"The death penalty has never bothered me"
Evleth
Let's take a timeout on executions
The death penalty has never boTthered me all that much. Although I've
never partied at those morbid pep rallies some death penalty fans hold
outside Central Prison on execution nights, neither have I piously
claimed that the death penalty is an unfortunate but necessary deterrent.
You kill, you die. Revenge seems to me a perfectly valid reason for
society to whack a convicted killer who has illegally taken another human
life.
Furthermore, I hope the state legislative study commission examining the
death penalty comes back with a report that says, "We're doing fine,
thank you."
But until that happens, what's wrong with parking the gurneys for a while?
What's wrong with waiting until we're sure that what we're doing is fair,
that we have not killed an innocent person in the past and are not likely
to in the future, that defendants have had and will continue to have fair
and impartial trials? After all, condemned prisoners aren't going anywhere.
That's all the moratorium calls for, that we whoa things down, take a
deep breath, make darn sure we're doing the right thing and then put 'em
down.
I'm not naive. I know death penalty opponents such as the People of Faith
Against the Death Penalty are hoping a temporary moratorium will lead to
abolition of the death penalty. They hope that if they can stop
executions for a little while, the political and moral will to roll out
the gurneys again with have vanished.
I'm not there. If the study commission says that in this state, all
accused killers receive a fair trial by a jury of their peers and that
race, wealth and politics have nothing to do with their fate, I'd say
"sayonara" and pray for their misbegotten souls.
More and more, however, the evidence and common sense make you wonder:
Last year, the Supreme Court upheld the sentences of 5 condemned
prisoners, freeing the state to kill them at its convenience. Is it mere
coincidence that no one was killed during the political campaigns but
that three, including one set for Thursday, were scheduled for the weeks
immediately after the voting was over?
Last week, the attorney for one death row inmate admitted that he
sabotaged his client's appeal because he thought the guy ought to die.
Good lawyer, huh?
In Illinois, 13 death row inmates were freed because they were wrongly
convicted. How can we be so sure, unless we take the time to look again,
that we don't have a similar situation in North Carolina?
Ask yourself: When is the last time a rich person with a top-notch lawyer
was executed? Are we supposed to believe that only poor minorities kill
people? Yet 63 percent of North Carolina's death row inmates are
minorities -- more than twice their share of the population -- and just
two had enough money to hire a private lawyer. A system in such a hurry
to execute poor folks while middle-class killers such as neo-Nazi James
Burmeister and Chapel Hill's Wendell Williamson get to live seems suspect
to me.
What's the harm in letting death row inmates sweat a little longer until
the study commission has done its work?
Could it be that a lot of powerful people are worried about what the
commission will discover?
(source: Opinion, Dennis Rogers, Raleigh News & Observer)
MrMateo
Evleth wrote:
> Let's take a timeout on executions
>
> The death penalty has never boTthered me all that much. Although I've
> never partied at those morbid pep rallies some death penalty fans hold
> outside Central Prison on execution nights, neither have I piously
> claimed that the death penalty is an unfortunate but necessary deterrent.
How about those candlelight vigils, like the one I saw when John Wane
Gacy was executed? The fact Gacy killed over two dozen men and boys did not
seem to bother the protesters any.
>
>
> You kill, you die. Revenge seems to me a perfectly valid reason for
> society to whack a convicted killer who has illegally taken another human
> life.
It is not about vengeance, and it never has been. If it was, you would
see the families of the victims meting out punishment. Instead, it is being
carried out by a third party, the state government.
>
>
> Furthermore, I hope the state legislative study commission examining the
> death penalty comes back with a report that says, "We're doing fine,
> thank you."
>
> But until that happens, what's wrong with parking the gurneys for a while?
Plenty. The last time that happened, every person on death row at that
time was given life sentences, which made them subject to parole. One of those
people was Kenneth Allen McDuff, who was actually paroled twice before he set
on another killing spree, leaving at least three women dead in his wake.
>
>
> What's wrong with waiting until we're sure that what we're doing is fair,
> that we have not killed an innocent person in the past and are not likely
> to in the future, that defendants have had and will continue to have fair
> and impartial trials? After all, condemned prisoners aren't going anywhere.
Fair? Is slamming a pickax into two human beings fair? How about
dragging a man behind a pickup truck until pieces of his body were strewn all
over the road? Or how about poisoning your own son with cyanide-laced candy so
you could collect insurance money?
>
>
> That's all the moratorium calls for, that we whoa things down, take a
> deep breath, make darn sure we're doing the right thing and then put 'em
> down.
We are. That is why the majority of the people consistently favor it.
>
>
> I'm not naive. I know death penalty opponents such as the People of Faith
> Against the Death Penalty are hoping a temporary moratorium will lead to
> abolition of the death penalty. They hope that if they can stop
> executions for a little while, the political and moral will to roll out
> the gurneys again with have vanished.
>
> I'm not there. If the study commission says that in this state, all
> accused killers receive a fair trial by a jury of their peers and that
> race, wealth and politics have nothing to do with their fate, I'd say
> "sayonara" and pray for their misbegotten souls.
>
> More and more, however, the evidence and common sense make you wonder:
>
> Last year, the Supreme Court upheld the sentences of 5 condemned
> prisoners, freeing the state to kill them at its convenience. Is it mere
> coincidence that no one was killed during the political campaigns but
> that three, including one set for Thursday, were scheduled for the weeks
> immediately after the voting was over?
Yes, when you consider the executions in question are set by a judge,
not a governor.
>
>
> Last week, the attorney for one death row inmate admitted that he
> sabotaged his client's appeal because he thought the guy ought to die.
> Good lawyer, huh?
So what? Does it say that the killer in question is factually
innocent? Nope.
>
>
> In Illinois, 13 death row inmates were freed because they were wrongly
> convicted. How can we be so sure, unless we take the time to look again,
> that we don't have a similar situation in North Carolina?
Ask yourself: When is the last time a rich person with a top-notch
lawyer
> was executed? Are we supposed to believe that only poor minorities kill
> people? Yet 63 percent of North Carolina's death row inmates are
> minorities -- more than twice their share of the population -- and just
> two had enough money to hire a private lawyer. A system in such a hurry
> to execute poor folks while middle-class killers such as neo-Nazi James
> Burmeister and Chapel Hill's Wendell Williamson get to live seems suspect
> to me.
I do not see any similarity here. Illinois had a moratorium put on
the DP because some factually innocent people were being railroaded by
overzealous and incompetent police and government officials. With North
Carolina, however, you have the standard, cliched argument of the DP being
racist and divided by class. No factual innocence here. Just apples and
oranges.
>
>
> What's the harm in letting death row inmates sweat a little longer until
> the study commission has done its work?
There are death row inmates who have outlived families of their
victims while sitting in jail, getting comforts for free that the law-abiding
have to work for and earn. And people are getting tired of it.
>
>
> Could it be that a lot of powerful people are worried about what the
> commission will discover?
No. They are just interested in justice, like anyone else.
>
>
> (source: Opinion, Dennis Rogers, Raleigh News & Observer)
Matthew
Mitchell Holman
}
} There are death row inmates who have outlived families of their
}victims while sitting in jail, getting comforts for free that the law-abiding
}have to work for and earn. And people are getting tired of it.
}
"Comforts of death row"?
Like what?
MrMateo
Mitchell Holman wrote:
> In article <3A0B93F6...@sbd.net>, MrMateo <ter...@sbd.net> wrote:
> }
> }
>
> }
> } There are death row inmates who have outlived families of their
> }victims while sitting in jail, getting comforts for free that the law-abiding
> }have to work for and earn. And people are getting tired of it.
> }
>
> "Comforts of death row"?
I did not say, "comforts of death row." I said they get "comforts."
>
>
> Like what?
Anything beyond three squares, a bed, a clean prison uniform, mail, and
visits from family.
Matthew
Sharpjfa
>From: ta2...@airmail.net (Mitchell Holman)
>Date: 11/10/00 4:08 PM EST
>Message-id:
><7CDE2BD9A5635B83.7D4F5742...@lp.airnews.net>
>
>In article <3A0B93F6...@sbd.net>, MrMateo <ter...@sbd.net> wrote:
>}
>}
>
>
>}
>} There are death row inmates who have outlived families of their
>}victims while sitting in jail, getting comforts for free that the
>law-abiding
>}have to work for and earn. And people are getting tired of it.
>}
>
> "Comforts of death row"?
>
basketball, baseball, writing letters to get money, volleyball, reading books,
planning escapes, taking hostages, murdering more people, conning naive
believers in their innocence, etc.
sharp Justice For All http://www.jfa.net/
http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/ http://www.murdervictims.com/
Overwhelmingly, the US criminal justice system benefits criminals, dishonors
victims and contributes to future victimizations.
Mitchell Holman
}>Subject: Re: "The death penalty has never bothered me"
}>From: ta2...@airmail.net (Mitchell Holman)
}>Date: 11/10/00 4:08 PM EST
}>Message-id:
}><7CDE2BD9A5635B83.7D4F5742...@lp.airnews.net>
}>
}>In article <3A0B93F6...@sbd.net>, MrMateo <ter...@sbd.net> wrote:
}>}
}>}
}>
}>
}>}
}>} There are death row inmates who have outlived families of their
}>}victims while sitting in jail, getting comforts for free that the
}>law-abiding
}>}have to work for and earn. And people are getting tired of it.
}>}
}>
}> "Comforts of death row"?
}>
}> Like what?
}
}basketball, baseball, writing letters to get money, volleyball, reading books,
}planning escapes, taking hostages, murdering more people, conning naive
}believers in their innocence, etc.
}
My, my, Dudley - what happened to your claim
to have put me in your killfile, along with everyone
else who has challenged your twisted factoids?
Mitchell Holman
"Murders are not deterred by the current levels of execution."
Dudley Sharp, 10/2/98.
"The death penalty is an overwhelming deterrent."
Dudley Sharp, 9/22/00
10wh...@my-deja.com
MrMateo <ter...@sbd.net> wrote:
>
>
> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>
> > In article <3A0B93F6...@sbd.net>, MrMateo <ter...@sbd.net>
wrote:
> > }
> > }
> >
> > }
their
> > }victims while sitting in jail, getting comforts for free that the
law-abiding
> > }have to work for and earn. And people are getting tired of it.
> > }
> >
>
get "comforts."
>
> >
> >
> > Like what?
>
> Anything beyond three squares, a bed, a clean prison
uniform, mail, and
> visits from family.
Apparently this leaves out meeting with defense attorneys and the right
to be treated with dignity.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Mitchell Holman
}
}
}Mitchell Holman wrote:
}
}> In article <3A0B93F6...@sbd.net>, MrMateo <ter...@sbd.net> wrote:
}> }
}> }
}>
}> }
}> }victims while sitting in jail, getting comforts for free that the
} law-abiding
}> }have to work for and earn. And people are getting tired of it.
}> }
}>
}
} I did not say, "comforts of death row." I said they get "comforts."
}
}>
}>
}> Like what?
}
} Anything beyond three squares, a bed, a clean prison uniform, mail,
} and
}visits from family.
}
How about meetings with reporters and journalism
students investigating evidence of innocence? Is that
a prohibited "comfort", do you think?
St.George_in_Los Angeles, CA
"Mitchell Holman" <ta2...@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:97A70340E28ED8B6.FCB99319...@lp.airnews.net...
> }>From: ta2...@airmail.net (Mitchell Holman)
> }>Date: 11/10/00 4:08 PM EST
> }>Message-id:
> }><7CDE2BD9A5635B83.7D4F5742...@lp.airnews.net>
> }>
> }>In article <3A0B93F6...@sbd.net>, MrMateo <ter...@sbd.net> wrote:
> }>}
> }>}
> }>
> }>
> }>}
> }>} There are death row inmates who have outlived families of
their
> }>}victims while sitting in jail, getting comforts for free that the
> }>law-abiding
> }>}have to work for and earn. And people are getting tired of it.
> }>}
> }>
> }> "Comforts of death row"?
> }>
> }> Like what?
> }
> }basketball, baseball, writing letters to get money, volleyball, reading
books,
> }planning escapes, taking hostages, murdering more people, conning naive
> }believers in their innocence, etc.
> }
>
> to have put me in your killfile, along with everyone
> else who has challenged your twisted factoids?
I think Dudley's killfile must be broken, Mitchell - I caught him replying
to me a couple of times recently!
I guess the next step, now we have his ear again, is to get him to actually
_answer_ some of our questions.
I shan't hold my breath, though....
george shewbart
basketball (or other physical activities) instead of being confined to a
small cell 23 hours a day in Walla Walla WA he might have faced the
hangman instead of convincing a federal judge that the 8th amendment
prohibits the use of the gallows for an exceptionally obese person. Of
course neither he nor his attorney wrote the law that seed state of
Washington could not use the needle unloess the condemned specifically
requested it in lieu of the rope.
Thanks to a compassionate juror Rupe will spend his little remaining
time awaiting death from a fatal liver disease instead of wasting
taxpayer money on appeals that would take more time than his life
expectancy. And unlike Karla Faye Tucker he will get the mercy deserved
from his repentence.
Qui est Johannus Galtus?
THE QUESTION OF THE AGES POSED BY EDDIE WILLERS
MrMateo
Mitchell Holman wrote:
You read the above. Are you having trouble understanding it?
