. A 26hr round-trip for a 2hr visit! I only
wish I were that keen on flying.

Flying in AF1 isn't like coach... Also, he isn't footing the bill. I bet
they got lots of nice photos that'll be splattered all over TV news tonight.
Great PR.

Then too, you have to give the guy credit for having the character and
the guts to pull this trip off. After all, landing AF1 at Bagdad
Airport takes more than a small bit of character and courage.
It is to be expeced that many of the Democratic hopefuls will bitch
and moan, which hopefully will tend to thin the herd. I note that ALL
of the more serious Democratic contenders said that it was the right
thing for Bush to do.
Then too, we all know who the "Black Horse" candidate who will carry
the Democratic banner in 2004 will be, and IMHO it isn't any one of
the already announced candidates! Wait and see.
Harry C.

You mean the "Bitch Witch" ?:-)

...Jim Thompson

[John S. Dyson]

Post by Harry Conover

Post by Robert Monsen

Post by Paul Burridge
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 10:59:55 -0700, Jim Thompson

Post by Jim Thompson
Bush Has Thanksgiving Dinner with Troops in Baghdad.

He must *love* air travel. A 26hr round-trip for a 2hr visit! I only
wish I were that keen on flying.

Flying in AF1 isn't like coach... Also, he isn't footing the bill. I bet
they got lots of nice photos that'll be splattered all over TV news tonight.
Great PR.

It is to be expeced that many of the Democratic hopefuls will bitch
and moan, which hopefully will tend to thin the herd. I note that ALL
of the more serious Democratic contenders said that it was the right
thing for Bush to do.

It CERTAINLY increases their apparent character by HONESTLY congradulating
the pres when appropriate. This helps to strengthen the effect
when VALID criticism is asserted.

All too often, the Dems condem everything that the President does,
and lose ALL credibility because they are wrong more often than
not. There is plenty to VALIDLY criticize the president, but it
is fairly clear that the Democrat candidates are either too
stupid or just doing shotgun criticism to see if anything sticks.

Pathetic indeed, esp when (again) there are adequate issues to
validly criticize the pres.

John

[maxfoo]

On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 10:59:55 -0700, Jim Thompson

Post by Jim Thompson
Bush Has Thanksgiving Dinner with Troops in Baghdad.
Just came over the Fox News.
...Jim Thompson

He didn't want to be out done by Hillary Clinton, who was in Iraq
first.

[Johnboy]

Yeah, but she's totally useless!!! George is the one I watch!

Post by Paul Burridge
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 10:59:55 -0700, Jim Thompson

Post by Jim Thompson
Bush Has Thanksgiving Dinner with Troops in Baghdad.
Just came over the Fox News.
...Jim Thompson

He didn't want to be out done by Hillary Clinton, who was in Iraq
first.

[Ken Taylor]

Post by Paul Burridge
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 10:59:55 -0700, Jim Thompson

Post by Jim Thompson
Bush Has Thanksgiving Dinner with Troops in Baghdad.
Just came over the Fox News.
...Jim Thompson

He didn't want to be out done by Hillary Clinton, who was in Iraq
first.

I thought it didn't look like Saddam......

Ken

[Luhan Monat]

Post by Paul Burridge
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 10:59:55 -0700, Jim Thompson

Post by Jim Thompson
Bush Has Thanksgiving Dinner with Troops in Baghdad.
Just came over the Fox News.
...Jim Thompson

He didn't want to be out done by Hillary Clinton, who was in Iraq
first.

Hillary? Are we trying to scare the poor Iraqi's?

[Keith R. Williams]

Post by Paul Burridge
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 10:59:55 -0700, Jim Thompson

Post by Jim Thompson
Bush Has Thanksgiving Dinner with Troops in Baghdad.
Just came over the Fox News.
...Jim Thompson

He didn't want to be out done by Hillary Clinton, who was in Iraq
first.

I believe she was in Afganistan at the time. Good place...

[maxfoo]

Post by Keith R. Williams

Post by Paul Burridge
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 10:59:55 -0700, Jim Thompson

Post by Jim Thompson
Bush Has Thanksgiving Dinner with Troops in Baghdad.
Just came over the Fox News.
...Jim Thompson

He didn't want to be out done by Hillary Clinton, who was in Iraq
first.

I believe she was in Afganistan at the time. Good place...

Bush was a no-show in Afganistan...guess he lost interest in Bin Laden.
not to mention the troops there too.




Remove "HeadFromButt", before replying by email.

[Joe Legris]

Post by Jim Thompson
Bush Has Thanksgiving Dinner with Troops in Baghdad.
Just came over the Fox News.
...Jim Thompson

Is that what you call a self-basting turkey?

[Tim Auton]

Post by Jim Thompson
Bush Has Thanksgiving Dinner with Troops in Baghdad.
Just came over the Fox News.

You must *really* like Dubya.

I'd clean the TV soon or the buttons will stick for ever.


Tim

[bubaloo]

Well, did his puppet masters go along, or did "golly GW" go it alone. Oh,
and what a fine, mmm uh, speech, as always.

--
No "jam" if by email.

[n***@no1.com]

Whereas I support George W. and the allies in their action in Iraq, I
can't get it out of my mind what he did to a young girl in February of
1998 when he was governor of Texas. I'm talking about Karla Faye
Tucker. She was involved in a rather brutal murder in 1983 which was
not premeditated and for which she took full responsibility. In her 15
years in jail awaiting execution, she rahabilitated herself so well
that even hardened guards spoke up for her.

On the eve of her execution, speaking on his right to grant her a 30
day stay of execution, George W. said he had to hand her fate over to
a 'higher power'. Some wag has since pointed out that he was the
higher power and questioned if he realized that. He further opined
that George was a coward. Anyway, he allowed her to be the first woman
executed in Texas in over a hundred years.

I have recently read a report by a reporter who interviewed George W.
about her plea for clemency. Instead of being man enough to account
for his actions, he took the course of belittling her for having
asked. No matter what she did due to a severely corrupted childhood,
and being heavily strung out on drugs at the time of her crime, she
died as a good kid...a decent human being. And Bush stood by trying to
collect political Brownie points.

Happy Thanksgiving, George!!



On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 10:59:55 -0700, Jim Thompson

Post by Jim Thompson
Bush Has Thanksgiving Dinner with Troops in Baghdad.
Just came over the Fox News.
...Jim Thompson

[Paul Burridge]

Post by n***@no1.com
Whereas I support George W. and the allies in their action in Iraq, I
can't get it out of my mind what he did to a young girl in February of
1998 when he was governor of Texas. I'm talking about Karla Faye
Tucker. She was involved in a rather brutal murder in 1983 which was
not premeditated and for which she took full responsibility. In her 15
years in jail awaiting execution, she rahabilitated herself so well
that even hardened guards spoke up for her.
On the eve of her execution, speaking on his right to grant her a 30
day stay of execution, George W. said he had to hand her fate over to
a 'higher power'. Some wag has since pointed out that he was the
higher power and questioned if he realized that. He further opined
that George was a coward. Anyway, he allowed her to be the first woman
executed in Texas in over a hundred years.
I have recently read a report by a reporter who interviewed George W.
about her plea for clemency. Instead of being man enough to account
for his actions, he took the course of belittling her for having
asked. No matter what she did due to a severely corrupted childhood,
and being heavily strung out on drugs at the time of her crime, she
died as a good kid...a decent human being. And Bush stood by trying to
collect political Brownie points.

Yup. That's politicians the world over for you, I'm afraid. Of course
none of them have ever once erred in their own lives...

[Jim Thompson]

Post by n***@no1.com
Whereas I support George W. and the allies in their action in Iraq, I
can't get it out of my mind what he did to a young girl in February of
1998 when he was governor of Texas. I'm talking about Karla Faye
Tucker. She was involved in a rather brutal murder in 1983 which was
not premeditated and for which she took full responsibility. In her 15
years in jail awaiting execution, she rahabilitated herself so well
that even hardened guards spoke up for her.
On the eve of her execution, speaking on his right to grant her a 30
day stay of execution, George W. said he had to hand her fate over to
a 'higher power'. Some wag has since pointed out that he was the
higher power and questioned if he realized that. He further opined
that George was a coward. Anyway, he allowed her to be the first woman
executed in Texas in over a hundred years.
I have recently read a report by a reporter who interviewed George W.
about her plea for clemency. Instead of being man enough to account
for his actions, he took the course of belittling her for having
asked. No matter what she did due to a severely corrupted childhood,
and being heavily strung out on drugs at the time of her crime, she
died as a good kid...a decent human being. And Bush stood by trying to
collect political Brownie points.
Happy Thanksgiving, George!!

[snip]

Suppose I murder you and then get religion. Should I go free? Want
to test the concept?

There should be a one year time limit on appeals... expedited at the
expense of the state... then hang 'em. None of this dawdling for 20
years.

...Jim Thompson

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Jim Thompson
<***@invalid.invalid> wrote (in <eaqesv00jbne2sfs4s7puot3goc8k5idhc@
4ax.com>) about 'Bush Has Thanksgiving Dinner with Troops in Baghdad',

Post by Jim Thompson
There should be a one year time limit on appeals... expedited at the
expense of the state... then hang 'em. None of this dawdling for 20
years.

When we had capital punishment, the appeal had to go in within three
weeks, otherwise it was too late. Appeals usually took about 12 months
to come to court, IIRC, and there were only two stages - Appeal Court
and Home Secretary's reprieve.

