Who can afford to hire a housekeeper or Nanny. I guess I can

spandy · Dec 8, 2012

UncleBuck said:
of course it matters what your reasons are. you get a different sentence if you purposely kill someone in a fit of rage after walking in to discover him banging your wife versus if you purposely kill someone in a fit of rage because they took your parking spot.

Thats what I was talking about, its fucking stupid. In both your scenerious, a person was murdered. Reason doens't matter because they are dead and you killed them.

So who goes to prison longer in your world Bucky, the guy who murdered or the guy who murdered. Feel free to use your own scenerio

spandy · Dec 8, 2012

My argument is murder is murder, doens't matter what emotions or reasons are involved because the act is the same.

UncleBuck · Dec 8, 2012

spandy said:
Thats what I was talking about, its fucking stupid. In both your scenerious, a person was murdered. Reason doens't matter because they are dead and you killed them.

So who goes to prison longer in your world Bucky, the guy who murdered or the guy who murdered. Feel free to use your own scenerio

the guy who killed for no real reason goes to jail longer, the parking spot killer.

the interloper killer gets less time. mitigating circumstance.

UncleBuck · Dec 8, 2012

spandy said:
My argument is murder is murder, doens't matter what emotions or reasons are involved because the act is the same.

that's a stupid argument that doesn't fly in the legal world. we already have murder 1, murder 2, and more, and they aren't going anywhere anytime soon.

ginwilly · Dec 8, 2012

UncleBuck said:
sorry, bud. some crimes are solely motivated by racial/ethnic/etcetera hatred, and they are seen as more heinous by their very nature, so we label them as such.

sorry if you do not share this thing called warm blood which is common to most humans.

It is worse in your mind if the crime is motivated by racial or sexual orientation etc. and you label them as such. This extreme politically correct position is not held by the majority, just the loudest. Stating it like it's fact doesn't change this. Kicking your ass because you are gay is not worse than kicking your ass because you are wearing a Glenn Beck t-shirt.

Killing somebody on accident is not the same as killing somebody on purpose. You were right when you said that. It has nothing to do with your argument, but you can keep repeating this. Planning to kill someone is worse than killing in self-defense. We might as well get that out of the way too.

Planning to kill someone because they are gay is not worse than planning to kill someone because you want the insurance settlement. Both are pre-meditated 1st degree murders. In fact, you could pile on insurance fraud to the latter, so in fact it's opposite of what you claim in this case in the eyes of the law.

With the moral majority and PC crowd (two sides of the same coin) trying to force their feelings on others as fact and law, logic is losing in this country.

Do we also rank the heinousness of the hate? Can we break down killing because of religion into which religion it was? Is it worse to kill a Jew than a Catholic (subset of white Catholic and hispanic Catholic)? Jews have suffered great atrocities in history so surely we need to carve out a special level for this brand of hate.

UncleBuck · Dec 8, 2012

ginwilly said:
Kicking your ass because you are gay is not worse than kicking your ass because you are wearing a Glenn Beck t-shirt.

you can wear a different t-shirt or wear a jacket over it. you can't change your skin color or your sexual orientation. silly analogy.

ginwilly said:
Planning to kill someone because they are gay is not worse than planning to kill someone because you want the insurance settlement. Both are pre-meditated 1st degree murders. In fact, you could pile on insurance fraud to the latter, so in fact it's opposite of what you claim in this case in the eyes of the law.

so it's OK to pile on insurance fraud, but god forbid we pile on "hate crime" to the other.

insurance companies are a protected class, gays are not.

cold blooded.

ginwilly · Dec 8, 2012

UncleBuck said:
that's a stupid argument that doesn't fly in the legal world. we already have murder 1, murder 2, and more, and they aren't going anywhere anytime soon.

Do we have a ranking system yet for killing over religion? Please tell us the order of heinousness of committing a crime against Jews, Muslims, Catholics, Baptists, Mormons, Satanists, Rastafarian. Also, it should probably matter why I hate that religion, so we need tiers according to the level of justification for the hate, those Mormons are pretty easy to hate.