Matthew
MrMateo
10wh...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <3A0C7F27...@sbd.net>,
> MrMateo <ter...@sbd.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Mitchell Holman wrote:
> >
> > > In article <3A0B93F6...@sbd.net>, MrMateo <ter...@sbd.net>
> wrote:
> > > }
> > > }
> > >
> > > }
> > > } There are death row inmates who have outlived families of
> their
> > > }victims while sitting in jail, getting comforts for free that the
> law-abiding
> > > }have to work for and earn. And people are getting tired of it.
> > > }
> > >
> > > "Comforts of death row"?
> >
> > I did not say, "comforts of death row." I said they
> get "comforts."
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Like what?
> >
> > Anything beyond three squares, a bed, a clean prison
> uniform, mail, and
> > visits from family.
>
> Apparently this leaves out meeting with defense attorneys
and I concede that
> and the right
> to be treated with dignity.
Um, excuse me, but you seem to have forgotten that these people
are CRIMINALS!!!!
Prison is NOT a place to be treated with dignity. It is a
place where you are punished for not conforming with society's norm.
Matthew
Dave Proctor
news:3A0F62C4...@sbd.net...
> Um, excuse me, but you seem to have forgotten that these
people
> are CRIMINALS!!!!
> Prison is NOT a place to be treated with dignity. It is a
> place where you are punished for not conforming with society's norm.
Prisoners are sent to prison AS punishment, not FOR punishment. There is a
difference.
Dave
Desmond Coughlan
> > Um, excuse me, but you seem to have forgotten that these
> people
> > are CRIMINALS!!!!
> > Prison is NOT a place to be treated with dignity. It is a
> > place where you are punished for not conforming with society's norm.
> Prisoners are sent to prison AS punishment, not FOR punishment. There is a
> difference.
Bloody hell, that was well said, David ...
--
**********************************************************************
* Desmond Coughlan Network Engineer Forum des Images Paris *
* dcou...@vdp.fr http://www.forumdesimages.net/ (01) 44.76.62.29 *
* PGP Public Key: http://www.coughlan.net/desmond/pgp/pubring.pkr *
* Fingerprint: 3F1F C838 88D5 2659 B00A 6DF6 6883 FB9C E34A AC93 *
**********************************************************************
10wh...@my-deja.com
MrMateo <ter...@sbd.net> wrote:
> 10wh...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > In article <3A0C7F27...@sbd.net>,
> > MrMateo <ter...@sbd.net> wrote:
> > > Mitchell Holman wrote:
> > > > In article <3A0B93F6...@sbd.net>, MrMateo
<ter...@sbd.net>
> > wrote:
> > > > } There are death row inmates who have outlived
families of
> > their
> > > > }victims while sitting in jail, getting comforts for free that
the
> > law-abiding
> > > > }have to work for and earn. And people are getting tired of it.
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > "Comforts of death row"?
> > >
> > > I did not say, "comforts of death row." I said they
> > get "comforts."
> > >
> > > > Like what?
> > >
> > > Anything beyond three squares, a bed, a clean prison
> > uniform, mail, and
> > > visits from family.
> >
> > Apparently this leaves out meeting with defense attorneys
>
Does that mean you would include this right, or just that you purposely
excluded it?
> > and the right
> > to be treated with dignity.
>
> Um, excuse me, but you seem to have forgotten that these
people
> are CRIMINALS!!!!
> Prison is NOT a place to be treated with dignity. It is a
> place where you are punished for not conforming with society's norm.
So what if they are criminals? Criminality is no excuse for the state
to implement unlawful punishments. Being treated with dignity doesn't
mean being served dinner at La Boheme, but it does mean an inmate has
the right not to be beaten; if he transgresses, then treatment beyond
what is necessary for control is abusive and illegal. If we would
treat prisoners more civilly while they are incarcerated, we would have
fewer problems with them while they are in custody and they would have
less resentments upon their release. Let's stop pretending that
violation of a law is an excuse for state officials to abuse whomever
they please while recalling that more than 1/2 the prisoners are non-
violent drug offenders. Abuse non-violent prisoners and you'll harden
them into career criminals.
MrMateo
10wh...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <3A0F62C4...@sbd.net>,
> MrMateo <ter...@sbd.net> wrote:
> > 10wh...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > In article <3A0C7F27...@sbd.net>,
> > > MrMateo <ter...@sbd.net> wrote:
> > > > Mitchell Holman wrote:
> > > > > In article <3A0B93F6...@sbd.net>, MrMateo
> <ter...@sbd.net>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > } There are death row inmates who have outlived
> families of
> > > their
> > > > > }victims while sitting in jail, getting comforts for free that
> the
> > > law-abiding
> > > > > }have to work for and earn. And people are getting tired of it.
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > "Comforts of death row"?
> > > >
> > > > I did not say, "comforts of death row." I said they
> > > get "comforts."
> > > >
> > > > > Like what?
> > > >
> > > > Anything beyond three squares, a bed, a clean prison
> > > uniform, mail, and
> > > > visits from family.
> > >
> > > Apparently this leaves out meeting with defense attorneys
> >
> > and I concede that
>
> Does that mean you would include this right,
Yes.
>
>
> > > and the right
> > > to be treated with dignity.
> >
> > Um, excuse me, but you seem to have forgotten that these
> people
> > are CRIMINALS!!!!
> > Prison is NOT a place to be treated with dignity. It is a
> > place where you are punished for not conforming with society's norm.
>
> So what if they are criminals? Criminality is no excuse for the state
> to implement unlawful punishments. Being treated with dignity doesn't
> mean being served dinner at La Boheme, but it does mean an inmate has
> the right not to be beaten; if he transgresses, then treatment beyond
> what is necessary for control is abusive and illegal. If we would
> treat prisoners more civilly while they are incarcerated, we would have
> fewer problems with them while they are in custody and they would have
> less resentments upon their release. Let's stop pretending that
> violation of a law is an excuse for state officials to abuse whomever
> they please while recalling that more than 1/2 the prisoners are non-
> violent drug offenders. Abuse non-violent prisoners and you'll harden
> them into career criminals.
Actually, non-violent offenders turn into violent offenders
DESPITE how they are treated in prison. The most infamous case here in Texas
concerned Spencer Corey Goodman, a parolee convicted of auto theft and
burglary, who, instead of reporting to a halfway house, went to the parking
lot of a Walgreen's and got into a car with the driver still inside. (Her
name was Cecile Ham, wife of Bill Ham, manager of ZZ Top.) He then broke the
woman's neck and drove to a remote area to place her body in the trunk. And
he proceeded to go on a spending spree with her credit card.
See, the concept of prison is SUPPOSED to be (and once was) a
place where you do NOT want to go back. The fact that people are willing to
reoffend, over and over again says there is something wrong with the way we
treat prisoners now. They are criminals, and they are in prison to be
punished, not pampered.
Matthew
>
MrMateo
Dave Proctor wrote:
*BZZZZZ!* Sorry, wrong answer! Thanks so much for playing.
The correct answer is, how is a criminal being punished if he is
being sent to a virtual day camp? Criminals should NOT want to go back to
prison. And yet, they do, over and over again. The problem is not society, but
the lack of discipline in our prisons.
Matthew
Desmond Coughlan
[snip]
> Um, excuse me, but you seem to have forgotten that these people
> are CRIMINALS!!!!
You seem to have forgotten that these people are human beings.
> Prison is NOT a place to be treated with dignity. It is a
> place where you are punished for not conforming with society's norm.
'course, should you ever find yourself in gaol (don't panic: fortunately
for you, idiocy isn't illegal), you might just see things differently ...
10wh...@my-deja.com
MrMateo <ter...@sbd.net> wrote:
> 10wh...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > In article <3A0F62C4...@sbd.net>,
> > MrMateo <ter...@sbd.net> wrote:
> > > 10wh...@my-deja.com wrote:
[...]
> > > > and the right
> > > > to be treated with dignity.
> > >
> > > Um, excuse me, but you seem to have forgotten that
these
> > people
> > > are CRIMINALS!!!!
> > > Prison is NOT a place to be treated with dignity. It
is a
> > > place where you are punished for not conforming with society's
norm.
> >
> > So what if they are criminals? Criminality is no excuse for the
state
> > to implement unlawful punishments. Being treated with dignity
doesn't
> > mean being served dinner at La Boheme, but it does mean an inmate
has
> > the right not to be beaten; if he transgresses, then treatment
beyond
> > what is necessary for control is abusive and illegal. If we would
> > treat prisoners more civilly while they are incarcerated, we would
have
> > fewer problems with them while they are in custody and they would
have
> > less resentments upon their release. Let's stop pretending that
> > violation of a law is an excuse for state officials to abuse
whomever
> > they please while recalling that more than 1/2 the prisoners are
non-
> > violent drug offenders. Abuse non-violent prisoners and you'll
harden
> > them into career criminals.
>
> Actually, non-violent offenders turn into violent offenders
> DESPITE how they are treated in prison.
[snip anecdotal detail] If this were true we would have so much more
crime than we could deal with that the last thing we'd be concerned
with is non-violent offenders. I'm not suggesting the only factor is
how inmates are treated, just that we shouldn't be surprised when
formerly non-violent men become vicious after being mistreated and
abused by prison officials. It's easy to build up hate when this
happens and the outlet for that hate isn't always directed at those who
inflicted the abuse in the first place.
> See, the concept of prison is SUPPOSED to be (and once was)
a
> place where you do NOT want to go back. The fact that people are
willing to
> reoffend, over and over again says there is something wrong with the
way we
> treat prisoners now. They are criminals, and they are in prison to be
> punished, not pampered.
Imprisonment is the punishment, not abuse at the hands of guards and
inmates directed by guards. Ending the revolving door for prison isn't
a function of making it the worst hellhole on earth, but rather of
addressing the underlying causes for criminality. BTW, I'm not
familiar with any definition of pampering that includes the regimented
lifestyle of inmates - would you provide such a definition?
MrMateo
10wh...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > Actually, non-violent offenders turn into violent offenders
> > DESPITE how they are treated in prison.
>
> I'm not suggesting the only factor is
> how inmates are treated, just that we shouldn't be surprised when
> formerly non-violent men become vicious after being mistreated and
> abused by prison officials.
Sure, just as there is evidence kids that are not spanked are
better behaved than those that are not. Never mind how that flies in the
face of common sense.
> > See, the concept of prison is SUPPOSED to be (and once was)
> a
> > place where you do NOT want to go back. The fact that people are
> willing to
> > reoffend, over and over again says there is something wrong with the
> way we
> > treat prisoners now. They are criminals, and they are in prison to be
> > punished, not pampered.
>
> Imprisonment is the punishment, not abuse at the hands of guards and
> inmates directed by guards.
Maybe in the Middle East, but we are talking about the US, where
imprisonment and punishment are two different things.
> BTW, I'm not
> familiar with any definition of pampering that includes the regimented
> lifestyle of inmates - would you provide such a definition?
Anything that goes beyond three squares, a bed, a clean prison
uniform, mail, visits from family and an attorney, and a shower and toilet.
Matthew
MrMateo
"Mr Q. Z. Diablo" wrote:
> In article <slrn91084m....@lievre.voute.net>,
> des...@coughlan.net wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 12 Nov 2000 21:40:53 -0600, MrMateo <ter...@sbd.net> wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > Um, excuse me, but you seem to have forgotten that these
> > > people
> > > are CRIMINALS!!!!
> >
> > You seem to have forgotten that these people are human beings.
> >
> > > Prison is NOT a place to be treated with dignity. It is a
> > > place where you are punished for not conforming with society's norm.
> >
> > 'course, should you ever find yourself in gaol (don't panic: fortunately
> > for you, idiocy isn't illegal), you might just see things differently ...
<blatant flame snipped>
>
> Killfile him, Desmond. He's a waste of space and he's using our air.
Oh, yes, Desmond, please killfile me.
You do it, too, Q.Z. Diablo, since you have a hard time with the truth.
Matthew
Mitchell Holman
}
} The correct answer is, how is a criminal being punished if he is
}being sent to a virtual day camp?
You've never been to prison, have you.....
Hint: Check one out before you continue this
"virtual day camp" nonsense.
Or call up Gordon Liddy's talk show and tell him
that the prison he was in was a "virtual day camp".
Do let us know his reply.
Mitchell Holman
}
}
}10wh...@my-deja.com wrote:
}
}>
}> > Actually, non-violent offenders turn into violent offenders
}> > DESPITE how they are treated in prison.
}>
}> I'm not suggesting the only factor is
}> how inmates are treated, just that we shouldn't be surprised when
}> formerly non-violent men become vicious after being mistreated and
}> abused by prison officials.
}
} Sure, just as there is evidence kids that are not spanked are
}better behaved than those that are not. Never mind how that flies in the
}face of common sense.
}
Since you statement does not make any sense at all,
it can hardly fly in the face of common sense.
MrMateo
Mitchell Holman wrote:
> In article <3A100B20...@sbd.net>, MrMateo <ter...@sbd.net> wrote:
> }
> }
> }Dave Proctor wrote:
> }
> } *BZZZZZ!* Sorry, wrong answer! Thanks so much for playing.
> }
> } The correct answer is, how is a criminal being punished if he is
> }being sent to a virtual day camp?
>
> You've never been to prison, have you.....
I have never been to prison. Have you seen one? I have. And I stand
by my statement.
Matthew
MrMateo
Mitchell Holman wrote:
Of course it does not make sense. We all know there is a direct
correlation between spanking and good behavior.
But then, 10 Wheels was not making any sense either. And I was
demonstrating absurdity by being absurd.
Matthew
MrMateo
Mitchell Holman wrote:
> In article <3A107A74...@sbd.net>, MrMateo <ter...@sbd.net> wrote:
> }
> }
> } We all know there is a direct correlation between
> }spanking and good behavior.
