|
|
|
Comment |
Sorted by
Date Written |
well said (Reply to this comment)
by mattjoe
very well said.
|
Feb 07 '04
4:53 am PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hopefully not the beginning of a flame war: (Reply to this comment)
by iwannagrowup2b
You said, and I quote:
"I,d ride up ther mysef but it ain't worth it for an old guy who's gotta take Viagri to get it up for only fyve mins."
I really don't know where you got the information about the time frame of Chuck's love life sessions, or how you know what medications he may be taking. For that matter, I don't know which medications he takes, even though he's a friend of mine; however, from what I understand from two of his lady friends, the five minute time frame you mentioned is definitely waaayyy off where Mr. Happy is concerned.
Haven't you seen the smiles on those ladies faces? Check out their profiles! You should only be so lucky.
Maybe if you ask him nicely, he'll let you in on a few of his secrets, and perhaps even you could make out better on match.com.
:o)
Connie
|
Mar 05 '03
9:53 am PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hopefully not the beginning of a flame war: (Reply to this comment)
by misc_el
Hmmmm your an enigma Mr. Sam.
An Outlaw AND a biker for christ? Interesting combination. Know oh, wait, knew, a few Outlaws myself...I didn't think rapist, drug dealers and con men were also considered men of Christ? Never thought I'd see these type of words come from an "Outlaw"...
Bikers for Christ is dedicated to serving Jesus Christ; Lord of Lords, King of Kings, The Creator, The Word, The Good Shepherd, The Lion of Judah, Our Redeemer & Savior. There Is No Other Name Under Heaven By Which Men Can Be Saved.
Join us today and help spread the word!
Just something I noticed on your profile page.
You seem a decent fellow, sound like a big sweetheart if you ask me, (yes, I went to Match.com, any man threatening one of the sweetest men I've ever met online deserves some attention)...why present yourself in such a negative manner, and for what?
Enjoy your day.
XOXO
Elaine
|
Mar 03 '03
9:07 pm PST
|
|
Re: Re: Hopefully not the beginning of a flame war: (Reply to this comment)
by misc_el
Whoa! As I said in my comment on the Stockholder idiot W/O (misc el whispers) ya might wanna wait until the little red hat wears off before you rant.
XOXO
Enjoy your day!
El-
|
Mar 03 '03
8:37 pm PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hopefully not the beginning of a flame war: (Reply to this comment)
by dedemw
Looks like you are off to a great start here at Eps Vig. Great way to make 'friends'
|
Mar 03 '03
12:57 pm PST
|
|
Chuck, I'm impressed for 2 reasons.... (Reply to this comment)
by iwannagrowup2b
First off, you appear to have taken the high road several times lately. Great choice! The air is nice and clean up there, and the noise level generated from the low road below is barely audible. It's almost nice riding along with you! I say "almost", and will explain later!
Lately, I've noticed that the low road appears to be clogged with the pesky exhaust fumes constantly emitted by an old rattletrap that has wandered into the site freeway and keeps missing the exit signs. Hopefully, it will run out of gas soon and be towed away.
Secondly, I guess you have definitely arrived!
I think one definition of having arrived on Epinions, is to have a hidden revenge rater, and the other is to have your very own stalker!
Call it a stalker/hitchhiker/stowaway/groupie, whatever,....who wants to come along on every ride with you! I don't really think the term hitchhiker applies, because I don't think you would have knowingly picked up this one.
Maybe this stalker/stowaway/groupie hasn't read all your editorials about the types of food that you eat that causes an extreme gas problem. I don't know why one would constantly be wanting a ride with you! I had to keep the windows rolled down even up on the high road, when I was riding shotgun with you! Whew...you really are the old fart you claim to be, friend!
Connie
|
Mar 03 '03
4:41 am PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hopefully not the beginning of a flame war: (Reply to this comment)
by katybrighteyes
Ummm, viggo lady?
"...this "new jersey" guy in Illinois with the worst personality on the site."
You're a person who still sports the prominent, red "new" beside her user name. You haven't been around the site long enough to know the rest of us. "Worst personality...?" Chuck??? Come on, gimme a break. He's one of the funniest, most well-loved writers at Eps.
"Til then, my cop buddies will really get a 'charge' out of your solicitation for murder."