You've got a lot of work to do if you want to re-write laws based on your opinion of fairness. Good luck!

UncleBuck · Dec 8, 2012

ginwilly said:
Do we have a ranking system yet for killing over religion? Please tell us the order of heinousness of committing a crime against Jews, Muslims, Catholics, Baptists, Mormons, Satanists, Rastafarian. Also, it should probably matter why I hate that religion, so we need tiers according to the level of justification for the hate, those Mormons are pretty easy to hate.

You've got a lot of work to do if you want to re-write laws based on your opinion of fairness. Good luck!

easy, they all get treated the same.

what don't you get about this? i mean, these laws already exist.

ginwilly · Dec 8, 2012

UncleBuck said:
of course it matters what your reasons are. you get a different sentence if you purposely kill someone in a fit of rage after walking in to discover him banging your wife versus if you purposely kill someone in a fit of rage because they took your parking spot.

I don't think is true, but I'm not a lawyer, and to be honest, it wouldn't surprise me. Can you find any laws that distinguish the perceived legitimacy of the fit? Is there a jilted lover clause? I'm asking sincerely, not sarcastically. I honestly don't know but suspect it could be true, just don't think it is.

UncleBuck · Dec 8, 2012

ginwilly said:
I don't think is true, but I'm not a lawyer, and to be honest, it wouldn't surprise me. Can you find any laws that distinguish the perceived legitimacy of the fit? Is there a jilted lover clause? I'm asking sincerely, not sarcastically. I honestly don't know but suspect it could be true, just don't think it is.

i'm not sure either, i've heard the example used though.

ginwilly · Dec 8, 2012

UncleBuck said:
easy, they all get treated the same.

what don't you get about this? i mean, these laws already exist.

treat them the same, now you are getting it.

these laws also already exist and are on the books in Oregon, doesn't make them true and just.

Drivers must yield to pedestrians who are standing on the sidewalk.
Full text of the law.
One may not test their physical endurance while driving a car on a highway.
Full text of the law.
It is illegal to place a container filled with human fecal matter on the side of any highway.
Full text of the law.
Babies may not be carried on the running boards of a car.
Full text of the law.
Drivers may not pump their own gas. Is this real?

Full text of the law.

A door on a car may not be left open longer than is necessary.
Full text of the law.
An adult may not show a minor any piece of classical artwork which depicts sexual excitement.
Full text of the law.
Dishes must drip dry.
The “Peer Review Statute” prohibits you from finding out details of any written or oral discussion about your medical treatment.
It is illegal to whisper “dirty” things in your lover’s ear during sex.
Ice cream may not be eaten on Sundays.
It is illegal to buy or sell marijuana, but it is legal to smoke it on your own property.
One may not bathe without wearing “suitable clothing,” i.
Canned corn is not to be used as bait for fishin
http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/oregon

UncleBuck · Dec 8, 2012

ginwilly said:
Drivers must yield to pedestrians who are standing on the sidewalk.
Full text of the law.

i do this all the time and had no idea it was a law. if someone is on the sidewalk looking like they want to cross, yield to them. the law here is any pedestrian in the road pretty much has the right of way and the driver has to yield.

ginwilly said:
One may not test their physical endurance while driving a car on a highway.
Full text of the law.

i have no idea what this means, but i have masturbated while driving twice.

ginwilly said:
It is illegal to place a container filled with human fecal matter on the side of any highway.
Full text of the law.

makes sense.

ginwilly said:
Babies may not be carried on the running boards of a car.
Full text of the law.

seems legit.

ginwilly said:
Drivers may not pump their own gas. Is this real?

not sure why this is, but i don't mind. especially in the winter.

ginwilly said:
A door on a car may not be left open longer than is necessary.

this one makes a lot of sense, unless you like having the light rail take off your car door or want to force bicyclists into traffic suddenly (i sometimes want to do the latter, the bicyclists here are as miltant and annoying as cannasylvan is with veganism).

