Nichols gets a new neighbor

[angel_dark_demon_bright]

Originally Posted by edible_eye

i'm quite familiar with the operation of a supermax facility. perhaps you would benefit from reading material outside the realm of mainstream media in terms of understanding how prisoners are rather notorious for circumventing protocol.

and how do you come to the conclusion that he will "inevitably" become sick of reading the koran?

I was only stating how things are supposed to work in this facility. I have no desire to read more material on this facility, as ive learned to my hearts content and have no plans to experience this first hand. No matter how much you enjoy something eventully its going to get dull and repetetive. For example, sex with hot model would be great for the first few times, but after the same thing day in and day out eventully, its not gonna hold the same thrills for you as it did the first time. (i couldnt think of a better example)

we're soft in their eyes, angel specifically because of this. we're weak. we have not the backbone to kill our declared enemy. this is the weak-willed argument i've heard again and again, coming from people who have no basis for the words they spew. HOW does leniency in the face of a people who thrive on the destruction of their enemy equate to a learning experience for them?

This isnt leniency. Have you ever had life in prison? This guy would rather die then spend the rest of his life in our prison system sitting in a cell with nothing to do. We brought war to them. We fought them on their ground and defeated them in their backyard. Granted we only won the battle and have yet to win the war. These people are not going to learn, we cannot force them to learn, they will not stop until america is in ruins and every american is dead. Man, woman and child. They cannot win this fight, but neither can we. The best they can hope for is to force the U.S. to retreat. America can win but the chance of that is next to nil. Its difficult to defeat an enemy that means not to be found.

no. we enforce the laws we have and rid our country of a walking cancer.

he already is a martyr. don't delude yourself. he was nothing but a tool before he was caught and he will be replaced. fanatical muslims don't need him to declare their hatred against us, they don't need him as a justification for their battle cries.

For the average joe muslim they arent going to quickly convert to being fanatical. But if they see the U.S. as a butish evil race that slaughters anyone suspected of being her enemies, killing this guy could foment the average muslim into joining the fanatics when they normally would not do so.

instead of looking to the rest of the world in terms of our capacity to enforce our laws and protect our people, let's look right here at home. we had a chance to relieve some of our own rage against those who perpetrated a massive attack against our people. when those planes went into the towers, how many people across the country wanted to have a chance to take their rage out on just one of the hijackers?

we had our chance with this trial and we, as a people represented by that jury, pussied out - and THAT'S what those fanatics in the middle east see. they see a weak-willed adversary and that's exactly what they look for in order to operate more efficiently.

But we didnt have a chance to take our rage out on them. One of the bonuses of using suicide bombers is that they cannot be apprehended to face prosecution. They can go down in a blaze of glory dying for their cause without being put through our court system. Facing jail and execution. In their minds they are rebeling against 'a great evil'. Everyone loves a good rebel story, its infectious.

Moussoui will be put in a cell. Die an old and broken man. His cause ages old, his comrades long since killed. He will linger on until his life expires long after this great 'jihad' has lost any meaning. Wallowing in misery and failure for the rest of his life. Knowing there is nothing that can be done to for this war of ages past. That is more punishment than executing in his early years when it would have its greatest influence.

[edible_eye]

funny.

supermax.

inside, he'll "rot away" without any chance of communicating with the outside world, right?

and yet, today we hear of his request for a new trial because he's actually not guilty of being a part of september 11. that he's surprised about having a fair trial in america and so he's ready to tell the truth.

anyone wanna take a guess at which pansy, pathetic, jelly-fish-liberal judge is going to bow down to him and accuse the legal system of having tried a man who... what - couldn't properly understand the language? wasn't catered to culturally? deserves a new trial because he had a rough childhood? shouldn't "rot away" like everyone keeps talking about because it's not nice?

i hope it doesn't happen but let's face facts - milksop-liberals shudder with orgasm at the chance to subvert the law. all it'll take is one of them to sign the order for a new trial.

supermax, huh?

very interesting.

http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/stor...62&p=y8zx6y868

[angel_dark_demon_bright]

See, this just proves my point that he was going into this hoping to die. He handled himself in this trial the way he did because he wanted to die a martyr, go to heavon and get his 72 virgins, etc. Now its sunk in that he wont die a hero, he wont go to heaven, he'll only go to prison with 72 hairy inmates looking at him like hes the virgin.