[Paul Burridge]

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 08:29:34 -0700, Jim Thompson

Post by Jim Thompson
There should be a one year time limit on appeals... expedited at the
expense of the state... then hang 'em. None of this dawdling for 20
years.

It's certainly not cricket to keep someone hanging around for 20 years
before executing them, I agree (but for different reasons). But you
don't "hang 'em" in *any* state, now, do you? Is it not the case that
the Chair isn't even used these days?

[n***@no1.com]

Post by Paul Burridge

Post by Jim Thompson
There should be a one year time limit on appeals... expedited at the
expense of the state... then hang 'em. None of this dawdling for 20
years.

It's certainly not cricket to keep someone hanging around for 20 years
before executing them, I agree (but for different reasons). But you
don't "hang 'em" in *any* state, now, do you? Is it not the case that
the Chair isn't even used these days?

Washington State gives you the option of hanging or lethal injection.
Believe it or not, one opted to be hanged. Another guy did too and
tried putting on so much weight that he'd be to heavy to hang. I never
heard the end of that one.

[R. Steve Walz]

Post by Paul Burridge
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 08:29:34 -0700, Jim Thompson

Post by Jim Thompson
There should be a one year time limit on appeals... expedited at the
expense of the state... then hang 'em. None of this dawdling for 20
years.

It's certainly not cricket to keep someone hanging around for 20 years
before executing them, I agree (but for different reasons). But you
don't "hang 'em" in *any* state, now, do you? Is it not the case that
the Chair isn't even used these days?

-----------------------
Nope, in Maryland it is a choice for that sniper, Mohammed.

-Steve

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 02:18:02 GMT, the renowned "R. Steve Walz"

Post by R. Steve Walz

Post by Paul Burridge
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 08:29:34 -0700, Jim Thompson

Post by Jim Thompson
There should be a one year time limit on appeals... expedited at the
expense of the state... then hang 'em. None of this dawdling for 20
years.

It's certainly not cricket to keep someone hanging around for 20 years
before executing them, I agree (but for different reasons). But you
don't "hang 'em" in *any* state, now, do you? Is it not the case that
the Chair isn't even used these days?

-----------------------
Nope, in Maryland it is a choice for that sniper, Mohammed.

Hmm.. there was one that wanted a firing squad, for political reasons.

Here's info (?) from one web page:

Hanging
last update: 04/04/98
Prisoner is weighed prior to execution. The "drop" is based on the
prisoners weight,(tables were developed in England during the 1800's)
to deliver 1260 foot-pounds of force to the neck. Essentially, the
prisoners weight in pounds is divided into 1260 to arrive at a drop in
feet. This is to assure almost instant death, a minimum of bruising,
and neither strangulation nor beheading. Properly done, death is by
dislocation of thr third or fourth cervical vertibrae. The familiar
noose coil is placed behind the prisoner's left ear, so as to snap the
neck upon dropping.

States using Hanging: Montana, New Hampshire, Washington

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

[n***@no1.com]

Post by Spehro Pefhany
This is to assure almost instant death, a minimum of bruising,
and neither strangulation nor beheading. Properly done, death is by
dislocation of thr third or fourth cervical vertibrae.

this is getting pretty gruesome, but to the point.

Once the vertebrae is snapped, how do you know the person isn't
feeling anything? He would be essentially a parapalegic and couldn't
move his limbs, but his brain could be very much alive because feeling
is still there above the break. He could be just hanging there in
incredible agony choking to death. Some of these people are not
pronounced dead till 25 minutes later.

The thing is we don't know, and can't know what kind of suffering is
going on, whether by hanging, electrocution or gas.

My question is why do we have the right to impose that on anyone and
still call ourselves civilized beings? I can't even accept lethal
injection, because a killer is a killer, is a killer..... Legalizing
it doesn't change the facts.

[DarkMatter]

Post by n***@no1.com
My question is why do we have the right to impose that on anyone and
still call ourselves civilized beings? I can't even accept lethal
injection, because a killer is a killer, is a killer..... Legalizing
it doesn't change the facts.

The son of a bitch that shot my aunt and my cousin with a sawed off
shotgun deserves to die, and that by any means, brutal or otherwise.

In fact, a more brutal execution would be an even stronger
deterrent. I could give a shit what the murderous bastard feels.

If THAT were the practice, there would be a lot less asswipes out
there, stepping over that line. The more brutal, the better! The
bastards don't show their victims any mercy. Why the fuck should we
show them any?

As far as non murderous violent offenders... there asses should be
sent off to a new devil's island, never to be allowed back on this
soil again.

If the punishment fit the crime, there would be a lot less criminal
activity.

All rapists. and robbers that brandish a weapon, and all assaults
should go away to this prison island. No fucking day room. No TV.
Only a newspaper to keep up with the real world that they denied
themselves. Hard labor as well.

Fuck all you sympathetic idiots.

When members of your family are murdered, let's see how you *feel*
about it then.

[Bill Garber]

Post by DarkMatter

Post by n***@no1.com
My question is why do we have the right to impose that on anyone and
still call ourselves civilized beings? I can't even accept lethal
injection, because a killer is a killer, is a killer..... Legalizing
it doesn't change the facts.

The son of a bitch that shot my aunt and my cousin with a sawed off
shotgun deserves to die, and that by any means, brutal or otherwise.

I agree here, but we must be 100% sure we have the right guy.

Post by DarkMatter
In fact, a more brutal execution would be an even stronger
deterrent. I could give a shit what the murderous bastard feels.
If THAT were the practice, there would be a lot less asswipes out
there, stepping over that line. The more brutal, the better! The
bastards don't show their victims any mercy. Why the fuck should we
show them any?
As far as non murderous violent offenders... there asses should be
sent off to a new devil's island, never to be allowed back on this
soil again.
If the punishment fit the crime, there would be a lot less criminal
activity.
All rapists. and robbers that brandish a weapon, and all assaults
should go away to this prison island. No fucking day room. No TV.
Only a newspaper to keep up with the real world that they denied
themselves. Hard labor as well.

Here is where I disagree. What about all those who
have a death wish but don't have the balls to kill
themselves. They will go out and kill someone's
loved ones so they can be put to death. Let's think
rationally a little bit here.

Post by DarkMatter
Fuck all you sympathetic idiots.

I sympathize with you. I figured your bitterness
had a background and now that I am aware, maybe
you and I can get along. I've lost loved ones to
suicide and may lose more from the looks of it.
I'll explain if you need me to do so.

Post by DarkMatter
When members of your family are murdered, let's see how you *feel*
about it then.

Losing loved ones is a difficult thing, I know,
but none of the people in this NG had anything
to do with that. I am sorry for your terrible
loss.

Bill @ GarberStreet Enterprizez };-)
Web Site - http://garberstreet.netfirms.com
Email - ***@comXcast.net
Remove - SPAM and X to contact me



---
This email ain't infected, dude!

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.544 / Virus Database: 338 - Release Date: 11/26/03

[John S. Dyson]

Post by Bill Garber

Post by DarkMatter

Post by n***@no1.com
My question is why do we have the right to impose that on anyone and
still call ourselves civilized beings? I can't even accept lethal
injection, because a killer is a killer, is a killer..... Legalizing
it doesn't change the facts.

The son of a bitch that shot my aunt and my cousin with a sawed off
shotgun deserves to die, and that by any means, brutal or otherwise.

I agree here, but we must be 100% sure we have the right guy.

The possibility of getting the WRONG PERSON is the only major
problem that I have against the death penalty. If there is
any reasonable chance of acquittal based upon NEW information
or a poorly conducted trial, then the punishment MUST default
back to life (no parole) imprisonment. If there is a SLIGHT
probability of a person being innocent, then it is a very
severe wrong to execute someone.

In the case of Carla? (forget her name), she should be a posterchild
for commuting a sentence to life in prison. It STRONGLY appeared
that she wasnt' a fraud. It is very problematical to set a precendent
to 'do the right thing' and allow 'Carla' to try to be a positive
influence after her terrible acts.

All in all -- Bush (as governor of Texas), had little power. On
federal punishments, Bush (as president) has significantly greater
power.

John

[DarkMatter]

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 00:10:16 -0500, "Bill Garber"

Post by Bill Garber
Here is where I disagree. What about all those who
have a death wish but don't have the balls to kill
themselves. They will go out and kill someone's
loved ones so they can be put to death. Let's think
rationally a little bit here.

Take your own advice. That is just an outright silly remark.

If a person bent on suicide "can't do it" but "can" to another, then
they "can do it" to themselves. I'll let Jack out to assist those
folks.

Murder is murder, regardless of the "reason given".

[Paul Burridge]

Post by n***@no1.com
Once the vertebrae is snapped, how do you know the person isn't
feeling anything? He would be essentially a parapalegic and couldn't
move his limbs, but his brain could be very much alive because feeling
is still there above the break. He could be just hanging there in
incredible agony choking to death. Some of these people are not
pronounced dead till 25 minutes later.

Good point. If the calculations aren't carried out properly, this is a
real risk. More commonly in the old days before the tables were made
available, the usual problem was insufficient drop/weight so one ended
up with slow strangulation. So relatives or friends would attend on
the day to pull on the person's legs in order to tighten the noose and
ensure a quicker end. Ideally, death takes place by the fracture of
the neck as someone else has said; supposedly the shock from this
kills instantly but more likely just paralyses all muscles from the
neck down, including those of the throrasic cavity, preventing
respiration. The person then dies from lack of oxygen a couple of
minutes after being dropped.
Lethal injection's certainly cleaner - very much cleaner than the way
most killers kill their victims in the first place.