>
> The experts in this field disgree with you.
The "experts" are not experts at all. In fact, they could not
find their own backsides with a ten-man working party.
They abolished corporal punishment in public schools. Look at
what you have now: Kids dressing like whores, gang members and slobs. School
shootings. Students attacking teachers. Disruptions of studies.
There was NONE of that when I was in school. There is now. And
you do not have to be an "expert" to figure out why.
<doorways to morons snipped>
Matthew
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
> On Sun, 12 Nov 2000 21:40:53 -0600, MrMateo <ter...@sbd.net> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > Um, excuse me, but you seem to have forgotten that these
> > people
> > are CRIMINALS!!!!
>
> You seem to have forgotten that these people are human beings.
>
> > Prison is NOT a place to be treated with dignity. It is a
> > place where you are punished for not conforming with society's norm.
>
> 'course, should you ever find yourself in gaol (don't panic: fortunately
> for you, idiocy isn't illegal), you might just see things differently ...
I'm rather hoping that Matthew, if imprisoned, would end up sharing a
cell with a 250kg, bald, tattooed man called "Bubba" who want's to play
mummies and daddies.
B: "You want to by mummy or daddy?"
M: "D- d- d- daddy, p-p-please."
B: "OK, daddy. Come over here and suck mummy's dick."
</blatant troll>
Killfile him, Desmond. He's a waste of space and he's using our air.
Mr Q. Z. D.
----
Drinker, systems administrator, wannabe writer, musician and all-round bastard.
"Alright brain, I don't like you and you don't like me... so let's just do this
and I'll get back to killing you with beer."
John Rennie
>
>
> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>
> > In article <3A102D03...@sbd.net>, MrMateo <ter...@sbd.net> wrote:
> > }
> > }
> > }10wh...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > }
> > }>
> > }> > Actually, non-violent offenders turn into violent
offenders
> > }> > DESPITE how they are treated in prison.
> > }>
> > }> I'm not suggesting the only factor is
> > }> how inmates are treated, just that we shouldn't be surprised when
> > }> formerly non-violent men become vicious after being mistreated and
> > }> abused by prison officials.
> > }
> > } Sure, just as there is evidence kids that are not spanked
are
> > }better behaved than those that are not. Never mind how that flies in
the
> > }face of common sense.
> > }
> >
> > Since you statement does not make any sense at all,
> > it can hardly fly in the face of common sense.
>
direct
> correlation between spanking and good behavior.
and, in your humble opinion, what is the direct correlation between
spanking and good behaviour?
Mitchell Holman
}spanking and good behavior.
The experts in this field disgree with you. In fact, spanking
just teaches children to use violence and inflict pain to solve
problems.
http://www.unh.edu/frl/cp24art.htm
http://www.ahealthyme.com/topic/spanking3to6
http://www.aap.org/family/99disc.htm
Mitchell Holman
}> }
}> }
}> } We all know there is a direct correlation between
}> }spanking and good behavior.
}>
}> The experts in this field disgree with you.
}
}find their own backsides with a ten-man working party.
They are experts enough for you to delete their
websites without even looking at them. Do you know
more than the American Academic of Pediatrics, for
instance?
}
} They abolished corporal punishment in public schools. Look at
}what you have now: Kids dressing like whores, gang members and slobs. School
}shootings. Students attacking teachers. Disruptions of studies.
And crime has going down for the last eight years in a
row. Fancy that.
}
} There was NONE of that when I was in school.
You mean you are not a product of home schooling?
MrMateo
Mitchell Holman wrote:
> In article <3A10AC66...@sbd.net>, MrMateo <ter...@sbd.net> wrote:
> }
> }
> }Mitchell Holman wrote:
> }
> }> In article <3A107A74...@sbd.net>, MrMateo <ter...@sbd.net> wrote:
> }> }
> }> }
> }> } We all know there is a direct correlation between
> }> }spanking and good behavior.
> }>
> }> The experts in this field disgree with you.
> }
> } The "experts" are not experts at all. In fact, they could not
> }find their own backsides with a ten-man working party.
>
> They are experts enough for you to delete their
> websites without even looking at them. Do you know
> more than the American Academic of Pediatrics, for
> instance?
Actually, they are all from the same organization: The American
Academy of People Who Think They Know More About Parenting Than Actual Parents
Do. Or: The American Academy of Busybodies. Or: The American Academy of People
Who Should Mind Their Own Damned Business.
>
>
> }
> } They abolished corporal punishment in public schools. Look at
> }what you have now: Kids dressing like whores, gang members and slobs. School
> }shootings. Students attacking teachers. Disruptions of studies.
>
> And crime has going down for the last eight years in a
> row. Fancy that.
That's REPORTED crimes, Mitchie. And only the shootings and attacks
are crimes, BTW.
Matthew
Desmond Coughlan
[snip]
> > So what if they are criminals? Criminality is no excuse for the state
> > to implement unlawful punishments. Being treated with dignity doesn't
> > mean being served dinner at La Boheme, but it does mean an inmate has
> > the right not to be beaten; if he transgresses, then treatment beyond
> > what is necessary for control is abusive and illegal. If we would
> > treat prisoners more civilly while they are incarcerated, we would have
> > fewer problems with them while they are in custody and they would have
> > less resentments upon their release. Let's stop pretending that
> > violation of a law is an excuse for state officials to abuse whomever
> > they please while recalling that more than 1/2 the prisoners are non-
> > violent drug offenders. Abuse non-violent prisoners and you'll harden
> > them into career criminals.
> Actually, non-violent offenders turn into violent offenders
> DESPITE how they are treated in prison.
Ah ... I see now. Dolt-Boy wants every prisoner in gaol to be executed, because
they will inevitably turn into murderers ...
Do you still wonder why everyone laughs at you, Dolt-Boy ..?
Desmond Coughlan
[snip]
> > Since you statement does not make any sense at all,
> > it can hardly fly in the face of common sense.
> Of course it does not make sense. We all know there is a direct
> correlation between spanking and good behavior.
>
> But then, 10 Wheels was not making any sense either. And I was
> demonstrating absurdity by being absurd.
Well ... <deep breath> ... I think I speak for the newsgroup in extending
heartfelt congratulations for a job well done ...
S Moir
>
>
> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>
> > In article <3A107A74...@sbd.net>, MrMateo <ter...@sbd.net> wrote:
> > }
> > }
> > } We all know there is a direct correlation between
> > }spanking and good behavior.
> >
> > The experts in this field disgree with you.
>
> find their own backsides with a ten-man working party.
>
> what you have now: Kids dressing like whores, gang members and slobs.
School
> shootings. Students attacking teachers. Disruptions of studies.
>
And
> you do not have to be an "expert" to figure out why.
>
> <doorways to morons snipped>
>
> Matthew
>
parents to discourage violence in children- the teachers have quite enough
to do teaching them.
Hitting kids doesn't stop bad behaviour- it just shows them that bullying
and violence gets results.
None of my children are bullied or hit by me- they are not afraid to come to
me with problems and get me to help them sort it out. As a result not one of
them has ever used violence. They are not angels or exceptions to the rule-
it's just that they know their opinion is just as important as anyone else's
and that they have a right not to be assaulted just like any adult.
Hit or ignore children and they will get the message they are worthless-
this is how problem children (and ultimately violent adults) are created.
Sometimes I think there should be an aptitude test for prospective parents-
any idiot can make a baby, but it takes a real parent to raise it properly.
When a parent makes a mess of it we all pay the price for their stupidity.
Shona
Desmond Coughlan
[snip]
> > } They abolished corporal punishment in public schools. Look at
> > }what you have now: Kids dressing like whores, gang members and slobs. School
> > }shootings. Students attacking teachers. Disruptions of studies.
> > And crime has going down for the last eight years in a
> > row. Fancy that.
> That's REPORTED crimes, Mitchie. And only the shootings and attacks
> are crimes, BTW.
Ah ... so in actual fact, the death penalty doesn't deter criminals; it only
discourages murder victims from ... er ... being found, for fear that their
assailants will face the death penalty.
Do you really enjoy making a fool of yourself ?
Desmond Coughlan
[snip]
> > They are experts enough for you to delete their
> > websites without even looking at them. Do you know
> > more than the American Academic of Pediatrics, for
> > instance?
> Actually, they are all from the same organization: The American
> Academy of People Who Think They Know More About Parenting Than Actual Parents
> Do.
Given the number of parents who Fuck Up the upbringing of their children, that
shouldn't be too difficult ...
> Or: The American Academy of Busybodies. Or: The American Academy of People
> Who Should Mind Their Own Damned Business.
How about the American Association of People who Love to Laugh at Matthew ?
All 279,999,999 of them ...
[snip]
Dave Proctor
> > You've never been to prison, have you.....
>
> I have never been to prison. Have you seen one? I have. And
I stand
> by my statement.
I have - I am a Justice of the Peace in my state, and I have the right to
enter any prison at any time. I have used that right once, and it is not
somewhere I would voluntarily place myself.
Dave
Dave Proctor
> The correct answer is, how is a criminal being punished if he
is
> being sent to a virtual day camp? Criminals should NOT want to go back to
> prison. And yet, they do, over and over again. The problem is not society,
but
> the lack of discipline in our prisons.
The punishment is deprivation of liberty. Like anything, some prisoners will
get used to having their lives ordered, without having to think about where
the next meal is coming from, etc. They like the fact that they do not have
to think whilst in prison. This will never change, no matter how onerous the
regime.
Dave
10wh...@my-deja.com
offenders
> > > DESPITE how they are treated in prison.
> >
> > how inmates are treated, just that we shouldn't be surprised when
> > formerly non-violent men become vicious after being mistreated and
> > abused by prison officials.
>
> Sure, just as there is evidence kids that are not spanked
are
the
> face of common sense.
Common sense is utterly wrong on this point. What you fail to realize
is that spanking itself elevates the need for more severe punishments
and increases resentment. It isn't necessary to spank or physically
abuse any child. Those who were spanked almost invariably continue to
abuse their children and, as with yourself, remain ignorant of the
negative consequences of spanking. A couple of years ago, one of the
newsmagazines (don't recall which) installed video cameras in the homes
of several people who did and did not spank their children. The
results were apparent - the children who were regularly spanked and
physically corrected were far more unhappy, misbehaved and sullen than
the children who were never spanked. Further, it took progressively
more and more physical punishment for the parents to gain the
(outwardly) compliant behavior. [Rant mode off]
> > > See, the concept of prison is SUPPOSED to be (and once
was)
> > a
> > > place where you do NOT want to go back. The fact that people are
> > willing to
> > > reoffend, over and over again says there is something wrong with
the
> > way we
> > > treat prisoners now. They are criminals, and they are in prison
to be
> > > punished, not pampered.
> >
> > Imprisonment is the punishment, not abuse at the hands of guards and
> > inmates directed by guards.
>
> Maybe in the Middle East, but we are talking about the US,
where
> imprisonment and punishment are two different things.
Try a refresher course in civics.
> > BTW, I'm not
> > familiar with any definition of pampering that includes the
regimented
> > lifestyle of inmates - would you provide such a definition?
>
> Anything that goes beyond three squares, a bed, a clean
prison
> uniform, mail, visits from family and an attorney, and a shower and
toilet.
How about a toothbrush? How about toothpaste? How about religious
observance? How about contact with friends? How about exercise? How
about reading material? How about writing material? How about
commissary? How about phone communication? What about education?
10wh...@my-deja.com
[...]
> They abolished corporal punishment in public schools.
Look at
> what you have now: Kids dressing like whores, gang members and slobs.
School
> shootings. Students attacking teachers. Disruptions of studies.
Oh my goodness! All these awful things came from school officials no
longer being able to beat the crap out of kids! How terrible for those
poor, misunderstood wannabe-prison guard school officials. If you were
even mildly informed, you'd know all these things save shootings have
happened throughout history, including while you were in school. I'm
embarassed for you.
[...]
Desmond Coughlan
> > > Um, excuse me, but you seem to have forgotten that these
> > people
> > > are CRIMINALS!!!!
> > > Prison is NOT a place to be treated with dignity. It is a
> > > place where you are punished for not conforming with society's norm.
> > Prisoners are sent to prison AS punishment, not FOR punishment. There is a
> > difference.
> *BZZZZZ!* Sorry, wrong answer! Thanks so much for playing.
<laugh>
What a tosser ...
> The correct answer is, how is a criminal being punished if he is
> being sent to a virtual day camp? Criminals should NOT want to go back to
> prison. And yet, they do, over and over again. The problem is not society, but
> the lack of discipline in our prisons.
Ah ... perhaps Dolt-Boy could remind us of how many persons, released from gaol,
immediately reoffend, with the _sole intention_ of being placed back in
prison.
After all, if, as he states, criminals 'want' to go back to prison, then
they will, upon committing the offence, immediately turn themselves in,
just so that they can go back to their beloved gaol. In fact, they will
even _invent_ crimes to which they can plead guilty ...
Now that you think about it, wouldn't abolishing prison cut crime rates,
as if no one's going to get sent to prison, then no one would commit any
crime, as there'd be nothing to be gained from it.
Simple. <phew>. In one fell swoop, Dolt-Boy solves the problems of the
world. Glad you're on our side, Dolt-Boy ...
<music>
'Super Dolt !!!'
Dave Proctor
news:diablo-7C82AF....@newsroom.utas.edu.au...
> Mr Q. Z. D., not a happy fucking camper at all.
Wots up?
Dave
Desmond Coughlan
> > > > Um, excuse me, but you seem to have forgotten that these
> > > > people
> > > > are CRIMINALS!!!!