Now that he has realized his fate, he is looking for a way out. He says he was not a hijacker, that he is now telling the truth because he doesnt want to spend the next half century looking forward to an hour of gym time.

I think they should send him there anyways. He has sown his seeds, now he should reap the consequences.

[edible_eye]

i see your point, and i disagree.

he's fucking with us because he can - because he knows his voice will be heard by some pacifist, liberal, panty-waste of an anti-american judge and there's a chance - a chance - he can stick it to our country yet again.

the ted kennedys' and hillary clintons' and john kerrys' and jimmy carters' of the world blow their collective loads when a situation like this arises.

sign the paper, hit the media with a good slant (after all, he's really not such a bad guy, he was just misguided and suffering from a traumatic childhood), stack the jury and who knows? moussaoui might be touring the country at some point, doing book signings about the horrible americans who wrongly accused him and banging your next door neighbor's daughter before giving you the finger while he pisses on your lawn.

[Loy]

Edible-let me see if I'm reading your post correctly-you're against him having a fair trial, as accorded BY OUR OWN FUCKING LAWS? I just wanna be clear on your position on whether you wanna do away with our own laws (which IS our cultural standard...you know, what makes us who we are) for this person?

And to get to some of your points

1.your whole thing on the "lie of multiculturalism".....the only lie of multiculturalism I see is your understanding of what multiculturalism is. See, MC is NOT "other cultures are better", it's "other cultures exist/existed, and contributed to the overculture in many, many ways, and thus should be aknowledged". Now, I understand a slightly race-based viewoint which equates aknowledgment with subserviance to other cultures, and all I can say is "grow the fuck up". I could go into more detail than that (such as how the refusal to aknowledge the contributions made by other cultures in the creation/sustaining of our "culture"....which we really don't have from an anthropological, historical, OR sociological perspective, but that's another discussion in and of itself....is a form of self-delusion that points to a self-shame, and self-shame causes all kinds of fucked up things to happen, as anybody who's ever picked up a psych text can attest to, or how this self-delusion prevents us from knowing ourselves on a truthful, fact-based basis, thus preventing us from ever developing a truly independant culture, or...), but I think "grow the fuck up" does quite nicely.

2.your remark on our "queesiness of using the death penalty"....what you're doing is bringing two separate arguments together to try pumping up the validity of your argument....sorry, but I see right through your diversionary tactic, and I'm not fooled.

To explain the "queesiness"....as far as myself, and the great majority of people....I have NO qualms with the death penalty. What I have qualms with is executing INNOCENT people. See, this whole "executing people for crimes they didn't commit because they were railroaded through our 'justice' system" thing....sorry if you don't see anything wrong with it, but I do. Why? Maybe it has to do with my sense of morality (which is a lot different from most peoples, I know), which says "innocent people shouldn't be killed for crimes they didn't commit".

This ties in with the way our laws our written, and what makes me so queesy with the "toughen law-enforcment" attitude so many right-wing nutcases push for. Jefferson and company made for people put on trial "innocent until PROVEN guilty" for this very reason (and also to make the state responsible for providing direct evidence). Law-enforcement (from the beat cop to the trial judge) ALWAYS have to have a tougher time than the defendents do as far as arrests and trials are concerned.....holy fuck, I'm just wasting time here by going into detail, when it's much easier to say READ THE GOD-DAMNED CONSTITUTION!

3.Our culture.....sorry, but we really don't have many things that we can call "cultural standards" that wasn't stolen...err, influenced...from, somebody else. Our constitution? Taken from both Native Americans and French intellectuals. Our system of government? Influenced from the British parliamentary system (sans the "democracy" overtones of Cromwell), the Roman senatary system, and (again) Native American tribal coucnils. Baseball? cricket. Literature? Influenced TOTALLY from Europeans. Film? Same thing.....one could actually make the case of Jazz being the only truly American cultural marker, but I could also just be being lazy and looking too deep into it.

orry, but we're still way too young...we're still a developing culture (thus reliant on other cultures for both validation and source material). Maybe in another 100 years, but not right now.

4.As far as taking our rage out....I'm sorry, but I thought law enforcement was supposed to be about "justice", not "revenge"? Again, if you're uncomfortable with that idea, I suggest READING THE GOD-DAMNED CONSTITUTION.