[Jim Thompson]

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 16:06:15 +0000, Paul Burridge

Post by Paul Burridge
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 08:29:34 -0700, Jim Thompson

Post by Jim Thompson
There should be a one year time limit on appeals... expedited at the
expense of the state... then hang 'em. None of this dawdling for 20
years.

It's certainly not cricket to keep someone hanging around for 20 years
before executing them, I agree (but for different reasons). But you
don't "hang 'em" in *any* state, now, do you? Is it not the case that
the Chair isn't even used these days?

I think it's Utah that still allows hanging and firing squad choices.

...Jim Thompson

[Paul Burridge]

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 08:55:05 -0700, Jim Thompson

Post by Jim Thompson
I think it's Utah that still allows hanging and firing squad choices.

Which would you choose, then, Jim? Personally, given limitless choice,
I'd prefer to be blown to bits by being strapped to a large bomb.
Should be quite a buzz. :-)

[Jim Thompson]

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 17:33:04 +0000, Paul Burridge

Post by Paul Burridge
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 08:55:05 -0700, Jim Thompson

Post by Jim Thompson
I think it's Utah that still allows hanging and firing squad choices.

Which would you choose, then, Jim? Personally, given limitless choice,
I'd prefer to be blown to bits by being strapped to a large bomb.
Should be quite a buzz. :-)

Everyone to their own choice. I strongly suspect all forms of
execution, except lethal injection, has some significant amount of
associated pain.

...Jim Thompson

[DarkMatter]

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 11:15:16 -0700, Jim Thompson

Post by Jim Thompson
Everyone to their own choice. I strongly suspect all forms of
execution, except lethal injection, has some significant amount of
associated pain.

The gas chamber killed in seconds and was not painless if one
contrasts the duration and writhing of an electrocution execution.

A firing squad is probably fairly painless, since death is rather
instantaneous. Gotta hurt for a second though, eh!

I would like to see a curare dart used for paralysis. Last words are
given the previous night. No fuss... no muss.

The 1793 french "physician" designed guillotine was decidedly
painless. If one renders the convict asleep or unconscious at the
time of the execution.. how much more humane can we be to these
bastards?

As for the ones that get it that didn't deserve it... I'm sure God
has a special place for the wrongfully executed. I feel sorry for
them myself, and am glad that I know not who any of them are.

This is the reason there is more than one actuator "switch" at the
execution chambers.

Even the executioners don't want to know who actually facilitated
the act.

I say the act of execution is facilitated by the criminal that
committed the capital crime that got him seated in that position to
begin with. We should let a computer drop the hammer if we are still
"squeamish" about it.

With that knowledge in mind, there is hesitation in the world of
retarded criminals, so it DOES act as a deterrent, even if it is only
a small amount.

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that DarkMatter <***@thebaratthe
endoftheuniverse.org> wrote (in <***@4ax.
com>) about 'Bush Has Thanksgiving Dinner with Troops in Baghdad', on

Post by DarkMatter
The gas chamber killed in seconds and was not painless if one
contrasts the duration and writhing of an electrocution execution.

There is a great deal of evidence that people took/take several minutes
to die in apparent agony. Do a web search.

Post by DarkMatter
A firing squad is probably fairly painless, since death is rather
instantaneous. Gotta hurt for a second though, eh!

Probably not as much as that. May actually be humane, but the maimed
body is undignified.

Post by DarkMatter
I would like to see a curare dart used for paralysis. Last words are
given the previous night. No fuss... no muss.

Curare is ONE component of the normal lethal injection, AIUI. Used
alone, the effects are clearly inhumane. I couldn't find this on the
web, but try a toxicology textbook.

Post by DarkMatter
The 1793 french "physician" designed guillotine was decidedly
painless.

Again, there is evidence that the heads survived for an appreciable
time.

Post by DarkMatter
If one renders the convict asleep or unconscious at the time
of the execution.. how much more humane can we be to these bastards?

'Humane killing' is not the point, IMHO. If anything, it dilutes the
deterrent effect for 'no-hopers' anyway. Long-term denial of liberty
with hard punishment, short of 'cruel, and inhumane', is more of a
deterrent, I think.

[Reg Edwards]

Post by Jim Thompson
I strongly suspect all forms of
execution, except lethal injection, has some significant amount of
associated pain.

=============================

From a spectator's viewpoint the pain may last only a few milliseconds. But
as experienced by the victim the pain lasts for ETERNITY !

Is this fair ?

[DarkMatter]

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:34:10 +0000 (UTC), "Reg Edwards"

Post by Reg Edwards

Post by Jim Thompson
I strongly suspect all forms of
execution, except lethal injection, has some significant amount of
associated pain.

=============================
From a spectator's viewpoint the pain may last only a few milliseconds. But
as experienced by the victim the pain lasts for ETERNITY !
Is this fair ?

Victim? A convicted killer or other capital offender, sentenced to
death is hardly a victim.

All the better if his pain does last for an eternity.

[Rich Grise]

Drug overdose, the clear winner! %-}

Cheers!
Rich

Post by Paul Burridge
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 08:55:05 -0700, Jim Thompson

Post by Jim Thompson
I think it's Utah that still allows hanging and firing squad choices.

Which would you choose, then, Jim? Personally, given limitless choice,
I'd prefer to be blown to bits by being strapped to a large bomb.
Should be quite a buzz. :-)
--
"I expect history will be kind to me, since I intend to write it."
- Winston Churchill

[Tweetldee]

Post by Jim Thompson

Post by n***@no1.com
Whereas I support George W. and the allies in their action in Iraq, I
can't get it out of my mind what he did to a young girl in February of
1998 when he was governor of Texas. I'm talking about Karla Faye
Tucker. She was involved in a rather brutal murder in 1983 which was
not premeditated and for which she took full responsibility. In her 15
years in jail awaiting execution, she rahabilitated herself so well
that even hardened guards spoke up for her.
On the eve of her execution, speaking on his right to grant her a 30
day stay of execution, George W. said he had to hand her fate over to
a 'higher power'. Some wag has since pointed out that he was the
higher power and questioned if he realized that. He further opined
that George was a coward. Anyway, he allowed her to be the first woman
executed in Texas in over a hundred years.
I have recently read a report by a reporter who interviewed George W.
about her plea for clemency. Instead of being man enough to account
for his actions, he took the course of belittling her for having
asked. No matter what she did due to a severely corrupted childhood,
and being heavily strung out on drugs at the time of her crime, she
died as a good kid...a decent human being. And Bush stood by trying to
collect political Brownie points.
Happy Thanksgiving, George!!

[snip]
Suppose I murder you and then get religion. Should I go free? Want
to test the concept?
There should be a one year time limit on appeals... expedited at the
expense of the state... then hang 'em. None of this dawdling for 20
years.
...Jim Thompson

AMEN AMEN AMEN

[n***@no1.com]

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 08:29:34 -0700, Jim Thompson

Post by Jim Thompson
[snip]
Suppose I murder you and then get religion. Should I go free? Want
to test the concept?
There should be a one year time limit on appeals... expedited at the
expense of the state... then hang 'em. None of this dawdling for 20
years.

I'm not arguing with you brother. If someone killed someone in my
family I wouldn't be at all understanding. I'd do the execution
myself, slowly, in my own way.

One of the main problems, as superlawyer Jerry Spence pointed out, is
that 4% of convicted criminals were found not guilty after they had
executed them. Oooops!!

Condidering there are something like 300 people on death row in some
parts of the States right now, that translates to about 20 innocent
people being killed. That doesn't include those railroaded by
ambitious police looking for a conviction or plain stupid, biased
judges and juries. How would you feel if say a relative was one of
those inncents executed?

Karla Faye Tucker was forgiven by the brother of the women she was
involved in killing. He asked that she not be executed. He's a much
bigger man than me. Your point about getting religion while on death
row is a valid point. But one of the senior guards on death row at
Huntsville, who had seen all that, and was immune to it, said she was
the first he'd seen who he thought had been truly rehabilitated.

I noted your point about faster execution dates. But that's flawed
too. Under the present system, however, a 15 year wait before
execution is the norm. If a person has genuinely rehabilitated
themselves, and not just to escape the death penalty, you are
essentially killing an innocent person. People do change and they do
make big, one-time mistakes.

Texas has opened it's jails in the past and sent murders back out on
the street, purely for financial reasons. One of these guys went out
and started killing again. He was on death row and they just let him
go. Yet they can't let a young girl live, even though she's rehabbed.
It wasn't like they were going to set her free, she would have pent
the rest of her life in jail. Something's wrong with that.

[R. Steve Walz]

Post by Jim Thompson

Post by n***@no1.com
Whereas I support George W. and the allies in their action in Iraq, I
can't get it out of my mind what he did to a young girl in February of
1998 when he was governor of Texas. I'm talking about Karla Faye
Tucker. She was involved in a rather brutal murder in 1983 which was
not premeditated and for which she took full responsibility. In her 15
years in jail awaiting execution, she rahabilitated herself so well
that even hardened guards spoke up for her.
On the eve of her execution, speaking on his right to grant her a 30
day stay of execution, George W. said he had to hand her fate over to
a 'higher power'. Some wag has since pointed out that he was the
higher power and questioned if he realized that. He further opined
that George was a coward. Anyway, he allowed her to be the first woman
executed in Texas in over a hundred years.
I have recently read a report by a reporter who interviewed George W.
about her plea for clemency. Instead of being man enough to account
for his actions, he took the course of belittling her for having
asked. No matter what she did due to a severely corrupted childhood,
and being heavily strung out on drugs at the time of her crime, she
died as a good kid...a decent human being. And Bush stood by trying to
collect political Brownie points.
Happy Thanksgiving, George!!