You're not the only one who has cops for friends. I live with one, but this doesn't make me more special than anyone else. Our circle of friends, mostly men & women in uniform, is above getting a "charge" out of nitpicking others. Any respectable cop (or even half-intelligent person!) knows the difference between "solicitation for murder" and simple writing, creative or otherwise.
You need to stop taking things so seriously.
Lighten up! The stockholder is hilarious!
Katy
|
Mar 02 '03
7:50 pm PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hopefully not the beginning of a flame war: (Reply to this comment)
by Arthur.Rubin
Solicitation for murder? Invitation to suicide, perhaps, but not murder -- unless you consider the song Black Widows in the Privy by Heather Jones as solicitation for murder.
|
Mar 02 '03
11:23 am PST
|
|
You have some balls on you! (Reply to this comment)
by eskimo101
And that's not a bad thing. Sorry I took so long to find your stuff, but it's never too late...
- Eskimo
|
Feb 10 '03
9:20 pm PST
|
|
You're 100% right (Reply to this comment)
by Moppysl
Well it took the pressure off of his drivers license racket. He's an Opportunist. My daughter left the Cook County States Attorney's office as they let the victims families speak. She said it was sinful what the governor did to these families.
A great B .S.er, and it was all to clear his own name.
|
Feb 07 '03
4:48 am PST
|
|
Re: This worldwide and ancient problem persists - what to do with them? (Reply to this comment)
by Penguinlady
Good grief - where did this come from?
You'll hear judges and lawyers throughout California - if you know them in private, at parties - state that the criminals couldn't help themselves, they're victims of poverty or race discrimination or broken homes or childhood neglect.
I've known lots of California lawyers and several judges and I just realized that I'm not being invited to the right parties, because I've NEVER heard one of them say such a thing.
To these so-called legislators...
I thought the conservative position was that judges are NOT supposed to legislate.
...by hiring any of the released prisoners...
The sentences were COMMUTED, not overturned. No one has been released, and no one claims that they will be.
There is so much emotion around this issue that the facts are getting buried.
|
Feb 06 '03
10:23 am PST
|
|
This worldwide and ancient problem persists - what to do with them? (Reply to this comment)
by frwhiskey
The whole world condemns murderers and rapists. Every country at every time in history had to deal with these people.
I agree 100% with you that the Governor simply must not have understood the torture of being a victim, or a family member of the victim. If the justice system should do anything, it should protect the honest and law-abiding public, yet in the USA today that is less and less the case.
You'll hear judges and lawyers throughout California - if you know them in private, at parties - state that the criminals couldn't help themselves, they're victims of poverty or race discrimination or broken homes or childhood neglect. To these so-called legislators, I say, "Fine. You believe we're all operating on Pavlovian response. You don't believe in free will, in conscience, in self-control. Fine. Then, what need have we for a court system, for judges to sit at 100K-plus salaries to make decisions on people's actions, if in fact the criminals couldn't control their actions anyway, ipso facto?
"No free will, then no court system. No need for judging, no need for defending. Marvelous, we'll save tons of money.
"But we'll still need a prison system to deal with miscreants, whether they acted on their own accord or from childhood pain or poverty. They have to get off the streets and away from the rest of us, if nothing else."
They always accuse me of having been raised Catholic, as if they should handicapp my judgment of justice systems.
This Governor needs a simple lesson - the rape/near death of his own wife or child, as you mentioned. This can easily be arranged for a small sum by hiring any of the released prisoners within the Governor's justice system. After all, these hired assassins can't be found guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt and certainly must have been neglected in youth. They should be spared the death penalty and be released on parole within five years, to come back and strike the Governor's home again.
Alleluia! Our government might wake up!
|
Feb 05 '03
12:32 pm PST
|
|
Couldn't disagree with you more..... (Reply to this comment)
by NFP
...but I respect your honest, open, unequivocal opinion.
nick
|
Jan 24 '03
9:33 am PST
|
|
Hmmmmm... (Reply to this comment)
by ghettofabchick
As far as the actions of the governor, I neither condone or condemn his choice. I do believe in justice, however I can't understand why a trial wasn't needed to make these choices.
I don't know much about these things, but I can see pros and cons to both sides, concerning the death penalty itself. It is, for one thing an easy out, and sometimes I wonder if it may be better to leave these tormented souls to grovel in their misery in prison for the rest on their life. On the other hand, the death penalty does make room and save money for more inmates, cuts the chances of escape for very dangerous convicts.