And considering that you voted for Bush, you're "taking our frustration out on those responsible for the deaths of 3,000 Americans" argument loses any validity, and also points to this becoming what I term a "fucktard" argument. (what is a "fucktard argument"? It's an argument over a subject that is always heated, yet will never have any real resolution, and, at the end of the day, diverts our time and energy from shit that really matters on a day to day basis....abortion is a good example of a "fucktard argument").

What I see you doing is using this subject to throw out insults towards people and ideas that have absolutely nothing to do with the original subject at hand...in other words, you're needlessly tangenting. I'm sorry, E_E, but I expect better from you. I mean, usually, you're in good form. Why are you starting to enter the realm of Assurai?


bleh...need coffee....and a smoke...be back later...when I'm a wake.

[edible_eye]

Originally Posted by Loy

Edible-let me see if I'm reading your post correctly-you're against him having a fair trial, as accorded BY OUR OWN FUCKING LAWS? I just wanna be clear on your position on whether you wanna do away with our own laws (which IS our cultural standard...you know, what makes us who we are) for this person?

uh, he HAD a fair trial. that part's over.

i'm against him using manipulation in order to have a new trial ordered. and i'm REALLY against bleeding hearts feeling sympathy for him, as though he's been wrongly convicted merely because he says so.

Originally Posted by loy

And to get to some of your points

1.your whole thing on the "lie of multiculturalism".....the only lie of multiculturalism I see is your understanding of what multiculturalism is. See, MC is NOT "other cultures are better", it's "other cultures exist/existed, and contributed to the overculture in many, many ways, and thus should be aknowledged". Now, I understand a slightly race-based viewoint which equates aknowledgment with subserviance to other cultures, and all I can say is "grow the fuck up". I could go into more detail than that (such as how the refusal to aknowledge the contributions made by other cultures in the creation/sustaining of our "culture"....which we really don't have from an anthropological, historical, OR sociological perspective, but that's another discussion in and of itself....is a form of self-delusion that points to a self-shame, and self-shame causes all kinds of fucked up things to happen, as anybody who's ever picked up a psych text can attest to, or how this self-delusion prevents us from knowing ourselves on a truthful, fact-based basis, thus preventing us from ever developing a truly independant culture, or...), but I think "grow the fuck up" does quite nicely.

i know fully well the definition of multiculturalism, loy.

what i was referring to, quite bluntly, was the blasphemization of multiculturalism perpetrated by singular races who enjoy tossing accusations of racism out toward anyone or any group who oppose special treatment for one race and the "culture" they bring into this melting pot we call home - a trend that has become fashionable for the past 15 - 20 years here in this country.

Originally Posted by loy

2.your remark on our "queesiness of using the death penalty"....what you're doing is bringing two separate arguments together to try pumping up the validity of your argument....sorry, but I see right through your diversionary tactic, and I'm not fooled.

you call it diversionary, i call it appropriate. i live in a liberal state. people here act as though jesus himself was on trial every time the discussion of the death penalty comes up, despite the horrendious nature of a crime. it's a bizarre twist of events to find some degree of sympathy with the one on trial, rather than the victims - and all potential victims further down the road.

Originally Posted by loy

To explain the "queesiness"....as far as myself, and the great majority of people....I have NO qualms with the death penalty. What I have qualms with is executing INNOCENT people. See, this whole "executing people for crimes they didn't commit because they were railroaded through our 'justice' system" thing....sorry if you don't see anything wrong with it, but I do. Why? Maybe it has to do with my sense of morality (which is a lot different from most peoples, I know), which says "innocent people shouldn't be killed for crimes they didn't commit".

so, once someone is convicted, am i to understand that, according to your line of logic, he or she should still be considered innocent? you lost me a little mainly because the initial argument was about moussaoui and he was self-admittedly guilty, as well as convicted by a jury of peers. according to what you wrote above, are you disputing the validity of his verdict, and if so - can you understand the reason behind my frustration surrounding this whole, ridiculous scenario?

Originally Posted by loy

This ties in with the way our laws our written, and what makes me so queesy with the "toughen law-enforcment" attitude so many right-wing nutcases push for. Jefferson and company made for people put on trial "innocent until PROVEN guilty" for this very reason (and also to make the state responsible for providing direct evidence). Law-enforcement (from the beat cop to the trial judge) ALWAYS have to have a tougher time than the defendents do as far as arrests and trials are concerned.....holy fuck, I'm just wasting time here by going into detail, when it's much easier to say READ THE GOD-DAMNED CONSTITUTION!

i've read it. how does this negate someone's guilt if found guilty?