Suppose I murder you and then get religion. Should I go free? Want
to test the concept?

--------------
That wasn't the prospect.

It was life in prison, without possible parole forever, versus
execution. Quit lying like the cowardly RightWing liar you are,
Jim.

-Steve

[Ross Mac]

Post by Jim Thompson

Post by n***@no1.com
Whereas I support George W. and the allies in their action in Iraq, I
can't get it out of my mind what he did to a young girl in February of
1998 when he was governor of Texas. I'm talking about Karla Faye
Tucker. She was involved in a rather brutal murder in 1983 which was
not premeditated and for which she took full responsibility. In her 15
years in jail awaiting execution, she rahabilitated herself so well
that even hardened guards spoke up for her.
On the eve of her execution, speaking on his right to grant her a 30
day stay of execution, George W. said he had to hand her fate over to
a 'higher power'. Some wag has since pointed out that he was the
higher power and questioned if he realized that. He further opined
that George was a coward. Anyway, he allowed her to be the first woman
executed in Texas in over a hundred years.
I have recently read a report by a reporter who interviewed George W.
about her plea for clemency. Instead of being man enough to account
for his actions, he took the course of belittling her for having
asked. No matter what she did due to a severely corrupted childhood,
and being heavily strung out on drugs at the time of her crime, she
died as a good kid...a decent human being. And Bush stood by trying to
collect political Brownie points.
Happy Thanksgiving, George!!

[snip]
Suppose I murder you and then get religion. Should I go free? Want
to test the concept?
There should be a one year time limit on appeals... expedited at the
expense of the state... then hang 'em. None of this dawdling for 20
years.
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice:[phone] | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax:[phone] | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

Try em and Fry em Jim!.....Seems 5 years should cover it...here in
California it takes over 20 years....We have a death penalty voted back in
many years ago, but the current politicians don't support the law...so there
ya have it! Forty gran a year to keep them around and then give them the
needle after 20 years or so....but what the heck...the whole country knows
how screwed up this state is.....Happy Holidays to all.....Ross

[Chuck Harris]

Post by n***@no1.com
On the eve of her execution, speaking on his right to grant her a 30
day stay of execution, George W. said he had to hand her fate over to
a 'higher power'. Some wag has since pointed out that he was the
higher power and questioned if he realized that. He further opined
that George was a coward. Anyway, he allowed her to be the first woman
executed in Texas in over a hundred years.
I have recently read a report by a reporter who interviewed George W.
about her plea for clemency. Instead of being man enough to account
for his actions, he took the course of belittling her for having
asked. No matter what she did due to a severely corrupted childhood,
and being heavily strung out on drugs at the time of her crime, she
died as a good kid...a decent human being. And Bush stood by trying to
collect political Brownie points.

It's a funny (funny peculiar, not funny ha ha) thing, most of the
residents of deathrows, all over the US, have had rotten childhoods,
followed by rotten adulthoods.

The fact that the murderer has had an unfortunate life doesn't
eliminate the murder he committed. It doesn't bring relief for the
grief felt by the victim's family. It doesn't bring back the victim.

The day that the repentance and rehabilitation of a murder brings back
the victim in all his former glory is the day I will feel sorry for
murderers.

Until then, fry them!

-Chuck

[Mark Jones]

Post by Chuck Harris

Post by n***@no1.com
On the eve of her execution, speaking on his right to grant her a 30
day stay of execution, George W. said he had to hand her fate over to
a 'higher power'. Some wag has since pointed out that he was the
higher power and questioned if he realized that. He further opined
that George was a coward. Anyway, he allowed her to be the first woman
executed in Texas in over a hundred years.
I have recently read a report by a reporter who interviewed George W.
about her plea for clemency. Instead of being man enough to account
for his actions, he took the course of belittling her for having
asked. No matter what she did due to a severely corrupted childhood,
and being heavily strung out on drugs at the time of her crime, she
died as a good kid...a decent human being. And Bush stood by trying to
collect political Brownie points.

It's a funny (funny peculiar, not funny ha ha) thing, most of the
residents of deathrows, all over the US, have had rotten childhoods,
followed by rotten adulthoods.
The fact that the murderer has had an unfortunate life doesn't
eliminate the murder he committed. It doesn't bring relief for the
grief felt by the victim's family. It doesn't bring back the victim.
The day that the repentance and rehabilitation of a murder brings back
the victim in all his former glory is the day I will feel sorry for
murderers.
Until then, fry them!
-Chuck

Perhaps oneday, scientists will be able to clone the deceased, and at least
bring back a portion of what was taken. Perhaps then, as in the case of the
Texas lady, the law could be bent a little.

Sometimes good people get into a bad situation, and sometimes bad people
get into a good situation. It's important to look critically at the
individual and not the whole. Like the serial sniper, he showed no remorse
or empathy and the jury thought him "a threat even in prision." In that
case, I feel they should just partake the firing squad. No 20 years of free
meals, 17 appeals looking for a technical loophole, free room & board, free
TV, free weight room... in short no f'n around. People like that are a
disease, a cancer of our populace. Who knows how many minds they can corrupt
in prison over 20 years?

[John Woodgate]

Post by Mark Jones
Perhaps oneday, scientists will be able to clone the deceased, and at
least bring back a portion of what was taken. Perhaps then, as in the
case of the Texas lady, the law could be bent a little.

Perhaps one day we'll be absolutely certain that the person convicted IS
the murderer. Until then, the irrevocable punishment of death seems to
me to be ruled out.

[Brian Trosko]

Post by John Woodgate
Perhaps one day we'll be absolutely certain that the person convicted IS
the murderer. Until then, the irrevocable punishment of death seems to
me to be ruled out.

Keeping someone in jail until they die of natural causes doesn't seem to
be any more revocable.

So by your argument, we should also abolish life sentences.

[Don Bruder]

Post by Brian Trosko

Post by John Woodgate
Perhaps one day we'll be absolutely certain that the person convicted IS
the murderer. Until then, the irrevocable punishment of death seems to
me to be ruled out.

Keeping someone in jail until they die of natural causes doesn't seem to
be any more revocable.
So by your argument, we should also abolish life sentences.

And this entire thread has precisely WHAT to do with any of the
newsgroups it has been crossposted to?

[n***@no1.com]

Post by Don Bruder
And this entire thread has precisely WHAT to do with any of the
newsgroups it has been crossposted to?

nothing, I aplogize for imposing. I feel strongly that we should stand
aside from our interests from time to time and address issues that
make us better humans. That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.

I don't hate George Bush, but there was a thread going about him and I
wanted to get my two-bits worth in.

:-)

[Jim Thompson]

Post by Don Bruder

Post by Brian Trosko

Post by John Woodgate
Perhaps one day we'll be absolutely certain that the person convicted IS
the murderer. Until then, the irrevocable punishment of death seems to
me to be ruled out.

Keeping someone in jail until they die of natural causes doesn't seem to
be any more revocable.
So by your argument, we should also abolish life sentences.

And this entire thread has precisely WHAT to do with any of the
newsgroups it has been crossposted to?

You are hereby sentenced to life at the rock pile ;-)

(My choice of punishment... we get some useful work out of them... and
releasable if found later to be innocent.)

...Jim Thompson

[DarkMatter]

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 09:00:29 -0700, Jim Thompson

Post by Jim Thompson

Post by Don Bruder

Post by Brian Trosko

Post by John Woodgate
Perhaps one day we'll be absolutely certain that the person convicted IS
the murderer. Until then, the irrevocable punishment of death seems to
me to be ruled out.

Keeping someone in jail until they die of natural causes doesn't seem to
be any more revocable.
So by your argument, we should also abolish life sentences.

And this entire thread has precisely WHAT to do with any of the
newsgroups it has been crossposted to?

You are hereby sentenced to life at the rock pile ;-)
(My choice of punishment... we get some useful work out of them... and
releasable if found later to be innocent.)

Problem:

Our wondrous governments claim that it costs $20k to $40k per year
per inmate for a regular population life sentence convict.

Sorry, but you way costs too much. If the facts in the case are
bona fide truth, the guy goes right after the trial.

Deterrent is the goal, and it fucking works too.

Lack of deterrent results in fucking retarded generations of parents
raising fucking retarded generations of gang boy punk fucks, just like
we see today all over the place.

The whole reason we have the problems we have is because America is
too goddamned casual about things when times are good.

They still have yet to see the festering pustule that their current
school system, and failed WOD has produced.

The jails are full of people that were in possession of drug, not
selling it. USERS are not violent criminals, people!

They need to put violent offenders in prison and KEEP them there!

When they start doing that, WE law abiding Americans will finally be
safer.

[Tim Auton]

DarkMatter <***@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:
[eye for an eye]

Post by DarkMatter
Our wondrous governments claim that it costs $20k to $40k per year
per inmate for a regular population life sentence convict.
Sorry, but you way costs too much. If the facts in the case are
bona fide truth, the guy goes right after the trial.
Deterrent is the goal, and it fucking works too.

Where has it worked?


Tim

[John S. Dyson]

Post by Tim Auton
[eye for an eye]

Post by DarkMatter
Our wondrous governments claim that it costs $20k to $40k per year
per inmate for a regular population life sentence convict.
Sorry, but you way costs too much. If the facts in the case are
bona fide truth, the guy goes right after the trial.
Deterrent is the goal, and it fucking works too.

Where has it worked?

