davjohns

Your first conclusion was that I have never been exposed to classified information. Current assignment: Chief, Current Intelligence, Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE), North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Previous Assignment: Executive Officer, Space and Missile Defense Command. Previous Assignment: Chief, Counterintelligence, Space and Missile Defense Command. Previous Assignment: Senior Intelligence Advisor, Iraqi Ground Forces Command, Baghdad, Iraq. Although I dealt with classified in Iraq, it was the last position I held where my office was not in a Special Classified Information Facility (SCIF) and I did not produce classified documents. So, your first conclusion appears to have been in error. But at least you admit your second conclusion is just a (conspiracy) theory. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I thought it smelled like sex and candy? That would be part of the Marcy Playground school of philosophy. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

According to the philosopher Giles, "Love stinks." I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Now? By this statement you have proven that you have never dealt with classified material ever. This behavior has been going on for DECADES. There is nothing new here. The government can do whatever the hell it wants as long as it can keep its secrets from the peasants. I'm just astonished how many people actually believe this "national security" BS that they are fed. I hate to rehash this dead horse, but remember the "evidence" we had about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction and that we (the public) couldn't see that "evidence" because of "national security"? Or was it because there really wasn't any evidence at all. Really? If it came to pass that your conclusion was completely in error, would you admit that there was an error in your logic? I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Yes, it is a pun. I just thought it was punny. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

This is a pretty clear statement of my belief that all rights are to be treated with equal dignity. There is no right that is more or less important than any other. Powerful stuff. Made my day. I think it is important to understand the US Constitution and it's amendments in context. If you read the Declaration of Independence, you find that the writers were talking about 'certain unalienable rights' that are 'granted by their creator'. That means we are born with these rights. They were not granted by the founding fathers, the US Constitution, or government. We were born with them. They are only enshrined the US Constitution to make clear that government has no business messing with them. The pre-existed any document. Skip down to the 9th Amendment and you find there are others. The 10 were just a starting point. Historically, these ten were part of a deal to get the US Government going at all. Many did not want a powerful central government. These restrictions were the cost of having any central government. That so many want to dismantle the ten is evidence that the founding fathers understood human nature and the nature of government. I find it interesting that the dissent went on for 130 pages to try to overcome the powerful truth in that one paragraph. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Absolutely. We have stuff ready for hurricane/power-out situations as well. We also have a hiking bag, with all the necessities for a hike except for the food, so that we don't have to go looking if we want to go somewhere. And I don't discuss personal gun access choices. Wendy P. Ahhh....hiding them from the man....smart. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Government wisdom in action. So, we ask the same government to define marriage, when life begins, how to raise children... I continue to maintain that government is the least efficient means of doing anything. It must, therefore, be restricted to only those things that cannot be done at a level closer to the individual. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Are you saying it is OK to kill people who aren't guilty of the crime which they were convicted of, simply because they were not innocent of other charges? Or may have been criminal lowlifes in general? Because that is what this reads like. I find that a horrifying statement from a member of the bar. Are you familiar with the work of the innocence project? I don't think I said anything remotely like that. I wasn't even debating the whole death penalty issue at that point. I'm just pointing out there is a difference between 'not guilty' and 'innocent'. People use the two interchangeably when they are vastly different things. If you read all of my post, I think you find I said just that at the end. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I am not trying to argue a tiny little point...but I am. Sorry. It's a little issue of mine. Innocent? Or 'not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt'? Or 'well and truly did not commit the crime for which they were convicted'? I am sure history has lots of examples of people being convicted and executed despite the case not being proven beyond a reasonable doubt, even though they did it. I am sure some people have been convicted and executed even though they really did not commit the crime for which they were convicted. Innocent is a whole other world. I've defended people who were not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I've defended a couple who actually did not commit the crime they were accused of. I've never defended an innocent person. Your point is perfectly valid. I don't mean to say otherwise. Mistakes are made. I just bristle at the use of that word. People use it incorrectly an awful lot. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Depends. If you just need them from time to time and don't want to spend the money on new ones, you could keep them. You could keep them for yard work or something where appearance isn't necessary. If you need gloves on a daily basis and you are wearing them to work, you should shell out a few bucks for new ones. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Most of those I would not miss...but do not want to see them wasted. The 1962, however... I would pay to pull that one out myself. Sad day for American Muscle fans. I hope they can all be reclaimed, repaired, and placed back in service / display. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Most of my guns stay locked up. Others are available should they be needed. All: Sorry. Sometimes my fingers do their own thing. When I looked at my previous post, the word 'extinguisher' jumped out at me. I misspelled it twice. No idea why. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

There was a prison break and I saw a midget climb up the fence. As he jumped down he sneered at me and I thought: "Well that was a little condescending..." I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Fuck I'm hung over First sign a sorority girl may be pregnant. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Sometimes, I really wish you would turn on your PM feature. This is actual semantics: There was a prison break and I saw a midget climb up the fence. As he jumped down he sneered at me and I thought: "Well that was a little condescending..." I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