Originally Posted by loy

3.Our culture.....sorry, but we really don't have many things that we can call "cultural standards" that wasn't stolen...err, influenced...from, somebody else. Our constitution? Taken from both Native Americans and French intellectuals. Our system of government? Influenced from the British parliamentary system (sans the "democracy" overtones of Cromwell), the Roman senatary system, and (again) Native American tribal coucnils. Baseball? cricket. Literature? Influenced TOTALLY from Europeans. Film? Same thing.....one could actually make the case of Jazz being the only truly American cultural marker, but I could also just be being lazy and looking too deep into it.

you say 'stolen', i say 'refined'.

you say 'potayto', i say 'potahto'.

multiculturalism guarantees that bits and pieces from all cultures funnel their way into this country - while on a macro level, they blend and merge to form what is, in essence, american culture. agree or disagree, there's still a flavor in this country all our own.

Originally Posted by loy

orry, but we're still way too young...we're still a developing culture (thus reliant on other cultures for both validation and source material). Maybe in another 100 years, but not right now.

according to who? the french? the english? that's a rather elitist attitude, in my opinion - but hey, the beauty of america and being an american is the ability to reject it as well as embrace it.

Originally Posted by loy

4.As far as taking our rage out....I'm sorry, but I thought law enforcement was supposed to be about "justice", not "revenge"? Again, if you're uncomfortable with that idea, I suggest READING THE GOD-DAMNED CONSTITUTION.

like i said, i read it.

moussaoui was convicted. why not shred his worthless flesh? i don't see any benefit in leniency.

Originally Posted by loy

And considering that you voted for Bush, you're "taking our frustration out on those responsible for the deaths of 3,000 Americans" argument loses any validity, and also points to this becoming what I term a "fucktard" argument. (what is a "fucktard argument"? It's an argument over a subject that is always heated, yet will never have any real resolution, and, at the end of the day, diverts our time and energy from shit that really matters on a day to day basis....abortion is a good example of a "fucktard argument").

now, you're getting personal, loy and that's uncool.

i voted for bush because kerry truly sucked. bush sucked as well, but he was the lesser of two evils. i've never, nor would i ever, reduce your argument to a level of "fucktard" based upon your right to choose for whom you place your vote. if i remember correctly, the personal right to vote is granted within the same constitution you keep telling me to read.

i've also stated on more than one occassion my disdain for politicians on the whole. who i vote for has nothing to do with my opinion on this matter.

Originally Posted by loy

What I see you doing is using this subject to throw out insults towards people and ideas that have absolutely nothing to do with the original subject at hand...in other words, you're needlessly tangenting. I'm sorry, E_E, but I expect better from you. I mean, usually, you're in good form. Why are you starting to enter the realm of Assurai?

the liberal mind-set (kerry, kennedy, clinton, suitor, edwards, dean, et al) frustrates the hell out of me. that's no secret for anyone i've traded words with. it's responsible, in my opinion, for the oprah-like pussification of america.

Originally Posted by loy

bleh...need coffee....and a smoke...be back later...when I'm a wake.

go grab that coffee and come back. this ain't personal to me, loy.

i agree that arguments such as this will never reach a resolution such that all parties find complete common ground upon which to agree, but one of the best aspects of america is, in my opiniobn, that two differing points of view can come together and debate their sides, effectively making their views known.

anyway, if nothing else, you've helped prove one point of mine - even though he's been convicted, all he had to do was get his voice out there, complaining that he was treated unfairly and someone would inevitably listen. i just hope no supreme court judge gives him the time of day he's found here.

[Loy]

EE-(sorry about the wait, BTW)

1.A fair trial. Well, that part's questionable, and it's a question that'll be answered by higher courts. See, the way this system works (or should work.....the problem is that, for the most part, it doesn't. Hence why we have a hierarchy of judicial circuits, and why juries are allowed to find laws unconstitutional....yep, THIS is the reason judges and lawyers and politicians want to get rid of the jury system in this country altogether) is that after the trial is over, if the defendant can make a cogent and substantial argument that he/she did NOT recieve a fair trial to a higher circuit, then the circuit will make a call that the defendant has to have a new trial.