When an inmate is 'executed', then they are permanently deterred :-).

John

[Ross Mac]

Post by Tim Auton
[eye for an eye]

Post by DarkMatter
Our wondrous governments claim that it costs $20k to $40k per year
per inmate for a regular population life sentence convict.
Sorry, but you way costs too much. If the facts in the case are
bona fide truth, the guy goes right after the trial.
Deterrent is the goal, and it fucking works too.

Where has it worked?
Tim
--
And the beast shall be made legion. Its numbers shall be increased a
thousand thousand fold. The din of a million keyboards like unto a great
storm shall cover the earth, and the followers of Mammon shall tremble.
- The Book of Mozilla, 3:31

You are right time detterent has not worked, but the sucker that gets the
needle will not escape or kill in prison again will he?....Not trying to
flame ya...just an opinion!...Ross

[John Woodgate]

Post by Brian Trosko

Post by John Woodgate
Perhaps one day we'll be absolutely certain that the person convicted IS
the murderer. Until then, the irrevocable punishment of death seems to
me to be ruled out.

Keeping someone in jail until they die of natural causes doesn't seem to
be any more revocable.
So by your argument, we should also abolish life sentences.

'Life sentence' in Britain doesn't always mean 'all of life', and in
many cases where it does, the matter is controversial. We had quite
recently a 'life sentence' prisoner proved innocent after some 20 years,
and he was released with a large sum in compensation. We couldn't
release Timothy Evans (wrongly convicted and hanged on the evidence of
the serial killer who was actually responsible, in all probability).

[n***@no1.com]

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 18:01:25 +0000 (UTC), Brian Trosko

Post by Brian Trosko
Keeping someone in jail until they die of natural causes doesn't seem to
be any more revocable.
So by your argument, we should also abolish life sentences.

I don't think the human mind is capable of knowing absolutely that
someone has killed another person. By the time it gets to court, it is
third or fourth hand information presented by some slick lawyer or
prosecutor. Also, you are forced to judge under stringent guidelines,
often not being availed of all the facts.

I think that life sentences are a safe guard for the infallability of
th human mind. Look at the O. J. Simpson case. You had 11 out of 12
jurors who were black, and the case was being heard in a predominantly
black neoghbourhood. The jury forewoman, a black, said candidly, there
was no way they were going to convict him. I guess not, they could
never have gone home if they had.

The court process is absolutely crazy to me, if not downright scary.
People get railroaded every day. There are dishonest cops, dishonest
prosecutors and defence attorneys and bad judges. It's extremely hard
to get a fair trial unless your wealthy. In the case of Karla Faye
Tucker, many legal experts claim she was railroaded. She was given bad
advice by her lawyer initially and the judge screwed up bigtime.

I think there has to be allowances. Life sentences are safer. And they
are no picnic either.

[Kevin Aylward]

Post by John Woodgate

Post by Mark Jones
Perhaps oneday, scientists will be able to clone the deceased, and at
least bring back a portion of what was taken. Perhaps then, as in the
case of the Texas lady, the law could be bent a little.

Perhaps one day we'll be absolutely certain that the person convicted
IS the murderer. Until then, the irrevocable punishment of death
seems to me to be ruled out.

That's exactly my sentiments. In principle, I have no moral qualms
whatever in the execution of serial type killers. The issue is that,
executing an innocent person is *never* acceptable. This effectively
means one must outlaw the death penalty.

Of course, there is also the problem of punishing anyone without
absolute proof, but in the real would, there is no choice. We have to
accept some false guilt, but we don't have to accept false executions.

Kevin Aylward
***@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html

"Understanding" itself requires consciousness,
therefore consciousness cannot be "understood"
without referring to itself for the explanation,
therefore the "hard problem" of consciousness,
is intrinsically unsolvable as it is self referral.

[n***@no1.com]

Post by Kevin Aylward
That's exactly my sentiments. In principle, I have no moral qualms
whatever in the execution of serial type killers. The issue is that,
executing an innocent person is *never* acceptable. This effectively
means one must outlaw the death penalty.

Well put. I had no qualms about them executing Ted Bundy. Still, when
I saw that white hearse pull away with his body, I admit to feeling
sadness. Excutions become emotional issues and the human penchant for
them is peculiar. To me, it always brings sadnes when someone dies
even if I hated the guy. I even remember reading the story of Hitler's
death, a guy I reviled, yet I felt sorry for the buggar after he died.

In one psychological study, I thnik it was the Ashe or Asch study,
they had a volunteer in a booth connected to electrodes. He wasn't
really hooked up. People were asked to press different buttons which
were supposed to give him various degrees of shocks if he didn't do
what he was told to do. One button was marked 'LETHAL'.

It was amzing how many people pressed that lethal button, knowing full
ell they could kill the guy. I think the penchant for executions comes
from a deep, dark place in the human psyche. It seems to go deeper
than punishment or anything else. It's almost a bizarre control issue.

Post by Kevin Aylward
Of course, there is also the problem of punishing anyone without
absolute proof, but in the real would, there is no choice. We have to
accept some false guilt, but we don't have to accept false executions.

If you study the human mind closely, it becomes scary as to it's
ability to understand truth. The human mind in t's normal state is
biased and distorted. I find juries to be scary.

[Ross Mac]

Post by Kevin Aylward

Post by John Woodgate

Post by Mark Jones
Perhaps oneday, scientists will be able to clone the deceased, and at
least bring back a portion of what was taken. Perhaps then, as in the
case of the Texas lady, the law could be bent a little.

Perhaps one day we'll be absolutely certain that the person convicted
IS the murderer. Until then, the irrevocable punishment of death
seems to me to be ruled out.

That's exactly my sentiments. In principle, I have no moral qualms
whatever in the execution of serial type killers. The issue is that,
executing an innocent person is *never* acceptable. This effectively
means one must outlaw the death penalty.
Of course, there is also the problem of punishing anyone without
absolute proof, but in the real would, there is no choice. We have to
accept some false guilt, but we don't have to accept false executions.
Kevin Aylward
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html
"Understanding" itself requires consciousness,
therefore consciousness cannot be "understood"
without referring to itself for the explanation,
therefore the "hard problem" of consciousness,
is intrinsically unsolvable as it is self referral.

No system is perfect....I am sure all of us would not want an innocent
person sent to death row. Having said that, how can you make any system
perfect and why is life in prison any better than death....to me, I would
rather be put to death than spend my final years incarcerated.....Ross

[Paul Burridge]

Post by Mark Jones
Perhaps oneday, scientists will be able to clone the deceased, and at least
bring back a portion of what was taken.

What bloody use would that be? The soul has long gone. Zombies are no
good to anyone.

Post by Mark Jones
Sometimes good people get into a bad situation, and sometimes bad people
get into a good situation. It's important to look critically at the
individual and not the whole. Like the serial sniper, he showed no remorse
or empathy and the jury thought him "a threat even in prision." In that
case, I feel they should just partake the firing squad. No 20 years of free
meals, 17 appeals looking for a technical loophole, free room & board, free
TV, free weight room... in short no f'n around. People like that are a
disease, a cancer of our populace.

Fine. *If* there's no question over his guilt.

Post by Mark Jones
Who knows how many minds they can corrupt
in prison over 20 years?

One assumes that to be in prison in the US one still has to be of a
certain minimum age? Since the corruption of an individual is
facilitated in early childhood (and the earlier the worse) evil
influences in prison aren't going to sway minds that aren't already
predisposed to evil.

[Kevin Aylward]

Post by Paul Burridge

Post by Mark Jones
Perhaps oneday, scientists will be able to clone the deceased, and
at least bring back a portion of what was taken.

What bloody use would that be? The soul has long gone.

What are you on about. There is no soul . However, what ever it was that
was the person, i.e. the colective effective of billions of nurons, is
indeed all gone.

Post by Paul Burridge
Zombies are no
good to anyone.

No such thing as zombies.

Kevin Aylward
***@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html

"Understanding" itself requires consciousness,
therefore consciousness cannot be "understood"
without referring to itself for the explanation,
therefore the "hard problem" of consciousness,
is intrinsically unsolvable as it is self referral.

[Winfield Hill]

Kevin Aylward wrote...

Post by Kevin Aylward
No such thing as zombies.

Actually, you're wrong; do some research.

Thanks,
- Win

whill_at_picovolt-dot-com

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Winfield Hill
<***@newsguy.com> wrote (in <***@drn.newsguy.com>)
about 'Bush Has Thanksgiving Dinner with Troops in Baghdad', on Sat, 29

Post by Winfield Hill
Kevin Aylward wrote...

Post by Kevin Aylward
No such thing as zombies.

Actually, you're wrong; do some research.

I get 549 kilohits by putting 'zombies' into Google. The first few pages
seem to have nothing to do with voodoo. So I was going to ask you for a
Web reference, but a Google for 'voodoo', while producing over 1.5
megahits, had a relevant URL on the first page:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/voodoo.htm

It says that 'zombies' are living people under the influence of drugs. I
can believe that.

[Kevin Aylward]

Post by John Woodgate
I read in sci.electronics.design that Winfield Hill
about 'Bush Has Thanksgiving Dinner with Troops in Baghdad', on Sat,

Post by Winfield Hill
Kevin Aylward wrote...

Post by Kevin Aylward
No such thing as zombies.

Actually, you're wrong; do some research.

I get 549 kilohits by putting 'zombies' into Google. The first few
pages seem to have nothing to do with voodoo. So I was going to ask
you for a Web reference, but a Google for 'voodoo', while producing
http://www.religioustolerance.org/voodoo.htm
It says that 'zombies' are living people under the influence of
drugs. I can believe that.