> > > You seem to have forgotten that these people are human beings.
> > > > Prison is NOT a place to be treated with dignity. It is a
> > > > place where you are punished for not conforming with society's norm.
> > > 'course, should you ever find yourself in gaol (don't panic: fortunately
> > > for you, idiocy isn't illegal), you might just see things differently ...
> > Killfile him, Desmond. He's a waste of space and he's using our air.
> Oh, yes, Desmond, please killfile me.
Don't worry, Dolt-Boy; I shall get around to that. For the moment, however, I'm
having too much fun. The virtual 'sound' of my virtual 'foot' thumping into your
virtual 'arse' five or six times a day, is almost wickedly amusing ...
> You do it, too, Q.Z. Diablo, since you have a hard time with the truth.
The Sharp Syndrome. Hope that those who have more than two brain cells (i.e., almost
everyone except Dolt-Boy) stop thrashing him ...
Don't hold your fetid breath, Dolt-Boy.
Desmond Coughlan
> > Mr Q. Z. D., not a happy fucking camper at all.
> Wots up?
A 'modicum of decency' would have required that you ask that question in
a private e-mail, David. Please remember that.
Dave Proctor
news:slrn912opr....@lievre.voute.net...
> On Tue, 14 Nov 2000 14:55:32 GMT, Dave Proctor
<dap...@spambait.ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > Mr Q. Z. D., not a happy fucking camper at all.
>
> > Wots up?
>
> A 'modicum of decency' would have required that you ask that question in
> a private e-mail, David. Please remember that.
No - if he wished to reply, he would have done so privately. The request
does not have to be private.
Dave
Desmond Coughlan
> > > Wots up?
> > A 'modicum of decency' would have required that you ask that question in
> > a private e-mail, David. Please remember that.
> No - if he wished to reply, he would have done so privately. The request
> does not have to be private.
I see. After the Presidential Decree, we have the Proctor Decree.
As a matter of interest, David ... how's my sig file ? I know it's over
the recommended 4 lines ... if you think that's too many, let me know,
and I shall, of course, remove it.
Er ... I _can_ keep posting here, can't I ? It's just that ... well, you
know ... since you're the Guardian of Rights and Morals on this newsgroup,
I wouldn't want to overstay my welcome. Let me know, there's a good
chap.
What ?
You want a beer ?
Right away, Sir ...
<scuttles away to comply with Proctor Decree 2000/14/02 ...>
Mitchell Holman
}On Mon, 13 Nov 2000 09:39:13 -0600, MrMateo <ter...@sbd.net> wrote:
}
}> > > Um, excuse me, but you seem to have forgotten that these
}> > people
}> > > are CRIMINALS!!!!
}> > > place where you are punished for not conforming with society's norm.
}
}> > difference.
}
}> *BZZZZZ!* Sorry, wrong answer! Thanks so much for playing.
}
}<laugh>
}
}What a tosser ...
}
}> The correct answer is, how is a criminal being punished if he is
}> being sent to a virtual day camp? Criminals should NOT want to go back to
}> prison. And yet, they do, over and over again. The problem is not society,
} but
}> the lack of discipline in our prisons.
}
}Ah ... perhaps Dolt-Boy could remind us of how many persons, released from
} gaol,
}immediately reoffend, with the _sole intention_ of being placed back in
}prison.
}
}After all, if, as he states, criminals 'want' to go back to prison, then
}they will, upon committing the offence, immediately turn themselves in,
}just so that they can go back to their beloved gaol.
Well, Matthew's prisons-as-vacation-resorts theory DOES
explain the armies of homeless people camped outside of Texas
prison walls demanding entry. Not to mention all the prisoners
who refuse to leave when granted parole.
At least on Planet Mateo, anyway.......
Desmond Coughlan
[snip]
> }Ah ... perhaps Dolt-Boy could remind us of how many persons, released from
> } gaol,
> }immediately reoffend, with the _sole intention_ of being placed back in
> }prison.
> }
> }After all, if, as he states, criminals 'want' to go back to prison, then
> }they will, upon committing the offence, immediately turn themselves in,
> }just so that they can go back to their beloved gaol.
> Well, Matthew's prisons-as-vacation-resorts theory DOES
> explain the armies of homeless people camped outside of Texas
> prison walls demanding entry. Not to mention all the prisoners
> who refuse to leave when granted parole.
>
> At least on Planet Mateo, anyway.......
Now that I think about it, Mitchell, I work 35 hours a week to earn a
crust ... hell, I've had enough. _I_ want to go to gaol! I can get
three square meals a day, a bath every week ...
How do I go about it, Dolt-Boy ..?
Desmond Coughlan
> > } We all know there is a direct correlation between
> > }spanking and good behavior.
> > The experts in this field disgree with you.
> The "experts" are not experts at all.
Whereas you are ...
> In fact, they could not
> find their own backsides with a ten-man working party.
Backsides ? This opens up a whole line of possible jokes. When you go
to gaol (gaol is so kewl that you must want to go there, after all), Dolt-
Boy, remember not to bend over in the showers ...
[remainder of right-wing nut rant snipped]
Desmond Coughlan
> > > Mr Q. Z. D., not a happy fucking camper at all.
> > Wots up?
> Grrl problems of sorts. Mostly the product of my fevered imagination,
> no doubt.
<modicum of decency off>
I know how you feel ... the Personnel Director here only has to walk past
my office, for all those fantasies about desks and computer mice, to come
flooding ... anyway, that's another story ...
<modicum of decency on>
A Planet Visitor
> On Tue, 14 Nov 2000 15:09:58 GMT, Dave Proctor
<dap...@spambait.ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> As a matter of interest, David ... how's my sig file ? I know it's over
> the recommended 4 lines ... if you think that's too many, let me know,
> and I shall, of course, remove it.
>
Would you, please?
PV
<sig file clipped>
Desmond Coughlan
> > As a matter of interest, David ... how's my sig file ? I know it's over
> > the recommended 4 lines ... if you think that's too many, let me know,
> > and I shall, of course, remove it.
> Would you, please?
Just for you, PV ... no.
;-)
Evleth
> So what if they are criminals? Criminality is no excuse for the state
> to implement unlawful punishments.
There is a problem with cruelty as administered by the guards in a
non-regulated manner. The administration-inmate relationship is
the same as the master-slave relationship, some masters are better
than others, some are much worse.
The man we are helping on death row in Arizona recounts a lot of minor
cruelties by the guards. These are supermax conditions to the prisoners
never have the opportunity of getting back at the guards physically unless
the security rules are breached. The most recent incidence is where
the guards came into his cell (of course his is cuffed up for those entries)
went through his stuff and removed a lot of it. The rules change all the
time, and that is done to destablizes the inmates. This time one of the
guards took a personal letter from a woman and tore it up in front of his
eyes saying "you`ll never see her again". Maybe, maybe not. He certainly
will be executed in the next 12 months. This woman lives in France and so
can come often, and maybe the guards knew something; that his death warrant
is going to be signed soon.
But why so cruel? That cruelty is not specified in his punishment.
Only his death is specified. That might seem to be enough for some.
But this incidence of cruelty is not isolated, there are many of them.
Generally guards don`t do this but some get carried away. The "best" guard
we met in Florence was a Brit, a pretty nice guy. The others were neutral
and blah, but the Brit had character.
The theme we brought up a while back is that the death penalty corrodes
the soul. The murderer is so hated that some normally kind people will turn
mean and cruel. If the death penalty did not exist and we developed a
humanistic morality to deal with murderers, we would treat the murderers
held in prison at least with some kind of neutral professionalism, at worse,
or treat him like a human being, if only to maintain our own moral dignity.
In this sense, this kind of sitution is testing our own moral character.
Earl
Desmond Coughlan
[snip]
> > 'course, should you ever find yourself in gaol (don't panic: fortunately
> > for you, idiocy isn't illegal), you might just see things differently ...
> I'm rather hoping that Matthew, if imprisoned, would end up sharing a
> cell with a 250kg, bald, tattooed man called "Bubba" who want's to play
> mummies and daddies.
LOL ... no, I still remember that scene from the Chevvy Chase film,
HUGE DUDE: Bend over!
CC: Ben ? Hi, I'm ... whatever.
[snip]
> Killfile him, Desmond. He's a waste of space and he's using our air.
I tend to agree, but he is also extremely stupid, and, whilst I really
shouldn't mock the afflicted, I am enjoying kicking his arse. I shall
killfile him in a couple of days ... promise. :-)
John Rennie
"S Moir" <smsc...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8ur4ik$2murd$1...@ID-50327.news.dfncis.de...
> >
> >
> > Mitchell Holman wrote:
> >
wrote:
> > > }
> > > }
> > > } We all know there is a direct correlation between
> > > }spanking and good behavior.
> > >
> > > The experts in this field disgree with you.
> >
> > find their own backsides with a ten-man working party.
> >
at
> > what you have now: Kids dressing like whores, gang members and slobs.
> School
> > shootings. Students attacking teachers. Disruptions of studies.
> >
You will note Shona my dear, that your post has brought to an end the
witterings of our Mr Matteo. That is because every word of it was so
reasonable, so intelligent and so incontrovertible, there was nothing he
could offer in response. Have you ever seen the old film '12 Angry Men'?
Henry Fonda starts out on his own by being the only member of a Saturday
afternoon jury prepared to say Not Guilty. Gradually more members join him
until there is only one left. He is emotionally against the young man who
was on trial because he has very difficult relations with his son. It
becomes so glaringly obvious that even he is forced to look at himself and
then he cracks. Mr Matteo is the last juror - what he does is blame the
rest of the world for his troubles. When he finally has the courage to
look at himself, many of the ills that he sees around him will become
comprehensible. He is not a 'dolt boy' or a troll because he has made
one or two good observations here but he is not whole, not sound and until
he is he will go on blaming others for his own failings.
S Moir
"John Rennie" <Jo...@rennie2000.greatxscape.net> wrote in message
news:8us4gv$die$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
One of the best films of all time- Henry Fonda at his best.
I wholeheartedly hope Mr Matteo has shut up about the joys of child abuse,
but I seriously doubt it. He's probably just pausing to look up the spelling
of another witty insult in his dictionary.
Shona
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
des...@coughlan.net wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Nov 2000 17:34:12 -0600, MrMateo <ter...@sbd.net> wrote:
> > But then, 10 Wheels was not making any sense either. And I
> > was
> > demonstrating absurdity by being absurd.
>
> Well ... <deep breath> ... I think I speak for the newsgroup in extending
> heartfelt congratulations for a job well done ...
Thank you, Desmond. You have provided some welcome levity that has gone
some small distance to making a very unhappy night somewhat more
bearable.
Mr Q. Z. D., not a happy fucking camper at all.
----
Drinker, systems administrator, wannabe writer, musician and all-round bastard.
"Alright brain, I don't like you and you don't like me... so let's just do this
and I'll get back to killing you with beer."
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
<dap...@spambait.ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> "Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> wrote in message
> news:diablo-7C82AF....@newsroom.utas.edu.au...
>
> > Mr Q. Z. D., not a happy fucking camper at all.
>
> Wots up?
Grrl problems of sorts. Mostly the product of my fevered imagination,
no doubt.
Mr Q. Z. D.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
> news:8us4gv$die$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
[MrMateo]
> > comprehensible. He is not a 'dolt boy'
Actually, John, he is. IME he is one of the stupider human beings that
I have ever encountered on Usenet. His kneejerk idiocy does a
disservice to retentionists everywhere. Hence, he resides in my
killfile in perpetuity.
> > or a troll because he has
> > made
> > one or two good observations here
He's not a troll but I've never read anything that he's babbled that has
been worth the bandwidth expended to express it.
> > but he is not whole, not sound and
> > until
> > he is he will go on blaming others for his own failings.
Is that a gentle way of saying that the appellation "Dolt-boy" is
actually appropriate?
;)
MrMateo
S Moir wrote:
> Depends what other measures the schools use to keep order. It is up to the
> parents to discourage violence in children- the teachers have quite enough
> to do teaching them.
> Hitting kids doesn't stop bad behaviour- it just shows them that bullying
> and violence gets results.
Sorry to do this to you, Shona, but take a real good look around.
Teenage girls dressing like whores, and acting like sluts. Kids in gangs.
Parents afraid of their own children. Do you think there is any coincidence that
this has happened after proper discipline, AKA spanking, somehow became passe`
in our society?
Why don't you ask your parents about what they saw when they
were growing up? I can assure you, it was nothing like this.
Matthew
MrMateo
John Rennie wrote:
>
> You will note Shona my dear, that your post has brought to an end the
> witterings of our Mr Matteo.
The "witterings?" What the hell is that?
And, BTW, it did not bring anything at all. There was simply a delay.
People do work for a living, you know. Have you ever seen the old film '12
Angry Men'?
> Henry Fonda starts out on his own by being the only member of a Saturday
> afternoon jury prepared to say Not Guilty. Gradually more members join him
> until there is only one left. He is emotionally against the young man who
> was on trial because he has very difficult relations with his son. It
> becomes so glaringly obvious that even he is forced to look at himself and
> then he cracks. Mr Matteo is the last juror - what he does is blame the
> rest of the world for his troubles. When he finally has the courage to
> look at himself, many of the ills that he sees around him will become
> comprehensible.
John, you are looking at things upside down and backwards. Assuming
you live in the US, you may have noticed a few things: Common sense and personal
responsibility seem to be a thing of the past. Morality is steadily going down
the crapper. We have a leader who has no respect for the law, the military, or
this country. And yet, he has been elected TWICE. We are allowing things to
happen to babies that we would never tolerate if it was done to animals. Our
justice system has become a pathetic joke. And our children have become little
more than cattle.