ginwilly said:
An adult may not show a minor any piece of classical artwork which depicts sexual excitement.

pedo laws. makes sense.

ginwilly said:
Dishes must drip dry.

probably has something to do with conservation efforts. we're a very green state.

ginwilly said:
The “Peer Review Statute” prohibits you from finding out details of any written or oral discussion about your medical treatment.

does not seem legit.

ginwilly said:
It is illegal to whisper “dirty” things in your lover’s ear during sex.

guilty.

ginwilly said:
Ice cream may not be eaten on Sundays.

guilty.

ginwilly said:
It is illegal to buy or sell marijuana, but it is legal to smoke it on your own property.

guilty.

ginwilly said:
One may not bathe without wearing “suitable clothing,”

we have nudist beaches here.

ginwilly said:
Canned corn is not to be used as bait for fishin
http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/oregon

self explanatory.

NoDrama · Dec 8, 2012

unclebuck said:
orly?..................

UncleBuck · Dec 8, 2012

NoDrama said:
orly?..................

give them canned corn and soon they'll want mashed potatoes and turkey, too.

cannabineer · Dec 8, 2012

Canna Sylvan · Dec 8, 2012

Death crimes should work like this for ALL.

Not criminally liable:
1) self defense
2) mentally incompetent ( depending on crime, only civil)
3) certain accidents ( like non-DWI/DUI )

Partially criminally liable, less than full liability penalty but more than not criminally liable :
1) design flaws in equipment making them dangerous, if found criminally liable.
2) doing dangerous activities you know could cause harm.
3) accident, like pushing, person falls, hits head dies.

Full liability:

Everything else. Hate, premeditated, spur of the moment jilted lover. Any purposeful killing. Reason doesn't matter.

Exceptions,

There is no increase to criminal charge on purposeful acts, only reductions. Like: killed your spouse, kid, relative or best friend, depending on reason, no reduction( non-DWI/DUI death ) to acquittal( killer let off due to improper court procedure). "Victim" you killed raped you yesterday, so you go get a gun after the fact and blow that fucker away. You get the idea of the exception clause.

If you don't get an exception on full liability, you never get out. Simple.

Moses Mobetta · Dec 9, 2012

While I do believe there certainly are crimes worthy of the death penalty , this corrupt system - crooked cops and courts make me very sure they should not have that power . It seems to have become all that was designed to oppose .

ginwilly · Dec 9, 2012

Moses Mobetta said:
While I do believe there certainly are crimes worthy of the death penalty , this corrupt system - crooked cops and courts make me very sure they should not have that power . It seems to have become all that was designed to oppose .

This is pretty much where I am too. I think only the most obvious sociopaths need to be exterminated. The Dahmer types, or people like that guy in Conn who raped a young girl, her mother and set them and another daughter on fire need to be voted off the island.

What I don't like is states like Texas executing in the triple digits yearly. We hear about the truly atrocious maybe once or twice a decade (which means we probably don't hear about 10 others), let's keep executions to those.

I would rather there be no death penalty than have one and over use it. The potential to execute an innocent man is too great when we use it at the rate we do.

ChesusRice · Dec 9, 2012

ginwilly said:
This is pretty much where I am too. I think only the most obvious sociopaths need to be exterminated. The Dahmer types, or people like that guy in Conn who raped a young girl, her mother and set them and another daughter on fire need to be voted off the island.

.

I disagree. Those two AHOLEs in connecticut
actually need to be released back into society, with no police protection given

Canna Sylvan · Dec 9, 2012

ChesusRice said:
I disagree. Those two AHOLEs in connecticut
actually need to be released back into society, with no police protection given

Release them? So they can do it some more? People will just go, "wow that's him!" Then they'll pull out their iphone and post the video on youtube.

Who can afford to hire a housekeeper or Nanny. I guess I can

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Ursus marijanus

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member