I was using "zombies" as technically used in the theory of
consciousness. That is, can one make a robot that behaves in *exactly*
the same way a human can, without being conscious. I don't believe in
magic, so my stance on this is that no.

Kevin Aylward
***@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html

"Understanding" itself requires consciousness,
therefore consciousness cannot be "understood"
without referring to itself for the explanation,
therefore the "hard problem" of consciousness,
is intrinsically unsolvable as it is self referral.

[DarkMatter]

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 14:24:02 +0000, John Woodgate

Post by John Woodgate
I read in sci.electronics.design that Winfield Hill
about 'Bush Has Thanksgiving Dinner with Troops in Baghdad', on Sat, 29

Post by Winfield Hill
Kevin Aylward wrote...

Post by Kevin Aylward
No such thing as zombies.

Actually, you're wrong; do some research.

I get 549 kilohits by putting 'zombies' into Google. The first few pages
seem to have nothing to do with voodoo. So I was going to ask you for a
Web reference, but a Google for 'voodoo', while producing over 1.5
http://www.religioustolerance.org/voodoo.htm
It says that 'zombies' are living people under the influence of drugs. I
can believe that.

You need to rent or buy and watch the film "The Serpent and The
Rainbow"

It is based on a true story. About zombies.

[Ross Mac]

Post by DarkMatter
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 14:24:02 +0000, John Woodgate

Post by John Woodgate
I read in sci.electronics.design that Winfield Hill
about 'Bush Has Thanksgiving Dinner with Troops in Baghdad', on Sat, 29

Post by Winfield Hill
Kevin Aylward wrote...

Post by Kevin Aylward
No such thing as zombies.

Actually, you're wrong; do some research.

I get 549 kilohits by putting 'zombies' into Google. The first few pages
seem to have nothing to do with voodoo. So I was going to ask you for a
Web reference, but a Google for 'voodoo', while producing over 1.5
http://www.religioustolerance.org/voodoo.htm
It says that 'zombies' are living people under the influence of drugs. I
can believe that.

You need to rent or buy and watch the film "The Serpent and The
Rainbow"
It is based on a true story. About zombies.

How bout that...this thread went from Bush in Iraq, to Hillary in
Afghanistan to capital punishment, to zombies.....
What's next, a new design for the electric chair?.....just having some
fun....Happy Holidays to all....Ross

[Winfield Hill]

John Woodgate wrote...

Post by Winfield Hill
Kevin Aylward wrote...

Post by Kevin Aylward
No such thing as zombies.

Actually, you're wrong; do some research.

I get 549 kilohits by putting 'zombies' into Google. ...
It says that 'zombies' are living people under the influence
of drugs. I can believe that.

Close but no cigar. Poor research terms. Add Wade Davis and
tetrodotoxin. But skip the Hollywood Serpent and Rainbow movie.

Some example sites:
http://groups.msn.com/TheAlchemistsCorner/thezombiepoison.msnw
http://www.webster.edu/~corbetre/philosophy/critical/corbett-davis.html

Thanks,
- Win

whill_at_picovolt-dot-com

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Winfield Hill

Post by Winfield Hill
John Woodgate wrote...

Post by Winfield Hill
Kevin Aylward wrote...

Post by Kevin Aylward
No such thing as zombies.

Actually, you're wrong; do some research.

I get 549 kilohits by putting 'zombies' into Google. ...
It says that 'zombies' are living people under the influence
of drugs. I can believe that.

Close but no cigar. Poor research terms. Add Wade Davis and
tetrodotoxin. But skip the Hollywood Serpent and Rainbow movie.
http://groups.msn.com/TheAlchemistsCorner/thezombiepoison.msnw
http://www.webster.edu/~corbetre/philosophy/critical/corbett-davis.html

I have a serious complaint. I spent over two hours at that first site.
You should add a 'Do you have time to spare?' warning when you posts the
URLs of site like that. (;-)

[Spehro Pefhany]

On 29 Nov 2003 05:30:52 -0800, the renowned Winfield Hill

Post by Winfield Hill
Kevin Aylward wrote...

Post by Kevin Aylward
No such thing as zombies.

Actually, you're wrong; do some research.

Win's right. Here is one relevant definition that I can assure you
matches reality:

Main Entry: zom·bie
Variant(s): also zom·bi /'zäm-bE/
Function: noun
Etymology: Louisiana Creole or Haitian Creole zõbi, of Bantu origin;
akin to Kimbundu nzúmbe ghost

...

3: a mixed drink made of several kinds of rum, liqueur, and fruit
juice

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

[Paul Burridge]

Post by Kevin Aylward
What are you on about. There is no soul .

Says who? Oh, you in your "Theory of Consciousness" paper, I suppose.
My apologies for posting something that doesn't conform to it. :-)

Post by Kevin Aylward
However, what ever it was that
was the person, i.e. the colective effective of billions of nurons, is
indeed all gone.

Post by Paul Burridge
Zombies are no
good to anyone.

No such thing as zombies.

What else would a mature person cultured from a DNA sample be? How's
he supposed to acquire a personality, a character, a sense of
identity?
(Cue long-winded counterblast from Kev c/w a pointer to his collected
jottings on the subject...)

[DarkMatter]

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 17:33:06 +0000, Paul Burridge

Post by Paul Burridge
What else would a mature person cultured from a DNA sample be? How's
he supposed to acquire a personality, a character, a sense of
identity?

Dumbshit. Clones are newborns that start out fresh, just like any
other human.

We are a long way off from culturing an adult from a cell probe.
Said adult would still have to learn everything from how to walk to
how to shit, just like anybody else.

Has not a fucking thing to do with the soul, however.

Got clue?

[n***@no1.com]

Post by Chuck Harris
The fact that the murderer has had an unfortunate life doesn't
eliminate the murder he committed. It doesn't bring relief for the
grief felt by the victim's family. It doesn't bring back the victim.

I hear you. The victim is usually forgotten. The thing that undid
Karla Faye Tucker in my estimation is that she was smoking marijuana
at about age 8 and shooting heroin in her mother's company by age 12.
She was encouraged into a.life of drug abuse. When she committed the
crime, it was not pre-meditated but she was stoned on about 4
different drugs. It wasn't a forced entry thing either, she knew one
of the victims.

I don't condone drug use as an excuse for crime. But when a child is
introduced to it by her parents and later can't deal with it, I don't
think it's entirely her fault. We have to take a certain
responsibility as a society for how we allow our young to be raised or
abused. In my experiences, I've found the average drug abuser to be an
intolerable liar to boot. She didn't lie about anything. She admitted
eveything. Not only that, she took full responsibility.

I've been so drunk on alcohol that I've done diabolocal things. Of
course, if I'd committed a crime, I'd see it as my fault for getting
myself so drunk. The point is that the things I did I could not
account for doing. I could not for the life of me figure out why I had
done them. All I could do was apologize and hope for forgiveness.

Karla Faye Tucker said the same thing. She could not understand why
she had committed the crime. She was so stoned it just happened.
That's a lot different than a Bundy or a Gacy stalking people and
killing them for no reason at all. Or, how about the Hillside
strangler sexually abusing his victims before killing them. I don't
think they executed him.

I'm just not for carte blanche killing people. Hopefully, if I took it
on myself to even the score over someone killing a relative of mine,
that calmer minds would intercede.

[Jeff Stout]

no1, your an idiot!

In Texas, the governor does not have to the power to overrule
the decision of the Texas Board of Pardons; which ruled
against her. The most he (W) could do is give her a temperary
reprieve.

You can hate the president if you want, but your can't use this
excuse. Her lawyers and the Texas Board of Pardons had
far more power to influence this situation than he (W) did.

Jeff Stout

[n***@no1.com]

Post by Jeff Stout
In Texas, the governor does not have to the power to overrule
the decision of the Texas Board of Pardons; which ruled
against her. The most he (W) could do is give her a temperary
reprieve.

That would be Mr. Idiot to you.

If you read my post accurately, you will see that I refered to a stay
of execution. The hope was that if Bush had extended her sentence the
30 days, there may have been time to bring some sanity into the
situation.

Texas has an abyssmal record of executions, of which Texans should be
ashamed as human beings. Has it ever occured to you that most of the
civilized world has abolished the death penalty while Texas goes in
the other direction?

Post by Jeff Stout
You can hate the president if you want, but your can't use this
excuse. Her lawyers and the Texas Board of Pardons had
far more power to influence this situation than he (W) did.

BTW...I don't hate George W. I find him quite comical at times and got
a kick out of him cavorting with the British Prime Minister on his
recent visit. And I applauded him for having the guts to bypass the
anaemic United Nations and bring relief to the people of Iraq. I'm
just sorry young Americans have to die over there. I think people of
all ages should go.

As for the Texas Board of Paroles and Pardons...now there's some real
idiots. They don't even meet to discuss the fate of someone who is to
be executed. They communicate by email. There's something like 18 of
them located throughout Texas, and they can't be bothered to face the
appellant.

Victor Rodrigez, the head of the board is another horses ass. He was
the only one who went to see Karla Tucker at Huntsville. But he was
not interested in seeing if she was worthy of having her sentence
changed, he went with a hostile attitude more to berate her than
anything. He talked down to her the whole time he was there. It was a
token appearance for political Brownie points. All he asked about were
the murders. He's a compassionless twit. I'm sure there are many
decent people in Texas, but he's not one of them.