> These are not MY troubles, they are this country's troubles. To even
> imply there is nothing wrong with the country, only me, is absurd and
> insulting.
Matthew
MrMateo
10wh...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <3A10AC66...@sbd.net>,
> MrMateo <ter...@sbd.net> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > They abolished corporal punishment in public schools.
> Look at
> > what you have now: Kids dressing like whores, gang members and slobs.
> School
> > shootings. Students attacking teachers. Disruptions of studies.
>
> Oh my goodness! All these awful things came from school officials no
> longer being able to beat the crap out of kids!
What an exaggeration that is. Let's be a little more honest,
shall we?
> How terrible for those
> poor, misunderstood wannabe-prison guard school officials. If you were
> even mildly informed, you'd know all these things save shootings have
> happened throughout history, including while you were in school.
For one thing, you do not even know how old I am. For another,
I remember my years in school quite vividly, thank you very much, and what
you are saying happened, did not. And that's a fact.
Matthew
MrMateo
Mitchell Holman wrote:
> Well, Matthew's prisons-as-vacation-resorts theory DOES
> explain the armies of homeless people camped outside of Texas
> prison walls demanding entry. Not to mention all the prisoners
> who refuse to leave when granted parole.
Have you seen a Texas prison? I have. And so has Dudley Sharp, the one
you are so willing to toss aside.
For you to be callous about what I know to be true, without ever
having seen it for yourself, tells me you have no idea what you are talking about.
Matthew
St.George_in_Los Angeles, CA
> On Tue, 14 Nov 2000 15:20:17 GMT, Mitchell Holman <ta2...@airmail.net>
wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > }Ah ... perhaps Dolt-Boy could remind us of how many persons, released
from
> > } gaol,
> > }immediately reoffend, with the _sole intention_ of being placed back in
> > }prison.
> > }
> > }After all, if, as he states, criminals 'want' to go back to prison,
then
> > }they will, upon committing the offence, immediately turn themselves in,
> > }just so that they can go back to their beloved gaol.
>
> > explain the armies of homeless people camped outside of Texas
> > prison walls demanding entry. Not to mention all the prisoners
> > who refuse to leave when granted parole.
> >
>
> Now that I think about it, Mitchell, I work 35 hours a week to earn a
> crust ... hell, I've had enough. _I_ want to go to gaol! I can get
> three square meals a day, a bath every week ...
>
> How do I go about it, Dolt-Boy ..?
Just go out on the streets of Paris without your ID papers, Desmond!
Desmond Coughlan
[snip]
> > Now that I think about it, Mitchell, I work 35 hours a week to earn a
> > crust ... hell, I've had enough. _I_ want to go to gaol! I can get
> > three square meals a day, a bath every week ...
> >
> > How do I go about it, Dolt-Boy ..?
> Just go out on the streets of Paris without your ID papers, Desmond!
Funny ... I did that only last night, and no matter how much I try to
picture it, my office doesn't look like a gaol cell ... ;-)
Desmond Coughlan
> > Well, Matthew's prisons-as-vacation-resorts theory DOES
> > explain the armies of homeless people camped outside of Texas
> > prison walls demanding entry. Not to mention all the prisoners
> > who refuse to leave when granted parole.
> Have you seen a Texas prison? I have.
Ah ... so idiocy _is_ illegal in Texas ..?
> And so has Dudley Sharp, the one
> you are so willing to toss aside.
Dudley does enough tossing of his own, I think ...
> For you to be callous about what I know to be true, without ever
> having seen it for yourself, tells me you have no idea what you are talking about.
<sigh>
Whatever ...
S Moir
>
> S Moir wrote:
>
> > Depends what other measures the schools use to keep order. It is up to
the
> > parents to discourage violence in children- the teachers have quite
enough
> > to do teaching them.
> > Hitting kids doesn't stop bad behaviour- it just shows them that
bullying
> > and violence gets results.
>
> Sorry to do this to you, Shona, but take a real good look
around.
> Teenage girls dressing like whores, and acting like sluts. Kids in gangs.
> Parents afraid of their own children. Do you think there is any
coincidence that
> this has happened after proper discipline, AKA spanking, somehow became
passe`
> in our society?
>
> Why don't you ask your parents about what they saw when
they
> were growing up? I can assure you, it was nothing like this.
>
> Matthew
>
children, and also when I was a child. There is a huge problem with the way
that youth culture is going.
You seem to think that has something to do with the fact that it was a
little more acceptable to physically punish children than it is now, but
have you considered any other factors?
There is one huge factor which hasn't even been mentioned so far- the media.
Teenage girls dressing like whores- have a look at some of the magazines, TV
programmes and even cartoons aimed at little girls.
Kids in gangs, thinking it's tough to run in packs like wild dogs- again
look around you. We thought it was cool to be soldiers, policemen,
astronauts,cowboys or indians. Now it's cool to be in a gang. Not only can
they imagine themselves to be cool enforcers, but they can piss everyone off
at the same time- double result.
Parents afraid of their own children- shame on them for being so spineless
that their children can't respect them. My Dad never once raised his hand to
me, but he didn't have to. Thinking that I had dissappointed him hurt more
than any slap ever could have, and that was because I respected him.
The other factor is that too many parents just don't give their children
enough of their time or accept responsibility for them. Once the child
starts to become a problem it's always someone elses problem- there isn't
enough for them to do so they play up because of boredom, the teachers
aren't doing their job properly, they run with a bad crowd, they're poor,
there's no job for them to aspire to- the list is endless.
Before I had my own kids I was involved with a youth group- some of the kids
were poor, some well off. Some were no doubt slapped and some not. The
bottom line was that the only thing that mattered was how their parents were
with them. The parents that cared and valued their children's opinions had
kids who would sometimes play up but knew when they'd pushed it too far.
The kids whose parents never showed an interest were much harder to work
with- they hadn't a clue about how to behave or how to distinguish between
fact and fiction in the media.
Shona
Desmond Coughlan
> > You will note Shona my dear, that your post has brought to an end the
> > witterings of our Mr Matteo.
> The "witterings?" What the hell is that?
This :
> And, BTW, it did not bring anything at all. There was simply a delay.
> People do work for a living, you know. Have you ever seen the old film '12
> Angry Men'?
Gee, Dolt-Boy, what an original idea ...
[snip]
10wh...@my-deja.com
MrMateo <ter...@sbd.net> wrote:
>
>
> 10wh...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > In article <3A10AC66...@sbd.net>,
> > MrMateo <ter...@sbd.net> wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > They abolished corporal punishment in public schools.
> > Look at
> > > what you have now: Kids dressing like whores, gang members and
slobs.
> > School
> > > shootings. Students attacking teachers. Disruptions of studies.
> >
> > Oh my goodness! All these awful things came from school officials
no
> > longer being able to beat the crap out of kids!
>
> What an exaggeration that is. Let's be a little more
honest,
> shall we?
Please feel free to do so.
> > How terrible for those
> > poor, misunderstood wannabe-prison guard school officials. If you
were
> > even mildly informed, you'd know all these things save shootings
have
> > happened throughout history, including while you were in school.
>
> For one thing, you do not even know how old I am. For
another,
> I remember my years in school quite vividly, thank you very much, and
what
> you are saying happened, did not. And that's a fact.
Perhaps you went to military school. Kids dressing like "slobs" isn't
anything new. Aome kids dressing more risque than others isn't new.
Gangs, albeit different than today, are nothing new. I recall a kid in
high school throwing an inkwell at a teacher (that probably dates me).
Disrupted studies? - has happened nearly every day throughout recorded
history in one place or another. Check up on some facts other than the
ones you have personal experience with - you'd learn something.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Mitchell Holman
}
} John, you are looking at things upside down and backwards. Assuming
}you live in the US, you may have noticed a few things: Common sense and
} personal
}responsibility seem to be a thing of the past. Morality is steadily going down
}the crapper. We have a leader who has no respect for the law, the military, or
}this country. And yet, he has been elected TWICE. We are allowing things to
}happen to babies that we would never tolerate if it was done to animals. Our
}justice system has become a pathetic joke. And our children have become little
}more than cattle.
}
What parallel universe are you posting from, anyway?
In this one crime is down, teenage pregnancy is going
down, teenage smoking is going down, job options for
teens has never been higher, and SATscores are finally
rising. Those young adults you write off as cattle are
starting up companies and becoming millionaires at a
rate never seen before in history. So what if the prez
got a knob-job in the oval office? He has turned this
country around from the days of recession and wars
that his predecessors got us into. As for morality,
church attendence is at all-time highs and kids in Texas
are defying court orders just so they pray at football
games.
Conditions on Planet Mateo may be bad, but here
things are looking pretty good.
Mitchell Holman
In early 1982, he [Reagan] claimed there were a million more Americans
at work than when he took office, when in fact there were 100,000 fewer.
The Power Game - Hedrick Smith p.428.
MrMateo
Mitchell Holman wrote:
> What parallel universe are you posting from, anyway?
> In this one crime is down, teenage pregnancy is going
> down, teenage smoking is going down, job options for
> teens has never been higher, and SATscores are finally
> rising.
And yet, everything I have said remains factual.
> Those young adults you write off as cattle are
> starting up companies and becoming millionaires at a
> rate never seen before in history.
Stop and look again. I said CHILDREN. I am NOT talking about 18-20
year olds, I am talking about 0-18.
> So what if the prez
> got a knob-job in the oval office?
How about perjury and obstruction of justice?
> He has turned this
> country around from the days of recession and wars
> that his predecessors got us into.
I am sure Clinton would love to take credit for the economy (which is on
its way down, right now). But the only thing he gave us was the largest tax increase
in history, and in matters of common sense you cannot put money into an economy that
you do not have.
As for the military, not only has he decimated it to the point that
parts have to be cannibalized to build the things they use, morale is at an all-time
low, basic training is a joke, the numbers of those serving are getting smaller, and
the missions that our servicemen and women are being sent on, if not meals on wheels
tours, are being done to draw attention from matters that concern the President
here. If we only had to depend on the military to defend this country, a strong
foreign power like China could come in and we would be learning to speak Chinese in
a week. You know it, and I know it.
> As for morality,
> church attendence is at all-time highs and kids in Texas
> are defying court orders just so they pray at football
> games.
These kids get it, thank goodness. They know what is at stake, and I
tip my hat to them.
Matthew
Desmond Coughlan
[snip]
> > He has turned this
> > country around from the days of recession and wars
> > that his predecessors got us into.
> I am sure Clinton would love to take credit for the economy (which is on
> its way down, right now). But the only thing he gave us was the largest tax increase
> in history, and in matters of common sense you cannot put money into an economy that
> you do not have.
So lemme guess, the boom is thanks to Bush Snr and Reagan ... and in fact, the
depression during and just after their respective 'reigns' was due to ... er, what,
exactly ?
> As for the military, not only has he decimated it to the point that
> parts have to be cannibalized to build the things they use, morale is at an all-time
> low, basic training is a joke, the numbers of those serving are getting smaller, and
> the missions that our servicemen and women are being sent on, if not meals on wheels
> tours, are being done to draw attention from matters that concern the President
> here. If we only had to depend on the military to defend this country, a strong
> foreign power like China could come in and we would be learning to speak Chinese in
> a week. You know it, and I know it.
> > As for morality,
> > church attendence is at all-time highs and kids in Texas
> > are defying court orders just so they pray at football
> > games.
> These kids get it, thank goodness. They know what is at stake, and I
> tip my hat to them.
You know who you remind me of, Dolt-Boy ? Aside from a dribbling, wrist-slapping
moron who belongs in a psychiatric institution, that is ? You remind me of the
father of the young guy in the film 'American Beauty'. You know, the former
soldier who thinks the country's going 'to the dogs', and blames everyone else,
from the Democrats, to gays, to blacks, and who is so terrified of what he is,
and what his kind represents, that he ends up killing an innocent man.
I was convinced that you were a harmless idiot. Now I'm beginning to believe that
you a very dangerous idiot.
MrMateo
S Moir wrote:
>
> You're right Matthew- things were very different when my parents were
> children, and also when I was a child. There is a huge problem with the way
> that youth culture is going.
> You seem to think that has something to do with the fact that it was a
> little more acceptable to physically punish children than it is now, but
> have you considered any other factors?
> There is one huge factor which hasn't even been mentioned so far- the media.
> Teenage girls dressing like whores- have a look at some of the magazines, TV
> programmes and even cartoons aimed at little girls.
Baloney. The only thing the media does is promote being thin to the
point of killing yourself.
Back in 1993, I was sitting in a transit bus in Cali when I noticed a
schoolage girl, wearing a glob of makeup, a miniskirt, and thigh-high boots. I
don't care what you wanna think where the idea came from, but I can assure you,
it did not come from a goddamned magazine.
>
> Kids in gangs, thinking it's tough to run in packs like wild dogs- again
> look around you. We thought it was cool to be soldiers, policemen,
> astronauts,cowboys or indians. Now it's cool to be in a gang. Not only can
> they imagine themselves to be cool enforcers, but they can piss everyone off
> at the same time- double result.
Wrong again. What is the main reason kids join gangs? Because, to them,
gangs are family. I have heard that come straight from the mouths of juvenile
gang members too many times to know I know what I am talking about. And you have
to ask yourself, what is so wrong with their home life that they would say
something like that? Gangs are involved in drugs and murder, virtually non-stop.