There are ups and downs to everything, and my heart goes out to the victims families, and not mention those possibly wrongly convicted.
I guess everyone has an opinion, heh? :)
|
Jan 23 '03
6:11 pm PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: You said it! (Reply to this comment)
by Penguinlady
Arthur, ANY head of state can nominate anyone. My reference to Bush not nominating Ryan was to illustrate the fact that no other head of state probably knows what Ryan did, or cares. I don't know who nominated Carter - it may have been Clinton, for all I know, either when he was in office or after. Or it could have been any other head of state.
Peace prizes are usually awarded pretty close in time to the action that inspired them, unlike the scientific Nobels, which can be awarded decades after the work. For example, my grandfather's discovery occurred in April 1921, and he was awarded in 1936, even though everyone knew immediately that he would win it sooner or later.
Margaret
|
Jan 22 '03
10:36 am PST
|
|
Re: Re: You said it! (Reply to this comment)
by Arthur.Rubin
Penguinlady -- how did Carter get the peace prize last year, then? Bush certainly didn't nominate him.
Although -- I don't mean to imply that Carter didn't deserve the prize. He's certainly the first President in this century to do good things after he stepped down.
|
Jan 22 '03
6:29 am PST
|
|
SHOULD HAVE PUT THEM ALL IN ONE ROOM.... (Reply to this comment)
by JAGUARDOG
and gassed them ALL! The Earth would be a better place with less scum around.
|
Jan 22 '03
3:00 am PST
|
|
Death Penalty (Reply to this comment)
by beckytcy
I believe that the governor of Illinois did not simply release these prisoners into society, but, rather commuted their death sentences, meaning that they now have life imprisonment. The death penalty is more expensive than keeping people in prison for life, and it runs the risk of executing an innocent person. I am certainly not for allowing criminals on the streets, but I do not support the death penalty because it is costly both in terms of dollars and cents and morals.
|
Jan 21 '03
9:09 pm PST
|
|
i'm, not sure... (Reply to this comment)
by aeoluscmc
i'm not always sure how i feel about the death penalty as a whole... but it's what the governor's done here that really worries me for a few reasons...
1. i guess i feel as though regardless of if i'm personally in agreement with the death penalty or not, if a state's gov't decides that they will allow the death penalty, if they prosecute and see the whole thing through allowing for the death penalty, then that decision should be honored. i really feel as though this was an abuse of power by the governor. he's supposed to individually review the cases, isn't he? if he doesn't have the time to do his job correctly, he shouldn't have that responsibility to begin with. i feel as though his actions have made a mockery of due process and the system as a whole.
2. if yesterday they were on death row and today they are on life without parole... what will happen tomorrow?
3. i'm originally from a state where the death penalty is allowed... and although i'm not sure how i feel about it as a whole... i do know that when one of my schoolmates was murdered, part of the reason the accused murderer confessed was because he knew there was a death penalty in the state, he knew there was a lot of evidence against him and so he plea bargained and got life in jail. i never knew all the facts involved with that one, but his incarceration helped me find closure to the whole event... i just can't imagine what this whole thing is doing to victim's families...
|
Jan 21 '03
8:22 pm PST
|
|
Re: You said it! (Reply to this comment)
by Penguinlady
And I PRAY that he's not awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. What a crock! This poor excuse for a human being receiving such an award would clearly indicate to me that the people who award the Nobel prizes have no credibility whatever. (My mom wants to start a letter-writing campaign to the Nobel board telling them just what a big rat Ryan is.)
Good grief, girl, simmer down! who ever said anything about Nobel prizes? You're jumping from A to Z without any stops in between.
Before you indulge in such fantasies, you'd do well to inform yourself about the issues involved.
Any head of state or government can nominate for the Nobel Peace Prizes, but the nominations have to be for actions that change the world for significant numbers of people. There is nothing about this action that meets ANY of those criteria.
So the only American who can nominate for Peace is the President, and I doubt that he'd nominate Gov. Ryan. And leaders of other countries probably don't care and wouldn't be bothered. No one wants to look like a fool with frivolous nominations.
So who are you going to write to?