And speaking of George W. again, why did he feel it necessary to make
a fool out of Karla's appeal, after her death? He mockingly made her
appear to be begging for her life, which she had the class not to do.
What kind of man would do that? I don't think even Nixon could have
stooped to that. It was totally low class.

Do you have any understanding what power and influence a governor has?
He could have taken steps to change the process. You can change laws,
you know. Or, you can change the ways the Parole Board operates.
Please don't give me the crap that Bush couldn't have done anything.
Let's face it, he took the political and cowardly route of putting it
in the hands of God.

[John S. Dyson]

Post by n***@no1.com

Post by Jeff Stout
In Texas, the governor does not have to the power to overrule
the decision of the Texas Board of Pardons; which ruled
against her. The most he (W) could do is give her a temperary
reprieve.

That would be Mr. Idiot to you.
If you read my post accurately, you will see that I refered to a stay
of execution. The hope was that if Bush had extended her sentence the
30 days, there may have been time to bring some sanity into the
situation.

Hadn't there already been the allowed 30day stay? The governor
in Texas doesnt' quite have the same power as the president for
the equivalent federal laws.

John

[DarkMatter]

Post by John S. Dyson

Post by n***@no1.com

Post by Jeff Stout
In Texas, the governor does not have to the power to overrule
the decision of the Texas Board of Pardons; which ruled
against her. The most he (W) could do is give her a temperary
reprieve.

That would be Mr. Idiot to you.
If you read my post accurately, you will see that I refered to a stay
of execution. The hope was that if Bush had extended her sentence the
30 days, there may have been time to bring some sanity into the
situation.

Hadn't there already been the allowed 30day stay? The governor
in Texas doesnt' quite have the same power as the president for
the equivalent federal laws.

The president has the power to commute any charge, conviction, or
sentence in any state or possession of the United States.

[John S. Dyson]

Post by DarkMatter

Post by John S. Dyson

Post by n***@no1.com

Post by Jeff Stout
In Texas, the governor does not have to the power to overrule
the decision of the Texas Board of Pardons; which ruled
against her. The most he (W) could do is give her a temperary
reprieve.

That would be Mr. Idiot to you.
If you read my post accurately, you will see that I refered to a stay
of execution. The hope was that if Bush had extended her sentence the
30 days, there may have been time to bring some sanity into the
situation.

Hadn't there already been the allowed 30day stay? The governor
in Texas doesnt' quite have the same power as the president for
the equivalent federal laws.

The president has the power to commute any charge, conviction, or
sentence in any state or possession of the United States.

I didn't know that the president had the right to commute a state
sentence... Perhaps the constitution is literally interpreted on
this matter (rather than re-interpreted into meaninglessness.)

John

[Fred Bloggs]

Post by n***@no1.com
Whereas I support George W. and the allies in their action in Iraq, I
can't get it out of my mind what he did to a young girl in February of
1998 when he was governor of Texas. I'm talking about Karla Faye
Tucker. She was involved in a rather brutal murder in 1983 which was
not premeditated and for which she took full responsibility. In her 15
years in jail awaiting execution, she rahabilitated herself so well
that even hardened guards spoke up for her.

There are certain criminal acts where rehabilitation is not a
consideration and first degree murder is one of them. This means that
societal retribution and creating a persuasive example of punishment for
the purpose of inhibiting similarly minded individuals are the dominant
considerations. She was not executed for who she was, she was executed
for what she did. Society is prosecuting the crime and society will
decide what is best for itself, you can't have all sorts of personal
exceptions arising if you expect the system to have any good effect. The
track record for wrongful executions in the US is not so good though,
the official number is running at +200-something throughout history. If
you want to change that then stop whining about some white trash, and
start doing something about corrupt law enforcement and prosecutors, the
death sentence is most appropriate for some of the heinous acts they
have committed.

[John Woodgate]

Post by Fred Bloggs
There are certain criminal acts where rehabilitation is not a
consideration and first degree murder is one of them. This means that
societal retribution and creating a persuasive example of punishment for
the purpose of inhibiting similarly minded individuals are the dominant
considerations. She was not executed for who she was, she was executed
for what she did.

So how many people did that deter? Experience of repeal of capital
punishment in Britain strongly suggests that it had very little
deterrent effect.

Post by Fred Bloggs
Society is prosecuting the crime and society will
decide what is best for itself, you can't have all sorts of personal
exceptions arising if you expect the system to have any good effect.

That seem to me to be a denial of justice to the individual. Justice
demands that ALL relevant matters are taken into account. But, of
course, in some parts of the USA, severe mental impairment is not
regarded as 'relevant'.

Post by Fred Bloggs
The
track record for wrongful executions in the US is not so good though,
the official number is running at +200-something throughout history.

That's just the 'official record', where the facts were so obvious that
denial was futile. If we knew the real number, it would almost certainly
be much larger.

Post by Fred Bloggs
If
you want to change that then stop whining about some white trash, and
start doing something about corrupt law enforcement and prosecutors, the
death sentence is most appropriate for some of the heinous acts they
have committed.

What was that saying about 'two wrongs'? The fact that some people are
corrupt has nothing to do with whether some other people should be
executed.

[Fred Bloggs]

Post by John Woodgate

Post by Fred Bloggs
There are certain criminal acts where rehabilitation is not a
consideration and first degree murder is one of them. This means that
societal retribution and creating a persuasive example of punishment for
the purpose of inhibiting similarly minded individuals are the dominant
considerations. She was not executed for who she was, she was executed
for what she did.

So how many people did that deter? Experience of repeal of capital
punishment in Britain strongly suggests that it had very little
deterrent effect.

It is impossible to measure deterrence, but a useful fact is that when
pick-pocketting was a capital offense in Britain, the number of
incidents rose dramatically at the public execution by hanging of other
pickpockets:-)

Post by John Woodgate

Post by Fred Bloggs
Society is prosecuting the crime and society will
decide what is best for itself, you can't have all sorts of personal
exceptions arising if you expect the system to have any good effect.

That seem to me to be a denial of justice to the individual. Justice
demands that ALL relevant matters are taken into account. But, of
course, in some parts of the USA, severe mental impairment is not
regarded as 'relevant'.

I am talking about the execution phase, you are talking about the
sentencing phase. Let's be careful about delineating the processes.

Post by John Woodgate

Post by Fred Bloggs
The
track record for wrongful executions in the US is not so good though,
the official number is running at +200-something throughout history.

That's just the 'official record', where the facts were so obvious that
denial was futile. If we knew the real number, it would almost certainly
be much larger.

That is a good point.

Post by John Woodgate

Post by Fred Bloggs
If
you want to change that then stop whining about some white trash, and
start doing something about corrupt law enforcement and prosecutors, the
death sentence is most appropriate for some of the heinous acts they
have committed.

What was that saying about 'two wrongs'? The fact that some people are
corrupt has nothing to do with whether some other people should be
executed.

The US has a serious problem when state governors stay all executions
across the board as a result of DNA evidence. The police and prosecutors
manufactured evidence against the defendant- this is clear. These people
should be executed and this will be rightful- screw the injection- I
will gladly put an unceremonious bullet into their head and kick their
lifeless corpse into a mass grave- no problem at all doing that- glad to
help out-)

[Mjolinor]

Post by John Woodgate
So how many people did that deter? Experience of repeal of capital
punishment in Britain strongly suggests that it had very little
deterrent effect.

This is only true on the face of it, if you look at the improvement in
actually keeping heavily damaged people alive then there is a correlation
between having no death penalty and numbers being heavily damaged.

Personally I find the whole topic too complex for me to reach a meaningful
solution that I am happy with so I try to avoid it. Ostrich, that's me.

[DarkMatter]

Post by Fred Bloggs

Post by n***@no1.com
Whereas I support George W. and the allies in their action in Iraq, I
can't get it out of my mind what he did to a young girl in February of
1998 when he was governor of Texas. I'm talking about Karla Faye
Tucker. She was involved in a rather brutal murder in 1983 which was
not premeditated and for which she took full responsibility. In her 15
years in jail awaiting execution, she rahabilitated herself so well
that even hardened guards spoke up for her.

There are certain criminal acts where rehabilitation is not a
consideration and first degree murder is one of them. This means that
societal retribution and creating a persuasive example of punishment for
the purpose of inhibiting similarly minded individuals are the dominant
considerations. She was not executed for who she was, she was executed
for what she did. Society is prosecuting the crime and society will
decide what is best for itself, you can't have all sorts of personal
exceptions arising if you expect the system to have any good effect. The
track record for wrongful executions in the US is not so good though,
the official number is running at +200-something throughout history. If
you want to change that then stop whining about some white trash, and
start doing something about corrupt law enforcement and prosecutors, the
death sentence is most appropriate for some of the heinous acts they
have committed.

Very good! Very correct!

I cite Waco! To claim that had a $2 million day cost to be there
was ludicrous.

Then, there is the constitutional issue, as well as valid warrant to
be there at all.

One does not deliver a warrant to search via SWAT team from second
story NON-traditional entry ports to a building, and then claim that
as a valid method of carrying out a warrant, or a validation to
assault the place after things go awry.

I hope you added their number to your 200+ number above. They all
died quite horribly.

Capital cases should all be reviewed after trial by an independent
party from another state not bordering the state in question.

Cases where the party was caught in the act would get approved ,and
executions carried out after a single appeal by the CONVICT.

Cases where the conviction is based on evidentiary proofs would be
individually reviewed by these boards, and levels of certainty defined
and set forth as guidelines for making the case declared bona fide
fact.

Kill the bastards! Kill 'em all!