And yet, a child would turn towards that, and away from their home, because it
gives them a sense of being in a family.
>
> Parents afraid of their own children- shame on them for being so spineless
> that their children can't respect them. My Dad never once raised his hand to
> me, but he didn't have to. Thinking that I had dissappointed him hurt more
> than any slap ever could have, and that was because I respected him.
> The other factor is that too many parents just don't give their children
> enough of their time or accept responsibility for them.
Actually, that is the main reason. They spoil their kids rotten, let
them get away with so much, and then become frightened at the Frankenstein's
monster they created. If parents took the time to let their child know what the
boundaries are, through proper discipline, this would not be happening.
Matthew
A Planet Visitor
> >
> > > Depends what other measures the schools use to keep order. It is up to
> the
> > > parents to discourage violence in children- the teachers have quite
> enough
> > > to do teaching them.
> > > Hitting kids doesn't stop bad behaviour- it just shows them that
> bullying
> > > and violence gets results.
> >
> > Sorry to do this to you, Shona, but take a real good look
> around.
> > Teenage girls dressing like whores, and acting like sluts. Kids in gangs.
> > Parents afraid of their own children. Do you think there is any
> coincidence that
> > this has happened after proper discipline, AKA spanking, somehow became
> passe`
> > in our society?
> >
> > Why don't you ask your parents about what they saw when
> they
> > were growing up? I can assure you, it was nothing like this.
> >
> > Matthew
> >
> children, and also when I was a child. There is a huge problem with the way
> that youth culture is going.
> You seem to think that has something to do with the fact that it was a
> little more acceptable to physically punish children than it is now, but
> have you considered any other factors?
> There is one huge factor which hasn't even been mentioned so far- the media.
> Teenage girls dressing like whores- have a look at some of the magazines, TV
> programmes and even cartoons aimed at little girls.
> look around you. We thought it was cool to be soldiers, policemen,
> astronauts,cowboys or indians. Now it's cool to be in a gang. Not only can
> they imagine themselves to be cool enforcers, but they can piss everyone off
> at the same time- double result.
> that their children can't respect them. My Dad never once raised his hand to
> me, but he didn't have to. Thinking that I had dissappointed him hurt more
> than any slap ever could have, and that was because I respected him.
> The other factor is that too many parents just don't give their children
> starts to become a problem it's always someone elses problem- there isn't
> enough for them to do so they play up because of boredom, the teachers
> aren't doing their job properly, they run with a bad crowd, they're poor,
> there's no job for them to aspire to- the list is endless.
> Before I had my own kids I was involved with a youth group- some of the kids
> were poor, some well off. Some were no doubt slapped and some not. The
> bottom line was that the only thing that mattered was how their parents were
> with them. The parents that cared and valued their children's opinions had
> kids who would sometimes play up but knew when they'd pushed it too far.
> The kids whose parents never showed an interest were much harder to work
> with- they hadn't a clue about how to behave or how to distinguish between
> fact and fiction in the media.
>
> Shona
>
awareness of what is demonstrated by family values.
Abuse and neglect are the twin demons of this violence.
PV
Mitchell Holman
}
}
}Mitchell Holman wrote:
}
}> What parallel universe are you posting from, anyway?
}> In this one crime is down, teenage pregnancy is going
}> down, teenage smoking is going down, job options for
}> teens has never been higher, and SATscores are finally
}> rising.
}
} And yet, everything I have said remains factual.
}
No, everything you said was self-rightous speculation.
}> Those young adults you write off as cattle are
}> starting up companies and becoming millionaires at a
}> rate never seen before in history.
}
} Stop and look again. I said CHILDREN. I am NOT talking about
} 18-20
}year olds, I am talking about 0-18.
You are getting worked up about the morals
of preschoolers?
}
}> So what if the prez
}> got a knob-job in the oval office?
}
} How about perjury and obstruction of justice?
Are you talking about expensive political
witchhunts that went nowhere?
}
}> He has turned this
}> country around from the days of recession and wars
}> that his predecessors got us into.
}
} I am sure Clinton would love to take credit for the economy (which
} is on
}its way down, right now). But the only thing he gave us was the largest tax
} increase
}in history, and in matters of common sense you cannot put money into an economy
} that
}you do not have.
Fact check. Clinton produced 8 years without a recession.
Who was the last Republican to pull that off?
} As for the military, not only has he decimated it to the point
} that
}parts have to be cannibalized to build the things they use, morale is at an
} all-time
}low, basic training is a joke, the numbers of those serving are getting
} smaller, and
}the missions that our servicemen and women are being sent on, if not meals on
} wheels
}tours, are being done to draw attention from matters that concern the President
}here. If we only had to depend on the military to defend this country, a strong
}foreign power like China could come in and we would be learning to speak
} Chinese in
}a week. You know it, and I know it.
Military budgets and spending priorities are decided
by Congress. The GOP Congress. In fact, Clinton has
signed into law every military spending bill sent to him
by Congress. If the Pentagon places higher priorities on
base golf courses than military pay, whose fault is that?
}
}> As for morality,
}> church attendence is at all-time highs and kids in Texas
}> are defying court orders just so they pray at football
}> games.
}
} These kids get it, thank goodness. They know what is at stake,
} and I
}tip my hat to them.
And those are the same "0-18 year olds" you were
bashing just a minute ago. Odd.
John Rennie
> On Wed, 15 Nov 2000 01:03:15 -0600, MrMateo <ter...@sbd.net> wrote:
>
> > > Well, Matthew's prisons-as-vacation-resorts theory DOES
> > > explain the armies of homeless people camped outside of Texas
> > > prison walls demanding entry. Not to mention all the prisoners
> > > who refuse to leave when granted parole.
>
> > Have you seen a Texas prison? I have.
>
>
> > you are so willing to toss aside.
>
>
without ever
> > having seen it for yourself, tells me you have no idea what you are
talking about.
>
>
> Whatever ...
>
> --
I've a 'friend' who spent a night in a police cell. Will that do?
MrMateo
Mitchell Holman wrote:
> In article <3A12B3EB...@sbd.net>, MrMateo <ter...@sbd.net> wrote:
> }
> }
> }Mitchell Holman wrote:
> }
> }> What parallel universe are you posting from, anyway?
> }> In this one crime is down, teenage pregnancy is going
> }> down, teenage smoking is going down, job options for
> }> teens has never been higher, and SATscores are finally
> }> rising.
> }
> } And yet, everything I have said remains factual.
> }
>
> No, everything you said was self-rightous speculation.
That is an opinion not based on evidence. In short, you need to start
paying attention to the news.
>
>
> }> Those young adults you write off as cattle are
> }> starting up companies and becoming millionaires at a
> }> rate never seen before in history.
> }
> } Stop and look again. I said CHILDREN. I am NOT talking about
> } 18-20
> }year olds, I am talking about 0-18.
>
> You are getting worked up about the morals
> of preschoolers?
Now you are trying to change the context of what I said. Why?
>
>
> }
> }> So what if the prez
> }> got a knob-job in the oval office?
> }
> } How about perjury and obstruction of justice?
>
> Are you talking about expensive political
> witchhunts that went nowhere?
I am talking about people who have no respect for the law. Perjury
and obstruction of justice, the last time I checked, were still crimes. Just because
you are the President, it does not put you above the law. Period.
>
>
> }
> }> He has turned this
> }> country around from the days of recession and wars
> }> that his predecessors got us into.
> }
> } I am sure Clinton would love to take credit for the economy (which
> } is on
> }its way down, right now). But the only thing he gave us was the largest tax
> } increase
> }in history, and in matters of common sense you cannot put money into an economy
> } that
> }you do not have.
>
> Fact check. Clinton produced 8 years without a recession.
> Who was the last Republican to pull that off?
So, you actually believe the economy is Clinton's doing? Prove it, then.
>
>
> } As for the military, not only has he decimated it to the point
> } that
> }parts have to be cannibalized to build the things they use, morale is at an
> } all-time
> }low, basic training is a joke, the numbers of those serving are getting
> } smaller, and
> }the missions that our servicemen and women are being sent on, if not meals on
> } wheels
> }tours, are being done to draw attention from matters that concern the President
> }here. If we only had to depend on the military to defend this country, a strong
> }foreign power like China could come in and we would be learning to speak
> } Chinese in
> }a week. You know it, and I know it.
>
>
> Military budgets and spending priorities are decided
> by Congress. The GOP Congress.
Uh-uh. Don't you try to place that in the lap of Republicans. It was
not the GOP who refused to give aid to our people when dead pilots were being
dragged through the streets of Mogadishu. It was not the GOP who called for the
creation of cards that allow you to pass through all of basic training just because
you don't feel like doing it. It was not the GOP who sent our armed forces to bomb
an aspirin factory when Clinton was being impeached. It was not the GOP who sent our
people into Bosnia without an objective, but with an indefinite deployment. And it
most certainly was NOT ANY member of the GOP, in ANY branch of the government who
said they "loathed the military."
Matthew
Mitchell Holman
}
}
}>
}>
}> }
}> }> So what if the prez
}> }> got a knob-job in the oval office?
}> }
}> } How about perjury and obstruction of justice?
}>
}> Are you talking about expensive political
}> witchhunts that went nowhere?
}
} I am talking about people who have no respect for the law.
} Perjury
}and obstruction of justice, the last time I checked, were still crimes. Just
} because
}you are the President, it does not put you above the law. Period.
}
Clinton was tried and acquitted. Get over it.
}>
}>
}> }
}> }> He has turned this
}> }> country around from the days of recession and wars
}> }> that his predecessors got us into.
}> }
}> } I am sure Clinton would love to take credit for the economy
} (which
}> } is on
}> }its way down, right now). But the only thing he gave us was the largest tax
}> } increase
}> }in history, and in matters of common sense you cannot put money into an
} economy
}> } that
}> }you do not have.
}>
}> Fact check. Clinton produced 8 years without a recession.
}> Who was the last Republican to pull that off?
}
} So, you actually believe the economy is Clinton's doing? Prove it,
} then.
}
I get it. The 1980's economy was Reagan's, but
the 1990's economy is not Clinton's. Not very
consistent of you.
}>
}>
}> } As for the military, not only has he decimated it to the point
}> } that
}> }parts have to be cannibalized to build the things they use, morale is at an
}> } all-time
}> }low, basic training is a joke, the numbers of those serving are getting
}> } smaller, and
}> }the missions that our servicemen and women are being sent on, if not meals
} on
}> } wheels
}> }tours, are being done to draw attention from matters that concern the
} President
}> }here. If we only had to depend on the military to defend this country, a
} strong
}> }foreign power like China could come in and we would be learning to speak
}> } Chinese in
}> }a week. You know it, and I know it.
}>
}>
}> Military budgets and spending priorities are decided
}> by Congress. The GOP Congress.
}
} Uh-uh. Don't you try to place that in the lap of Republicans.
What party controls the military budget right now, again?
It
} was
}not the GOP who refused to give aid to our people when dead pilots were being
}dragged through the streets of Mogadishu. It was not the GOP who called for the
}creation of cards that allow you to pass through all of basic training just
} because
}you don't feel like doing it. It was not the GOP who sent our armed forces to
} bomb
}an aspirin factory when Clinton was being impeached. It was not the GOP who
} sent our
}people into Bosnia without an objective, but with an indefinite deployment. And
} it
}most certainly was NOT ANY member of the GOP, in ANY branch of the government
} who
}said they "loathed the military."
1) It was Bush, not Clinton, who sent US troops
to Somalia.
2) The "aspirin factory" was a target picked out
by the military, who said it was a necessary target.
But you are blaming Clinton for the Pentagon's
faulty intelligence?
2) Bosnia is a NATO operation. The US is part
of Nato. And because of our efforts the war criminal
Milosevic is out of power.
3) Clinton never said he loathed the military. That
is a Republican wet dream.
MrMateo
Mitchell Holman wrote:
> In article <3A12E47E...@sbd.net>, MrMateo <ter...@sbd.net> wrote:
> }
> }
> }>
> }>
> }> }
> }> }> So what if the prez
> }> }> got a knob-job in the oval office?
> }> }
> }> } How about perjury and obstruction of justice?
> }>
> }> Are you talking about expensive political
> }> witchhunts that went nowhere?
> }
> } I am talking about people who have no respect for the law.
> } Perjury
> }and obstruction of justice, the last time I checked, were still crimes. Just
> } because
> }you are the President, it does not put you above the law. Period.
> }
>
> Clinton was tried and acquitted. Get over it.
Despite the evidence, some of which was provided by videotape. And the
vote for aquittal went strictly down the party line, BTW.
>
>
> }>
> }>
> }> }
> }> }> He has turned this
> }> }> country around from the days of recession and wars
> }> }> that his predecessors got us into.
> }> }
> }> } I am sure Clinton would love to take credit for the economy
> } (which
> }> } is on
> }> }its way down, right now). But the only thing he gave us was the largest tax
> }> } increase
> }> }in history, and in matters of common sense you cannot put money into an
> } economy
> }> } that
> }> }you do not have.
> }>
> }> Fact check. Clinton produced 8 years without a recession.
> }> Who was the last Republican to pull that off?
> }
> } So, you actually believe the economy is Clinton's doing? Prove it,
> } then.
> }
>
> I get it. The 1980's economy was Reagan's, but
> the 1990's economy is not Clinton's. Not very
> consistent of you.
Did I credit the economy of the 1980's to Reagan? No, I did not. Don't
put words in my mouth.