No he didn't, that's just semantic bollocks. No, you don't, and you've also avoided the question: why should the Governor be an effective check in cases where the entire judicial system has failed to recognise a mistake? Does he have the time or the expertise to delve into those cases and mke reliable decisions? I don't think he should. But having assumed that role, I think he should try to do it well. Does he have the time or expertise? If he does not, why is acting? If he is not capable of doing better, why has he decided to assume authority and change the decisions of the judiciary? There are no semantics here. He has unilateraly decided to over-rule every case based solely on the outcome. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Like most things, painting preppers in one light might blind you. I have stuff ready to go (bugout bag or BOB). There are plenty of reasons. Just like the fire extenguisher, first aid kit, food, and water in my Jeep. Just like the knife and flashlight in my pocket. Just like the pistol by my bed. Just like the pantry full of food. Riots happen. It's not a left or right thing that I can tell. Blackouts and lootings happen. I'm pretty sure the electrons have no political agenda when they stop flowing. Getting snowed in? Well, Mother Nature may have a preferred party, but I don't know which it is. Budget deficit leading to financial meltdown? If you think one party bears all the blame, you really aren't paying attention. Here in BENELUX, people are advised to carry food, water, blankets, and such in their cars in case their car gets stuck in snow. Fire extenguishers, flares, first aid kits with instructions are all required by law. I don't think that is politically motivated. I like to look ahead at the things that might happen and try to be prepared. I don't expect FEMA or anyone else to save me. I try to make sure I can take care of my family and some others as well. If that makes me a nutter, so be it. So far, it has served me well. And, I've been able to take care of others who did not prepare. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

No, you don't get it. He's not judging any cases. You acknowledged that the system is broken, and that incorrect decisions are made. You said, put simply, "Why doesn't he review the cases and fix the broken decisions?" Well, as I demonstrated, the answer is pretty obvious. By changing the sentence, he has judged that the sentence was wrong. You say he is not judging cases...but he did. You are correct. I don't get it. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

With the NSA monitoring stuff being classified Top Secret and this kind of thing being a "threat to national security", we have to admit that 'national security' is synonymous with 'embarassing' now. Things are now classified to hide them from the public because they are politically dangerous; NOT because they threaten OUR security, but because they threaten the security of the politicians. I was very happy with Obama's promise that his administration would be the most transparent in history. I've been very dissapointed in the reality. I continue to hope for a President who keeps promises...especially the ones that are hard to keep. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

No, he probably doesn't. And that should be obvious. By the time they reach the point of Gubernatorial review a death penalty case will be an immensely complicated mass of conflicting statements, contested evidence, possible allegations of police or prosecutorial misconduct, and the list goes on. Why the fucking fuck would you think that a Governor, who potentially has absolutely zero experience within the criminal justice system, would be better placed to evaluate any individual case than the police investigators, the prosecutors, the trial jury, the trial judge and potentially 5 different appeals courts? Why will he be able to unravel the knots that have tied up every other level of the system? So? What is it you're not getting with life imprisonment? I'm going to have to take some time to work through your logic. He's not smart enough to understand individual cases. But when he judges a whole bunch of cases with no knowledge but the verdict, he's a genius. Interesting argument. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Ahhh.... Fuck I'm Drunk The mating call of the Southern Bell. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Many lines from Princess Bride. My favorite: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." Judy Dench's delivery in Skyfall was excellent. The one that caught me off guard: "Oh, go on then. Eject me. See if I care." I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Copper Wire & Communication After having dug to a depth of 10 feet last year, British scientists found traces of copper wire dating back 200 years and came to the conclusion that their ancestors already had a telephone network more than 150 years ago. ... Not to be outdone by the British, in the weeks that followed, an American archaeologist dug to a depth of 20 feet, and shortly after, a story published in the New York Times said: "American archaeologists, finding traces of 250-year-old copper wire, have concluded that their ancestors already had an advanced high-tech communications network 100 years earlier than the British". One week later, Australia 's Northern Territory Times reported the following: "After digging as deep as 30 feet this morning in his backyard in Tennant Creek , Northern Territory , Knackers Johnson, a self-taught archaeologist, reported that he found absolutely bugger-all. Knackers has therefore concluded that "250 years ago, Australia had already gone wireless." I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

A man and a woman who had never met before but were both married to other people found themselves assigned to the same sleeping compartment on a trans-continental train... Though initially embarrassed and uneasy over sharing a room, they were both very tired and fell asleep quickly, he in the upper bunk and she in the lower. At 1 a.m., the man leaned down and gently woke the woman saying, "ma'am, I'm sorry to bother you, but would you be willing to reach into the closet and get me a second blanket? I'm awfully cold." "I have a better idea," she replied. "just for tonight, let's pretend that we're married." "Wow! that's a great idea!" he exclaimed. "Good," she replied. "get your own fucking blanket." After a moment of silence, he farted. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.