Margaret
|
Jan 21 '03
9:17 am PST
|
|
Re: You said it! (Reply to this comment)
by stockholder
Thanks for reading, I have to admit, I was slightly startled when I read "I hate that old fat bastard", I thought you were talking about me.
stockholder
|
Jan 20 '03
8:04 pm PST
|
|
Bravo, Mr Stockholder... (Reply to this comment)
by michiman1
Those that want to color the debate cannot cover the dark, troubling cases you describe. Nor can they believably explain away the ex-Gov's irresponsible behavior as hard as they might try!
Mark
|
Jan 19 '03
9:21 am PST
|
|
Re: ? (Reply to this comment)
by stockholder
These killers will never see the light of day.
But can not see the death p. under the new gov.
thanks
OcomicF
s.h
|
Jan 17 '03
4:38 pm PST
|
|
99% Correct (Reply to this comment)
by fountain-head
I have to take off 1 point for incorrectly assuming that Gov.limp-member would demand death-penalty-retribution for actions taken against his own family.
You should have learned from the likes of Gov. Dukakis (when asked about his preferred punishment for a hypothetical RAPE of his wife)... that such (dare I say liberal) ideologues will choose their political party-line .... over their God-given instincts for SURVIVAL !!!
You have become my favorite curmudgeon ... I hope to be just like you when I grow-up
|
Jan 17 '03
10:53 am PST
|
|
? (Reply to this comment)
by oldcomixfan
Can the death penalty be reinstated for these inmates by the new governor?The way I understand it, the inmates are still in prison and shall remain so until their natural deaths?Does double jeopardy also apply to being put on death row twice?Is it possible that some future governor could commute the current life sentences and let those criminals walk free on parole?One minute they are on death row,then, a governor lifts away the Sword of Damocles hanging over their heads just before leaving office.Fact.
Is it possible these killers could walk free some day?Or are their life sentences set in stone as they currently are?
Sorry,nothing but questions.Anyone care to inform,please?
A very thought-provoking article{and comment section} for me,Mr.Stockholder.
Doug
|
Jan 16 '03
9:24 pm PST
|
|
I can't help but agree with you more... (Reply to this comment)
by telynor
I know this line of thought will probably get me trouble, but I've always maintained that people who murder children or pregnant women get the automatic death penalty. There's something basicly wrong with the scum who have so little ethics to them that they feel they have to do something like this. -- Telynor
|
Jan 16 '03
7:14 pm PST
|
|
Re: Pardon me - who said anything about pardons? (Reply to this comment)
by 29th_Candidate
["In short, by issuing a blanket pardon,
It WASN'T a pardon, Jim - you of all people know the difference between a pardon and a commutation. These people are still in prison and will very likely remain there. They have not been freed; the only thing that has changed is that they they will remain imprisoned rather than being executed. A far worse punishment, to my way of thinking, although that's not the issue here."]
Oooooh, mybad. "Commutation." I stand corrected. [Pardon me, heh, heh.]
["I would have preferred that these issues be addressed in a more timely manner, but I don't agree that the fact that they weren't means that they never should be."]
I don't believe I either said or implied [". . .that the fact that they weren't addressed in a more timely manner . . . means that they never should be,"] Margaret. Nor would I.
["Are you saying that an executive’s conscience has no place above the letter of the law?... A strict constructionist as you describe would feel obliged to put his own morality on the back burner in these situations, wouldn’t he?"]
[Comment Retread]
"No [Margaret], what you're 'hearing' me flub is the communication of the idea that Ryan doesn't have the right to use his office to effectuate his own, personal, self-interested, yet state-destructive agenda (i.e., a conflict of interest.) I may even have said "beliefs" and "conscience," but this was a misstatement on my part. I think at that point, I was getting carried away with my own bombast and accidentally began mixing two separate concepts. At any rate, the point that I intended, I've just used this paragraph to clarify, and I stand by that point as I've phrased it here. Anything beyond it you can crumple up and throw with the rotten eggs and tomatoes."
--29th
|
Jan 16 '03
2:42 pm PST
|
|
Re: ~Ahhhhhhh...~ (Reply to this comment)
by matthewn
Not every Republican is in favor of the death penalty. Bill O' Reilly, for example, is against the death penalty, and he is conservative.
Later
matt
|
Jan 16 '03
2:07 pm PST
|
|
Pardon me - who said anything about pardons? (Reply to this comment)
by Penguinlady
Margaret, I apologize for any condescension represented in my opening; it certainly was not intended by me.