>
> It
> } was
> }not the GOP who refused to give aid to our people when dead pilots were being
> }dragged through the streets of Mogadishu. It was not the GOP who called for the
> }creation of cards that allow you to pass through all of basic training just
> } because
> }you don't feel like doing it. It was not the GOP who sent our armed forces to
> } bomb
> }an aspirin factory when Clinton was being impeached. It was not the GOP who
> } sent our
> }people into Bosnia without an objective, but with an indefinite deployment. And
> } it
> }most certainly was NOT ANY member of the GOP, in ANY branch of the government
> } who
> }said they "loathed the military."
>
> 1) It was Bush, not Clinton, who sent US troops
> to Somalia.
But it was Clinton, not Bush, who deliberately chose to ignore the
pleas of his own people. Remember, this happened AFTER Clinton took office.
>
> 2) The "aspirin factory" was a target picked out
> by the military, who said it was a necessary target.
> But you are blaming Clinton for the Pentagon's
> faulty intelligence?
And so it was just an odd coincidence that this bombing occurred during
that time period?
May I remind you the Pentagon has to answer to someone; specifically, the
Commander-in-Chief, who, in this case, is William Jefferson Clinton.
>
> 2) Bosnia is a NATO operation. The US is part
> of Nato. And because of our efforts the war criminal
> Milosevic is out of power.
Uh, you had better go to the archives of your local newspaper. It was
not NATO who sent our people out there, it was Clinton.
>
> 3) Clinton never said he loathed the military. That
> is a Republican wet dream.
Yes, he did. It was in a letter written to a colonel dated early
December, 1969, where Clinton was thanking the colonel for helping him not getting
sent to Vietnam. (He really wanted to go to Moscow and participate in an
anti-American demonstration there.)
Matthew
S Moir
>
>
> S Moir wrote:
>
> >
> > You're right Matthew- things were very different when my parents were
> > children, and also when I was a child. There is a huge problem with the
way
> > that youth culture is going.
> > You seem to think that has something to do with the fact that it was a
> > little more acceptable to physically punish children than it is now, but
> > have you considered any other factors?
> > There is one huge factor which hasn't even been mentioned so far- the
media.
> > Teenage girls dressing like whores- have a look at some of the
magazines, TV
> > programmes and even cartoons aimed at little girls.
>
the
> point of killing yourself.
>
> Back in 1993, I was sitting in a transit bus in Cali when I
noticed a
> schoolage girl, wearing a glob of makeup, a miniskirt, and thigh-high
boots. I
you,
> it did not come from a goddamned magazine.
>
attention to Britney Spiers- the latest in a long line of pop clones making
money out of a "schoolgirl slut" image.
Apparently paedophiles love her too.
> >
> > Kids in gangs, thinking it's tough to run in packs like wild dogs- again
> > look around you. We thought it was cool to be soldiers, policemen,
> > astronauts,cowboys or indians. Now it's cool to be in a gang. Not only
can
> > they imagine themselves to be cool enforcers, but they can piss everyone
off
> > at the same time- double result.
>
> Wrong again. What is the main reason kids join gangs? Because, to
them,
> gangs are family. I have heard that come straight from the mouths of
juvenile
> gang members too many times to know I know what I am talking about. And
you have
> to ask yourself, what is so wrong with their home life that they would say
> something like that? Gangs are involved in drugs and murder, virtually
non-stop.
> And yet, a child would turn towards that, and away from their home,
because it
> gives them a sense of being in a family.
>
No argument there- they do find a sense of family in gangs. Had you read on
you would have found that I did state that a large part of the problem lies
in the kids not feeling like that with their parents.
> >
> > Parents afraid of their own children- shame on them for being so
spineless
> > that their children can't respect them. My Dad never once raised his
hand to
> > me, but he didn't have to. Thinking that I had dissappointed him hurt
more
> > than any slap ever could have, and that was because I respected him.
> > The other factor is that too many parents just don't give their children
> > enough of their time or accept responsibility for them.
>
> Actually, that is the main reason. They spoil their kids rotten,
let
> them get away with so much, and then become frightened at the
Frankenstein's
> monster they created. If parents took the time to let their child know
what the
> boundaries are, through proper discipline, this would not be happening.
>
Our views are not really as far apart on this as you think Matthew. I can't
stand it when problem children are handled with kid gloves. All children
need firm guidance about right and wrong.The only thing is that I haven't
ever found the need to hit to gain respect. Discipline comes in many forms.
>
> Matthew
>
Mitchell Holman
}
}
}Mitchell Holman wrote:
}
}> In article <3A12E47E...@sbd.net>, MrMateo <ter...@sbd.net> wrote:
}> }
}> }
}> }>
}> }>
}> }> }
}> }> }> So what if the prez
}> }> }> got a knob-job in the oval office?
}> }> }
}> }> } How about perjury and obstruction of justice?
}> }>
}> }> Are you talking about expensive political
}> }> witchhunts that went nowhere?
}> }
}> } I am talking about people who have no respect for the law.
}> } Perjury
}> }and obstruction of justice, the last time I checked, were still crimes. Just
}> } because
}> }you are the President, it does not put you above the law. Period.
}> }
}>
}> Clinton was tried and acquitted. Get over it.
}
} Despite the evidence, some of which was provided by videotape. And
} the
}vote for aquittal went strictly down the party line, BTW.
}
Wrong. Democrat Joe Leiberman, for instance,
voted to convict. You really need to keep up with
current events.
}>
}>
}> 1) It was Bush, not Clinton, who sent US troops
}> to Somalia.
}
} But it was Clinton, not Bush, who deliberately chose to ignore the
}pleas of his own people. Remember, this happened AFTER Clinton took office.
Yep. Just like a Republican to create a foreign policy
fiasco and then leave it for a Democrat to clean up.
}
}>
}> 2) The "aspirin factory" was a target picked out
}> by the military, who said it was a necessary target.
}> But you are blaming Clinton for the Pentagon's
}> faulty intelligence?
}
} And so it was just an odd coincidence that this bombing occurred
} during
}that time period?
It was the Pentagon that chose the timetable
and the target, remember?
} May I remind you the Pentagon has to answer to someone;
} specifically, the
}Commander-in-Chief, who, in this case, is William Jefferson Clinton.
}
I see. If Clinton overrides the military, he is
being soft on terrorism. If he goes along with
thePentagon he is being a military adventurist.
There is just no pleasing you people.
}>
}> 2) Bosnia is a NATO operation. The US is part
}> of Nato. And because of our efforts the war criminal
}> Milosevic is out of power.
}
} Uh, you had better go to the archives of your local newspaper. It
} was
}not NATO who sent our people out there, it was Clinton.
Repeat after me: The US is part of Nato. The US is
part of Nato.......
}
}>
}> 3) Clinton never said he loathed the military. That
}> is a Republican wet dream.
}
} Yes, he did. It was in a letter written to a colonel dated early
}December, 1969, where Clinton was thanking the colonel for helping him not
} getting
}sent to Vietnam.
Here is the exact letter.
" I am writing too in the hope that my telling this one
story will help you to understand more clearly how so
many fine young people have come to find themselves
still loving their country but loathing the military, to
which you and other good men have devoted years,
lifetimes, of the best service you could give."
So he calls soldiers and officers "good men" who "devoted years,
lifetimes, of the best service you could give," and yet the right wing
still wants us to believe that he's saying he loathed the military. And
who is doing the "loathing"? A group Clinton decribes in the third
person plural. "Themselves", not "ourselves".
(He really wanted to go to Moscow and participate in an
}anti-American demonstration there.)
More fantasy from Planet Mateo.
MrMateo
Mitchell Holman wrote:
> In article <3A1306D2...@sbd.net>, MrMateo <ter...@sbd.net> wrote:
> }
> }
> }Mitchell Holman wrote:
> }
> }> In article <3A12E47E...@sbd.net>, MrMateo <ter...@sbd.net> wrote:
> }> }
> }> }
> }> }>
> }> }>
> }> }> }
> }> }> }> So what if the prez
> }> }> }> got a knob-job in the oval office?
> }> }> }
> }> }> } How about perjury and obstruction of justice?
> }> }>
> }> }> Are you talking about expensive political
> }> }> witchhunts that went nowhere?
> }> }
> }> } I am talking about people who have no respect for the law.
> }> } Perjury
> }> }and obstruction of justice, the last time I checked, were still crimes. Just
> }> } because
> }> }you are the President, it does not put you above the law. Period.
> }> }
> }>
> }> Clinton was tried and acquitted. Get over it.
> }
> } Despite the evidence, some of which was provided by videotape. And
> } the
> }vote for aquittal went strictly down the party line, BTW.
> }
>
> Wrong. Democrat Joe Leiberman, for instance,
> voted to convict. You really need to keep up with
> current events.
One Democrat. Big deal. Any others?
>
>
> }>
> }>
> }> 1) It was Bush, not Clinton, who sent US troops
> }> to Somalia.
> }
> } But it was Clinton, not Bush, who deliberately chose to ignore the
> }pleas of his own people. Remember, this happened AFTER Clinton took office.
>
> Yep. Just like a Republican to create a foreign policy
> fiasco and then leave it for a Democrat to clean up.
Hello? Are you not listening? No matter how many times you say it,
Bush is not, has not, and will not EVER be responsible for what happened.
>
>
> }
> }>
> }> 2) The "aspirin factory" was a target picked out
> }> by the military, who said it was a necessary target.
> }> But you are blaming Clinton for the Pentagon's
> }> faulty intelligence?
> }
> } And so it was just an odd coincidence that this bombing occurred
> } during
> }that time period?
>
> It was the Pentagon that chose the timetable
> and the target, remember?
>
> } May I remind you the Pentagon has to answer to someone;
> } specifically, the
> }Commander-in-Chief, who, in this case, is William Jefferson Clinton.
> }
>
> I see. If Clinton overrides the military, he is
> being soft on terrorism. If he goes along with
> thePentagon he is being a military adventurist.
> There is just no pleasing you people.
And there you go, putting words in my mouth again.
>
>
> }>
> }> 2) Bosnia is a NATO operation. The US is part
> }> of Nato. And because of our efforts the war criminal
> }> Milosevic is out of power.
> }
> } Uh, you had better go to the archives of your local newspaper. It
> } was
> }not NATO who sent our people out there, it was Clinton.
>
>
> Repeat after me: The US is part of Nato. The US is
> part of Nato.......
From the Houston Chronicle:
01/28/00 FRI Guard unit prepares for mission to Bosnia
JOHN W. GONZALEZ, Houston Chronicle Austin Bureau
AUSTIN - Mounting its first massive deployment since 1961, a Texas Army National
Guard unit was making final preparations Thursday for a nine-month peacekeeping
assignment in Bosnia. Officials said the deployment, ordered by President Clinton,
is a routine rotation of U.S. troops in Bosnia's American sector, though the lengthy
tour of duty is a reflection of changing times for Guard members, who used to be
known as "weekend warriors."
Paper: HOUSTON CHRONICLE
Date: MON 19951204 12/04/95
Section: a
Page: 1
Edition: 3 STAR
Clinton makes order official/His formal authorization starts U.S.forces on the way
to Bosnia
By CRAGG HINES
Staff
MADRID - President Clinton said Sunday he had formally authorized U.S. participation
in an advance force for the Bosnia peacekeeping mission, the first step in
committing 20,000 American troops to police a contentious accord in the war-ravage
Balkan nation.
U.S. military officials said the full-scale activation by NATO of about 2,500
logistical and communication personnel - 700 of whom will be American - will begin
almost immediately.
"I have authorized the secretary of defense to order the deployment of the
preliminary troops, the people who have to do the preparatory work,"Clinton said.
'Nuff said.
}
> }>
> }> 3) Clinton never said he loathed the military. That
> }> is a Republican wet dream.
> }
> } Yes, he did. It was in a letter written to a colonel dated early
> }December, 1969, where Clinton was thanking the colonel for helping him not
> } getting
> }sent to Vietnam.
>
> Here is the exact letter.
>
> " I am writing too in the hope that my telling this one
> story will help you to understand more clearly how so
> many fine young people have come to find themselves
> still loving their country but loathing the military, to
> which you and other good men have devoted years,
> lifetimes, of the best service you could give."
>
> So he calls soldiers and officers "good men" who "devoted years,
> lifetimes, of the best service you could give," and yet the right wing
> still wants us to believe that he's saying he loathed the military. And
> who is doing the "loathing"? A group Clinton decribes in the third
> person plural. "Themselves", not "ourselves".
And who are the "good men" that Clinton refers to?
BTW, he says that he wants the colonel, who helped him dodge the draft,
that he wants the colonel to understand why "people have come to find themselves
still loving their country but loathing the military". If he is not putting himself
in that group, then who, indeed, is he referring to?
Matthew
MrMateo
S Moir wrote:
> "MrMateo" <ter...@sbd.net> wrote in message
> news:3A12B91E...@sbd.net...
> >
> >
> > S Moir wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > You're right Matthew- things were very different when my parents were
> > > children, and also when I was a child. There is a huge problem with the
> way
> > > that youth culture is going.
> > > You seem to think that has something to do with the fact that it was a
> > > little more acceptable to physically punish children than it is now, but
> > > have you considered any other factors?
> > > There is one huge factor which hasn't even been mentioned so far- the
> media.
> > > Teenage girls dressing like whores- have a look at some of the
> magazines, TV
> > > programmes and even cartoons aimed at little girls.
> >
> > Baloney. The only thing the media does is promote being thin to
> the
> > point of killing yourself.