Now as I said, this system doesn't work as well as it should. You think that once someone is conviceted of being guilty, they're guilty and there's no reason to reopen the case. Yet how many innocent people are in prison right now, and will probably never have a retrial? How many are on death row? Now, I'm not talking about people who claim innocence, I'm speaking of people who ARE innocent, but because of circumstances that worked against them, were railroaded into prison. The New York Times (I know, damned bastion of "liberalism"....whatever the hell that means) did a a study of 328 cases (199 of these were murder charges) where the defendant was EXONERATED by evidence that hadn't been allowed in court for one reason or another. Most of these guys had been in prison for over 10 years before the exonerations came. Now I'm sure you're gonna play the numbers game here ("it's only 328 people"), however I'd like to point out that the only reason these people got any attention at all is because they were able to get enough money to hire outside investigators to look into the cases.....in other words, the state itself fucked up on the job. What else this points out is "how many more innocent people are in prison right now, but don't have the resources to reopen their convictions?". (another study worthy of interest, http://www.law.umich.edu/newsandinfo...ions-in-us.pdf ). And just to cut through the BS that playing the numbers game tends to bring up-ONE innocent person who spends ANY time in prison is too much. If the logic or morality of this statement is confusing, I have no idea what to say except READ THE GOD-DAMNED CONSTITUTION.

Now is he manipulating our system against us? Maybe, maybe not. My gut says "yes", but since I'm not a justice reading over the court documents, I can't make that call. And even if he is, I'm sorry, but I'm willing to allow a few bad apples try manipulating our system if the alternative is getting rid of the system itself. See, on a really basic level, getting rid of the system we have set up is called "treasonous". And as many problems as I have with the justice system as a whole, and even with this country as a whole, I'm also unwilling to decimate those aspects of our country that make us American. As I pointed out, we're not quite yet a "culture" (and no, it's not the French or the Prussians who say this. It's sociologists who say this. As I said, we're still in the stage where we rely on outside cultures and indiginous outsider groups to help our over-"culture" thrive, grow, and survive. Maybe in a 100 years....I'd say sooner, but who knows.....we'll develop as a self-sustaining culture with it's very own indiginous traits. This isn't elitism, it's just understanding of sociology, and not letting facts fuck me up emotionally) to have anything truly "American" outside of our laws, and once we decide to rid ourselves of those very laws and the ideals they embrace, we at once lose any right to call ourselves "American". Simple as that.

As for the voting of Bush thing, all I'm saying is attacking one person for one action, then putting another person guilty of similar actions into power is disingenuous and slightly hypocritical. I know your dislike of politicians (and I do love your attacks on the religious nutcases that populate the Republican side of the line), but I'm just saying "step back, and re-examine your statements in comparison with the facts".

And as far as the pussification of america is concerned, I think trying to make all citizens conform to an ideal that's both unrealistic and anti-American, along with this idea that because we're Americans, we have every right to be the assholes of the world, is what's made most Americans into pussys. Maybe a holiday in cambodia...or hell, we can make a field trip visiting my family in the Phillipines.....should help cure that.

[edible_eye]

Originally Posted by Loy

EE-(sorry about the wait, BTW)

1.A fair trial. Well, that part's questionable, and it's a question that'll be answered by higher courts. See, the way this system works (or should work.....the problem is that, for the most part, it doesn't. Hence why we have a hierarchy of judicial circuits, and why juries are allowed to find laws unconstitutional....yep, THIS is the reason judges and lawyers and politicians want to get rid of the jury system in this country altogether) is that after the trial is over, if the defendant can make a cogent and substantial argument that he/she did NOT recieve a fair trial to a higher circuit, then the circuit will make a call that the defendant has to have a new trial.

no problem about the wait, my friend. i don't frequent this website the way i used to.

as far as the trial is concerned - he did get a fair trial, by his own admission, and is using that as the basis for his demand for a retrial, saying now that he intentionally lied because he didn't believe he could get one to begin with.

the whole system works / system doesn't work is another debate altogether.

Originally Posted by loy

Now as I said, this system doesn't work as well as it should. You think that once someone is conviceted of being guilty, they're guilty and there's no reason to reopen the case. Yet how many innocent people are in prison right now, and will probably never have a retrial? How many are on death row? Now, I'm not talking about people who claim innocence, I'm speaking of people who ARE innocent, but because of circumstances that worked against them, were railroaded into prison. The New York Times (I know, damned bastion of "liberalism"....whatever the hell that means) did a a study of 328 cases (199 of these were murder charges) where the defendant was EXONERATED by evidence that hadn't been allowed in court for one reason or another. Most of these guys had been in prison for over 10 years before the exonerations came.

and did they report on that number as compared to those who were rightfully convicted or perhaps the duration or length of time over which those 328 cases were gathered? i'm guessing that statistically, it's rather insignificant. shit - 328 cases compared to the millions of prisoners right now inside prisons is an insignificant number. sure, it's not insignificant to the 328 who were innocent, but on the whole the system works much more efficiently than the percentage that's broken down.