Rapists, and other violent offenders get sent to an island prison.
A place ran by prisoners that they never return from, and lose 20 to
40 years off their life expectancy, the day they arrive.

These are the punishments that violent fuckheads in this world
deserve. There is no psych evals going to save them.

You don't pull some heinous act, then act like drugs or dementia was
the root cause, and you should be treated nicely since it wasn't
really you.

Kids in school that fight should get expelled, and their parent get
ONE more chance with them the next year.

Assault is a felony for adults. For kids, the parents should be
cited for raising a fucking monster, punk piece of shit.
The kid should get ONE more chance to shape the fuck up.

NO kids should be driving at 16, or be having fucking cars bought
for them. ALL schools across the nation should have mandatory
schooling on driver ethics and ways and means, long before they ever
get near the wheel of a car, and a license should be a lot harder to
get, and harder to keep than it currently is. If the cops start
writing fucking speeding tickets in residential areas, like their lame
asses are supposed to, instead of having coffee and doughnuts, and
busting on blacks, and long hairs, we'd have a nation where kids grow
up knowing what the fuck the word RULES means again. Hell, even the
cops drive like retards when they are not on their way to any call of
any kind, much less an emergency. One more reason why they are
oblivious to the driving conditions we have today.

If we separated our younger kids from their older, retarded, corrupt
siblings, and sent them out on separate recesses at school, we could
give kids back their values, and teach them again what honor and
character is. Don't let them out at night either. Parents have lost
all responsibility. The fault is all adult, folks.

These pieces of shit coming out of the elementary school systems
today show that parents, teachers, and administrators are retarded
pieces of shit. The percentage of Johnnys that come out of school on
the wrong side of the fence is astounding! Many of those have parents
which are encouraging them.

[Leon Heller]

Post by Jim Thompson
Bush Has Thanksgiving Dinner with Troops in Baghdad.
Just came over the Fox News.

The Daily Mirror newspaper, here in the UK, has a picture of Dubya
helping with the Thanksgiving dinner, entitled "The Turkey Has Landed". 8-)

Leon

[Mark Fergerson]

Post by Leon Heller

Post by Jim Thompson
Bush Has Thanksgiving Dinner with Troops in Baghdad.
Just came over the Fox News.

The Daily Mirror newspaper, here in the UK, has a picture of Dubya
helping with the Thanksgiving dinner, entitled "The Turkey Has Landed". 8-)

Well, that's certainly impartial.

Mark L. Fergerson

[AZGuy]

Post by Mark Fergerson

Post by Leon Heller

Post by Jim Thompson
Bush Has Thanksgiving Dinner with Troops in Baghdad.
Just came over the Fox News.

The Daily Mirror newspaper, here in the UK, has a picture of Dubya
helping with the Thanksgiving dinner, entitled "The Turkey Has Landed". 8-)

Well, that's certainly impartial.
Mark L. Fergerson

The picture I expected to see would have been captioned "Can you count
the number of turkeys in the photo?" THe correct answer would be
"two".

[Madis Kaal - change username to mast for mail address]

Post by Jim Thompson
Bush Has Thanksgiving Dinner with Troops in Baghdad.
Just came over the Fox News.

and what makes you think this is important news for electronics engineers?

[Mjolinor]

Post by Madis Kaal - change username to mast for mail address

Post by Jim Thompson
Bush Has Thanksgiving Dinner with Troops in Baghdad.
Just came over the Fox News.

and what makes you think this is important news for electronics engineers?

Well I (as an electronic engineer) find it quite interesting and suprising
that he can operate a knife and fork.

[Madis Kaal - change username to mast for mail address]

Post by Mjolinor

Post by Madis Kaal - change username to mast for mail address

Post by Jim Thompson
Bush Has Thanksgiving Dinner with Troops in Baghdad.
Just came over the Fox News.

and what makes you think this is important news for electronics engineers?

Well I (as an electronic engineer) find it quite interesting and suprising
that he can operate a knife and fork.

ROFL!

[DarkMatter]

Post by Mjolinor

Post by Madis Kaal - change username to mast for mail address

Post by Jim Thompson
Bush Has Thanksgiving Dinner with Troops in Baghdad.
Just came over the Fox News.

and what makes you think this is important news for electronics engineers?

Well I (as an electronic engineer) find it quite interesting and suprising
that he can operate a knife and fork.

Actually, electrical engineer is the proper term, even for those in
careers in analog electronics, and digital electronics.

Electrical engineering isn't *all* about power, and power
distribution... however...

"Electronic engineering" is a college ploy.

In the electronics realm and electrical power realm, it IS all about
power, and power distribution from the micro to the macro level.

The knife and fork joke is funny as hell, though. This guy gets to
push the nation's biggest buttons...

[Reg Edwards]

Post by Madis Kaal - change username to mast for mail address
and what makes you think this is important news for electronics engineers?

===========================

It's vitally important. Both electronic engineers, with car tanks thirsty
for cheap petrol, and the army, which marches on its stomach, have to be
fed.


But soldiers may feel safer in Bagdad than they do walking around their own
gun-ridden city streets at home in the antipodes.


Please forgive me, as John Cleese says, for making use of a 'first-class
honors degree in stating the bleeding obvious'.

---
Reg.

[Jim Thompson]

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 23:30:28 +0200, Madis Kaal - change username to

Post by Madis Kaal - change username to mast for mail address

Post by Jim Thompson
Bush Has Thanksgiving Dinner with Troops in Baghdad.
Just came over the Fox News.

and what makes you think this is important news for electronics engineers?

There is no one making you read these posts. Develop a sense of humor
or go away.

BTW, What posts of engineering import have *you* made? Certainly none
that I can recall.

...Jim Thompson

[James Meyer]

Post by Jim Thompson
Bush Has Thanksgiving Dinner with Troops in Baghdad.
Just came over the Fox News.
...Jim Thompson

Thanks Jim. I would miss *all* the really important stuff if I didn't
check the ELECTRONICS DESIGN news group every day.

Jim

[Ernst Keller]

Post by Jim Thompson
Bush Has Thanksgiving Dinner with Troops in Baghdad.
Just came over the Fox News.

He was very brave und tok no risk(like with Vietname wich he avoidet in his
braveness) and stayed just 2h at the Airport. Just a big mouth.

Ernst

[Fred Bloggs]

Post by Ernst Keller
He was very brave und tok no risk(like with Vietname wich he avoidet in his
braveness) ... Just a big mouth.
Ernst

What are you talking about? He bravely stood guard against a possible
invasion by Mexico in that time frame:-)

[Tim Auton]

Post by Fred Bloggs

Post by Ernst Keller
He was very brave und tok no risk(like with Vietname wich he avoidet in his
braveness) ... Just a big mouth.
Ernst

What are you talking about? He bravely stood guard against a possible
invasion by Mexico in that time frame:-)

Except for the last two years when he was, uh, you know, uh,
defending, eh, somewhere else. The bars and parties he was at didn't
get invaded either, so if you think about it he did his job!


Tim

[Fred Bloggs]

Post by Tim Auton

Post by Fred Bloggs

Post by Ernst Keller
He was very brave und tok no risk(like with Vietname wich he avoidet in his
braveness) ... Just a big mouth.
Ernst

What are you talking about? He bravely stood guard against a possible
invasion by Mexico in that time frame:-)

Except for the last two years when he was, uh, you know, uh,
defending, eh, somewhere else. The bars and parties he was at didn't
get invaded either, so if you think about it he did his job!

You will get no argument from me: compared to some of our previous
Presidents, this individual is a bit less. But he is President and
Commander-in-Chief at this point in time so he rates and WILL receive
total dedication and willing obedience from those who serve him.

[Tim Auton]

[Bush's notional cervix]

Post by Fred Bloggs

Post by Tim Auton
Except for the last two years when he was, uh, you know, uh,
defending, eh, somewhere else. The bars and parties he was at didn't
get invaded either, so if you think about it he did his job!

You will get no argument from me: compared to some of our previous
Presidents, this individual is a bit less. But he is President and
Commander-in-Chief at this point in time so he rates and WILL receive
total dedication and willing obedience from those who serve him.

Now that's where the US system falls down in my view. The head of
state problem - the guy becomes the nation, therefore attacking the
guy becomes associated with attacking the nation.

To a Monarch I will happily give me dedication and willing obedience.
If Elisabeth asked me to jump off a cliff I would (ask me when we get
to Charles though :). If Blair did I'd tell him to go away, though
with slightly more colourful language.

I can't deny it's a god awful travesty of democracy, but Head of State
is largely a ceremonial (putting people up in your house, cutting
ribbons, things like that) so it doesn't really impact the democratic
process. We're almost rid of the rest of the hereditary system and
looking for an adequate solution (ie one not so dirtied by politics)
to replace the upper house. I suspect we'll get rid of the monarchy
when they don't want the job any more, rather than when we have a
better idea. I imagine then we'll move the way of the Germans and have
a low-key president as a replacement.

I'm most interested in a good solution to the upper-house problem
though. And no, direct election (without wholesale changes to election
campaigning) is *not* democratic. The first democratic revolution was
about giving people the choice, the next will be about giving them the
information to make an informed choice.


Tim

[Ross Mac]

Post by Fred Bloggs

Post by Ernst Keller
He was very brave und tok no risk(like with Vietname wich he avoidet in his
braveness) ... Just a big mouth.
Ernst

What are you talking about? He bravely stood guard against a possible
invasion by Mexico in that time frame:-)

Living in California, I have to say, the invasion was
successful!....hehehe.....Ross