I know... apologies accepted!
In short, by issuing a blanket pardon,
It WASN'T a pardon, Jim - you of all people know the difference between a pardon and a commutation. These people are still in prison and will very likely remain there. They have not been freed; the only thing that has changed is that they they will remain imprisoned rather than being executed. A far worse punishment, to my way of thinking, although that's not the issue here.
But I'm really disturbed by the people who jump from A to Z, from death-row condemnation to freedom and walking the streets. That's NOT what happened.
That they do their job BY addressing system injustices and remedying past mistakes during their term of office.
And while the wheels of bureaucracy sloooooly creak along - that's one of your major complaints against bureaucracy, isn't it? - the condemned should be executed, despite the injustices the bureaucracy should be remedying...
No. First you stop the injustices from continuing by ensuring that the victims thereof remain alive long enough to benefit from the remedy. Then you remediate.
Why SHOULDN'T "it" take effective, REAL steps to do so, rather than throw controversial, bad-publicity-engendering monkey wrenches at a system "it" was elected to improve, not subvert?
I agree that he could have acted earlier, but are you saying that by not having done so, he is precluded from EVER doing so? So while the system creaks along, possibly innocent or unjustly sentenced people march to their deaths.
I would have preferred that these issues be addressed in a more timely manner, but I don't agree that the fact that they weren't means that they never should be.
And how effective could a governor be in any arena after tackling an issue as emotional and explosive as this one? What are the chances that he could have governed effectively in any arena after opening this can of worms, among a people who are famous for reducing most campaigns to a single issue? As the governor who opened discussion of the justice of the death penalty, do you think he could ever have succeeded on any other issue? Already he's been branded as a one-issue guy, regardless of whatever else he may have accomplished.
["But even assuming that Ryan was putting his own beliefs ahead of the rule of law, am I hearing you say that that is never the proper province of an elected official?"]
Are you saying that an executive’s conscience has no place above the letter of the law?... A strict constructionist as you describe would feel obliged to put his own morality on the back burner in these situations, wouldn’t he?
A legislator without a conscience, or 100% subject to the whim of the electorate, is a frightening thought. The human race has a dismal history of enacting laws that are immoral by any definition - Jim Crow and Nuremberg come immediately to mind, although there are more. So if I understand you right, Jim, elected legislators are to blindly uphold those laws, regardless of the laws' morality and the dictates of their own consciences? Blind obedience to the letter of the law is a scary concept, and you argue that Ryan, while not violating the letter of the law, did indeed violate its "spirit." Spirit implies intent, and letter-of-the-law goes with constructionism. Which one do you want, conscience or constructionism? You can't have both.
People who have deliberately gone against bad laws are celebrated as heroes. You have only to look at people like Mrs. Parks, Oskar Schindler, and Chiune Sugihara to see why.
Governors have the power to commute sentences. The law that gives them the power to do that does not address the issue of how many he can commute at one time, to the best of my knowledge. So many conservative thinkers of my acquaintance rail against the slow rate of legislative change, and yet when one person takes it upon himself to act decisively to promote change, they don't like that, either.
It reminds me of the pardoning that went on in Washington during the last term change.
NO ONE HAS BEEN PARDONED OR FREED in this situation; they are still imprisoned, and very likely will continue to be for the rest of their lives.
And actually, all the conversation and debate and yes, even disputes and arguments, are EXACTLY what this action was meant to do - open the subject to civil discourse. Without conversation, there can be no change.
Margaret, again
|
Jan 16 '03
9:56 am PST
|
|
Awww, come on! (Reply to this comment)
by HawgWyld
Why, what could possibly be wrong with this? A governor, right before leaving office, stomps on the state constitution and yells a big "screw you, chumps!" to the citizens of Illinois.
What could possibly be wrong with that?
The point is, whether someone is for or against the death penalty doesn't count for dick in this issue. What does matter is whether the gov. has violated the intent of law here. Gee. Do you think, maybe, he has?
I enjoyed your perspective on this issue. Politicians finding ways to skirt around the law are downright unethical. While, obviously, the governor had the authority to do this, he still violated the intent of the laws in Illinois. Following the intent of laws is, quite often, as important as merely adhering to the "letter of the law."
Ethan / HawgWyld
|
Jan 16 '03
8:04 am PST
|
|
|
|