Originally Posted by loy

Now I'm sure you're gonna play the numbers game here ("it's only 328 people"), however I'd like to point out that the only reason these people got any attention at all is because they were able to get enough money to hire outside investigators to look into the cases.....in other words, the state itself fucked up on the job. What else this points out is "how many more innocent people are in prison right now, but don't have the resources to reopen their convictions?". (another study worthy of interest, http://www.law.umich.edu/newsandinfo...ions-in-us.pdf ). And just to cut through the BS that playing the numbers game tends to bring up-ONE innocent person who spends ANY time in prison is too much. If the logic or morality of this statement is confusing, I have no idea what to say except READ THE GOD-DAMNED CONSTITUTION.

i've read it.

Originally Posted by loy

Now is he manipulating our system against us? Maybe, maybe not. My gut says "yes", but since I'm not a justice reading over the court documents, I can't make that call. And even if he is, I'm sorry, but I'm willing to allow a few bad apples try manipulating our system if the alternative is getting rid of the system itself. See, on a really basic level, getting rid of the system we have set up is called "treasonous". And as many problems as I have with the justice system as a whole, and even with this country as a whole, I'm also unwilling to decimate those aspects of our country that make us American. As I pointed out, we're not quite yet a "culture" (and no, it's not the French or the Prussians who say this. It's sociologists who say this. As I said, we're still in the stage where we rely on outside cultures and indiginous outsider groups to help our over-"culture" thrive, grow, and survive. Maybe in a 100 years....I'd say sooner, but who knows.....we'll develop as a self-sustaining culture with it's very own indiginous traits. This isn't elitism, it's just understanding of sociology, and not letting facts fuck me up emotionally) to have anything truly "American" outside of our laws, and once we decide to rid ourselves of those very laws and the ideals they embrace, we at once lose any right to call ourselves "American". Simple as that.

we won't agree on this no matter what we discuss and how deep our debates go. to deny that there's a "culture" alive and well inside the american borders is to either be blind to the environment around you or to disregard the many, varied people in this land the spice they bring into the melting pot of our country.

how can a sociologist decree that no culture exists while hundreds of millions of people living together in a land they call home are free to express themselves in any way they see fit while still calling themselves americans and abiding by american laws and geographic customs? a culture doesn't have to be declared valid by people in suits in order to exist.

Originally Posted by loy

As for the voting of Bush thing, all I'm saying is attacking one person for one action, then putting another person guilty of similar actions into power is disingenuous and slightly hypocritical. I know your dislike of politicians (and I do love your attacks on the religious nutcases that populate the Republican side of the line), but I'm just saying "step back, and re-examine your statements in comparison with the facts".

yeah, i thought about that after and you're right. i always lash out at liberals 'cuz they drive me nuts and make me mental. i was splitting hairs basically because you called me out specifically.

Originally Posted by loy

And as far as the pussification of america is concerned, I think trying to make all citizens conform to an ideal that's both unrealistic and anti-American, along with this idea that because we're Americans, we have every right to be the assholes of the world, is what's made most Americans into pussys. Maybe a holiday in cambodia...or hell, we can make a field trip visiting my family in the Phillipines.....should help cure that.

i don't think i understand where you're coming from here. what's unrealistic and anti-american? surely NOT what i was advocating.

and who said we, as americans, have the right to be the assholes of the world? i think that americans have the right to be americans and should feel no guilt when it comes to other countries, cultures or people. i don't need a trip to cambodia to appreciate what i have here. advocating a trip to a foreign country in order to inspire pity is... what, exactly? what will i learn about being an american by going to cambodia?

nothing. that's what.

the phillipines, however - i'd take a trip with you there. i've heard the women are hot as hell and treat men right. i dig that.