> >
> > Back in 1993, I was sitting in a transit bus in Cali when I
> noticed a
> > schoolage girl, wearing a glob of makeup, a miniskirt, and thigh-high
> boots. I
> > don't care what you wanna think where the idea came from, but I can assure
> you,
> > it did not come from a goddamned magazine.
> >
> Watch one of the many music shows aimed at young girls- pay particular
> attention to Britney Spiers- the latest in a long line of pop clones making
> money out of a "schoolgirl slut" image.
> Apparently paedophiles love her too.
Britney has been around only a couple years, but she has been an
influence on dressing styles. And earlier this year, she performed what was
basically a strip tease on the MTV Video Music Awards. It is up to a parent to
draw that boundary, to let their child (read: daughter) that that kind of
dressing is not appropriate.
So why does that not include spanking? I am not talking about punching
and kicking children, I sure as hell will not tolerate that. But what the hell
is so wrong with a couple swats on the behind?
Matthew
MrMateo
Mitchell Holman wrote:
> Don't need'em. Your "strictly down the party line"
> claim is already debunked.
Because ONE Democrat voted for conviction? Give me a break.
>
>
> }> }>
> }> }> 1) It was Bush, not Clinton, who sent US troops
> }> }> to Somalia.
> }> }
> }> } But it was Clinton, not Bush, who deliberately chose to ignore
> } the
> }> }pleas of his own people. Remember, this happened AFTER Clinton took office.
> }>
> }> Yep. Just like a Republican to create a foreign policy
> }> fiasco and then leave it for a Democrat to clean up.
> }
> } Hello? Are you not listening? No matter how many times you say
> } it,
> }Bush is not, has not, and will not EVER be responsible for what happened.
> }
>
> You are right. Bushes are *never* responsible for
> what they do, from drunk driving revelations to invading
> small countries to handing out pardons to felonious friends
> of theirs, there is always someone else to blame.
Speaking of blaming someone else, you are going completely out of your
way to blame someone else for the actions of another, namely, Bill Clinton.
Twisting history is not going to change what happened in Mogadishu, and who is
responsible for it, no matter how hard you think and wish and hope and pray.
>
>
> }>
> }> }>
> }> }> 2) Bosnia is a NATO operation. The US is part
> }> }> of Nato. And because of our efforts the war criminal
> }> }> Milosevic is out of power.
> }> }
> }> } Uh, you had better go to the archives of your local newspaper.
> } It
> }> } was
> }> }not NATO who sent our people out there, it was Clinton.
> }>
> }>
> }> Repeat after me: The US is part of Nato. The US is
> }> part of Nato.......
> }
> }Paper: HOUSTON CHRONICLE
> }Date: MON 19951204 12/04/95
> }Section: a
> }Page: 1
> }Edition: 3 STAR
> }
> }Clinton makes order official/His formal authorization starts U.S.forces on the
> } way
> }to Bosnia
> }
> }By CRAGG HINES
> }Staff
> }
> }MADRID - President Clinton said Sunday he had formally authorized U.S.
> } participation
> }in an advance force for the Bosnia peacekeeping mission, the first step in
> }committing 20,000 American troops to police a contentious accord in the
> } war-ravage
> }Balkan nation.
> }
> }U.S. military officials said the full-scale activation by NATO of about 2,500
> }logistical and communication personnel - 700 of whom will be American - will
> } begin
> }almost immediately.
> }
> }"I have authorized the secretary of defense to order the deployment of the
> }preliminary troops, the people who have to do the preparatory work,"Clinton
> } said.
> }
> } 'Nuff said.
>
> Yep. Your own post shows this was a Nato operation. Did
> the words "full scale activation by NATO" escape you?
You missed two things:
From the Houston Chronicle:
01/28/00 FRI Guard unit prepares for mission to Bosnia
JOHN W. GONZALEZ, Houston Chronicle Austin Bureau
AUSTIN - Mounting its first massive deployment since 1961, a Texas Army National
Guard unit was making final preparations Thursday for a nine-month peacekeeping
assignment in Bosnia. Officials said the deployment, ORDERED BY PRESIDENT CLINTON,
(emphasis added)
is a routine rotation of U.S. troops in Bosnia's American sector, though the
lengthy
tour of duty is a reflection of changing times for Guard members, who used to be
known as "weekend warriors."
I noticed you deleted this; I guess it is because it goes against your
argument and you thought deleting it would make it (the truth) go away. Sorry,
Charlie.
As for the other clipping above, I could see you ignored:
" President Clinton said Sunday he had formally authorized"
I guess the motivation is the same.
> Since you cannot parse a sentence, let me do it
> for you. Clinton is talking about "many fine people"
> who, unlike himself, loathe the military. He distinguishes
> himself from them, tells the reader that HE regards the
> military as "good men".
>
> Clinton, far from loathing the military, expresses
> admiration and respect for them.
>
> Another Mateo claim debunked.
Uh-huh. And the "get out of basic training free" cards? How about
morale being at an all-time low? And what about the smaller numbers of people
within the armed forces?
Of course, that is all the GOP's fault. Not St. Bill's.
Matthew
MrMateo
Dave Proctor wrote:
> "Mitchell Holman" <ta2...@airmail.net> wrote in message
> news:96BEC0BF56D4814B.F2159541...@lp.airnews.net...
> > In article <3A12B3EB...@sbd.net>, MrMateo <ter...@sbd.net> wrote:
>
> > } Stop and look again. I said CHILDREN. I am NOT talking
> about
> > } 18-20
> > }year olds, I am talking about 0-18.
>
> Interesting, Matthew is conceding that 16 and 17 year olds are children.
> Will he therefore admit that some US jurisdictions execute child offenders?
If you don't wanna do the time, don't do the crime.
Matthew
MrMateo
Mitchell Holman wrote:
> In article <3A132CC0...@sbd.net>, MrMateo <ter...@sbd.net> wrote:
> }
> }
>
> }
> } So why does that not include spanking? I am not talking about
> } punching and kicking children, I sure as hell will not tolerate that. But
> }what the hell is so wrong with a couple swats on the behind?
>
> We have already posted the references to many
> child-rearing experts and pediatricians who showed
> Mateo *exactly* "what the hell is so wrong" with
> spanking.
No you didn't. You presented a couple of pointy headed fools who
think they know more about parenting than actual parents do. I have seen and
heard it all before. It was bullshit then, it is bullshit now.
Matthew
MrMateo
John Rennie wrote:
> "John Rennie" <Jo...@rennie2000.greatxscape.net> wrote in message
> news:8uv8ci$589$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > Any kids of your own? How are they doing?
> >
> These questions are directed to Mr Mateo.
And the relevance of said question to the subject is....?
Matthew
John Rennie
Dave Proctor
news:96BEC0BF56D4814B.F2159541...@lp.airnews.net...
> In article <3A12B3EB...@sbd.net>, MrMateo <ter...@sbd.net> wrote:
> } Stop and look again. I said CHILDREN. I am NOT talking
about
> } 18-20
> }year olds, I am talking about 0-18.
Interesting, Matthew is conceding that 16 and 17 year olds are children.
Will he therefore admit that some US jurisdictions execute child offenders?
Dave
John Rennie
"John Rennie" <Jo...@rennie2000.greatxscape.net> wrote in message
news:8uv8ci$589$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
Mitchell Holman
Don't need'em. Your "strictly down the party line"
claim is already debunked.
}> }>
}> }> 1) It was Bush, not Clinton, who sent US troops
}> }> to Somalia.
}> }
}> } But it was Clinton, not Bush, who deliberately chose to ignore
} the
}> }pleas of his own people. Remember, this happened AFTER Clinton took office.
}>
}> Yep. Just like a Republican to create a foreign policy
}> fiasco and then leave it for a Democrat to clean up.
}
} Hello? Are you not listening? No matter how many times you say
} it,
}Bush is not, has not, and will not EVER be responsible for what happened.
}
You are right. Bushes are *never* responsible for
what they do, from drunk driving revelations to invading
small countries to handing out pardons to felonious friends
of theirs, there is always someone else to blame.
}>
}> }>
}> }> 2) Bosnia is a NATO operation. The US is part
}> }> of Nato. And because of our efforts the war criminal
}> }> Milosevic is out of power.
}> }
}> } Uh, you had better go to the archives of your local newspaper.
} It
}> } was
}> }not NATO who sent our people out there, it was Clinton.
}>
}>
}> Repeat after me: The US is part of Nato. The US is
}> part of Nato.......
}
}Paper: HOUSTON CHRONICLE
}Date: MON 19951204 12/04/95
}Section: a
}Page: 1
}Edition: 3 STAR
}
}Clinton makes order official/His formal authorization starts U.S.forces on the
} way
}to Bosnia
}
}By CRAGG HINES
}Staff
}
}MADRID - President Clinton said Sunday he had formally authorized U.S.
} participation
}in an advance force for the Bosnia peacekeeping mission, the first step in
}committing 20,000 American troops to police a contentious accord in the
} war-ravage
}Balkan nation.
}
}U.S. military officials said the full-scale activation by NATO of about 2,500
}logistical and communication personnel - 700 of whom will be American - will
} begin
}almost immediately.
}
}"I have authorized the secretary of defense to order the deployment of the
}preliminary troops, the people who have to do the preparatory work,"Clinton
} said.
}
} 'Nuff said.
Yep. Your own post shows this was a Nato operation. Did
the words "full scale activation by NATO" escape you?
}}
}
}> }>
Since you cannot parse a sentence, let me do it
for you. Clinton is talking about "many fine people"
who, unlike himself, loathe the military. He distinguishes
himself from them, tells the reader that HE regards the
military as "good men".
Clinton, far from loathing the military, expresses
admiration and respect for them.
Another Mateo claim debunked.
Got any more?
Mitchell Holman
}
} So why does that not include spanking? I am not talking about
} punching and kicking children, I sure as hell will not tolerate that. But
}what the hell is so wrong with a couple swats on the behind?
We have already posted the references to many
child-rearing experts and pediatricians who showed
Mateo *exactly* "what the hell is so wrong" with
spanking.
But he dismissed them without even a glance.
Why does he ask questions if he is so afraid of
the answer?
Desmond Coughlan
> > > } Stop and look again. I said CHILDREN. I am NOT talking
> > about
> > > } 18-20
> > > }year olds, I am talking about 0-18.
> > Interesting, Matthew is conceding that 16 and 17 year olds are children.
> > Will he therefore admit that some US jurisdictions execute child offenders?
> If you don't wanna do the time, don't do the crime.
Translation: you can't answer, so you dodge.
Quelle surprise. :-(
Desmond Coughlan
[snip]
> > Watch one of the many music shows aimed at young girls- pay particular
> > attention to Britney Spiers- the latest in a long line of pop clones making
> > money out of a "schoolgirl slut" image.
> > Apparently paedophiles love her too.
> Britney has been around only a couple years, but she has been an
> influence on dressing styles. And earlier this year, she performed what was
> basically a strip tease on the MTV Video Music Awards.
She did ..?
...
...
...
Anyone wanna sell me the video ..?
[snip]
belove...@my-deja.com
<8E194ACB409F775C.F6F76D85...@lp.airnews.net>,
ta2...@airmail.net (Mitchell Holman) wrote:
Spank away if the kid deserves this. It is the only way to keep some kids
inline. They would all behave if they knew a good spanking would follow if
they didn't.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
belove...@my-deja.com
<8E194ACB409F775C.F6F76D85...@lp.airnews.net>,
ta2...@airmail.net (Mitchell Holman) wrote:
Spank away if the kid deserves this. It is the only way to keep some kids
Desmond Coughlan
[snip]
> > Why does he ask questions if he is so afraid of
> > the answer?
> Spank away if the kid deserves this. It is the only way to keep some kids
> inline.
From the moment you strike your child, you have lost.
> They would all behave if they knew a good spanking would follow if
> they didn't.
No, what they would learn, is that violence is an acceptable way to
solve problems.
Then again, when one looks at the mess in which your banana republic is
presently floundering, one can hardly be surprised if all Americans are
as stupid as you.
Mitchell Holman
}> }
}> }
}>
}> }
}> } So why does that not include spanking? I am not talking about
}> } punching and kicking children, I sure as hell will not tolerate that. But
}> }what the hell is so wrong with a couple swats on the behind?
}>
}> We have already posted the references to many
}> child-rearing experts and pediatricians who showed
}> Mateo *exactly* "what the hell is so wrong" with
}> spanking.
}
}think they know more about parenting than actual parents do. I have seen and
}heard it all before. It was bullshit then, it is bullshit now.
Who here thinks Mateo knows more about how
spanking affects children than the American Academy
of Pediatrians?
Lets' see a show of hands.
Someone?
Anyone?
Mitchell Holman
How about admitting that you were wrong about
Clinton "loathing the military"?
}How about
}morale being at an all-time low? And what about the smaller numbers of people
}within the armed forces?
}
Of course morale is low and recruitment down. That
happens in all boom times. With the economy in full swing
and bright people making loads of money in the civilian
market, who in their right mind would want to join the military?
But not to fear. If Bush gets in and we get another recession
(a regular feature with GOP presidents) enlistments will rise again.
Mitchell Holman
"This president is going to lead us out of this recovery.
It will happen."
-- Vice President Dan Quayle at a campaign stop at CA State, Fresno.
Desmond Coughlan
[snip]
> } No you didn't. You presented a couple of pointy headed fools who
> }think they know more about parenting than actual parents do. I have seen and
> }heard it all before. It was bullshit then, it is bullshit now.
> Who here thinks Mateo knows more about how
> spanking affects children than the American Academy
> of Pediatrians?
>
> Lets' see a show of hands.
>
> Someone?
>
> Anyone?
--