[Loy]

E_E-1.there have been reports about innocent people who somehow slip through the cracks and become convicted. They estimate that somewhwere around 10-20% (dependant upon the report) of people who've spent more than 5 years in prison are beyond a shadow of a doubt innocent of the crime they're serving the time for. So whilst you can point that only 300+ people have been pardoned, this number is just a drop in the barrell of the number of innocent people in prison (and death row. If I remember, the number prepping for deade mans walk is around 15%)....and this is just people who are beyond a shadow of a doubt innocent. This doesn't include cases where there wasn't enough actual evidence to point the finger to anyone but there was a modicum of circumstantial evidence that points to a MAYBE. As I've said, one can play the numbers game ("it's only around 20% of the prisoners"), but again, the numbers game is a tool for obfuscation of the problem, which is "innocent people going to jail points to a broken system that is not following the constitution, or the intent of both the constitution and its amendments". And if this is confusing to you (well, not really you, but any of the police-state-fantasising right-wing nutcases that tend to vote Republican), I say READ THE GOD DAMNED CONSTITUTION....although I should also add UNDERTSAND WHAT THE FUCK YOU'RE READING AS WELL!!!!!

2-As far as the difference between a culture and a society, it boils down to this. Society is a grouping of people beyond a familial unit (tribe, village, township, city, and so on). Culture is the binder of that society (the myths, the rituals, etc). However, culture also has to be self-creating in order to eb seen as "true culture" rather than "formant culture". Since our societal mores rely upon outside influences more so than internal influences, we're still in the 'formant culture" mode. As I said, it's been within the past 100 or so years that our internal influences have started to make a mark upon our society, and it's definately growing, but we're not 100% there yet. Hell, Rome took around 400 or so years, so we're luckier than them.

Hope that clarifies things a bit.

3-The ideal of us going against our constitution whenever we feel the whim to do so.....sorry, that's unamerican. I'm not saying you're advocating it, but the party you voted fo syure have a major problem with the constitution, and the ideal they promote happens to be unamerican....it also relies on unquestioning obediance to authority, and I say "unquestioning obediance to authority=pussy". I also have a problem with the "america-firsters" who feel that just because they're mommas water broke here rather than in, say, Uraguay, they deserve special treatment. And not only do I find that logic stupid, I find that people who want special treatment because they're Americans are pussys, in the truest sense of the word....apathetic, ignorant, lazy, self-obsessed pussys who will always suck on the teat of the world rather than do and think for themselves.

As for the Phillipines trip....let me get this passport thing taken care of (weird shit), I'm down. Until then, how about we make peace this way....I pass a fifth of JD your way, and you pass a fifth of Bushmills mine, and we'll perform plenty of acts of public jackassery until 10 in the morning. Deal?

[edible_eye]

... i love debating with you ...

i'll take that whiskey, although Old Crow puts a bigger smile on my face. as for your bushmills... done.

let's get shitty.


and tstone - what the fuck happened to my response to you? it's missing. now i have to figure out what the hell i wrote and repeat my comments.

i hate when that happens.

[edible_eye]

Originally Posted by TStone

This case should have gone before a military tribunal. At least there, there is no grey area about guilty until proven innocent, eh? As for the case itself, I missed a few hours, days, but caught the highlights of the Defense’s hanger-on (err, defense?) and aside from circumstantial arguments I couldn’t glean any guilt other than blatant stupidity.

Is stupidity a crime punishable by death?

Before you answer that (I know we all want to cleanse the gene pool but how far are we willing to go?} and so for general purposes I would like all stupid people to go out with a Darwinian and not, le’sigh, force societies hand to extract them from the breeding pool.

i absolutely agree the military should have tried this case, rather than flashing it before the pop media circuit. the military would have tried, convicted and slaughtered this piece of human shit, all under the radar, and this discussion would have been null-and-void.

Originally Posted by tstone

And, for you krispy kritter fans out there, a military tribunal would have been the best way to go. He’d have facilitated 18 brood of black flies by now, with no fanfare or fanatical speeches betwixt.

exactly.

boo-yah.

[edible_eye]

Originally Posted by TStone

An addendum to my previous: We, the people, would have been better served by NOT involving ourselves in this case, and; instead, letting our autonomous third party military machine chew up the fodder, allowing us to retain some sense of neutrality and evenhandedness. It is, however, perfectly fine for the military to hold him accountable because no body of people views any military group as benign, and we all expect some degree of collateral damage once the machine is set on its course.

Politically speaking, that would have been the lesser of evils.

amen, brother.