dearjohn comments

LFRAgain wrote- Their son chose to kill those people.

Maybe thanks to a lack of guidance. An example would be always taking his side when he is violent to other children with the "My boy can do no wrong" excuse. There are many ways a parent can reinforce selfish and violent behaviours. Another thing they can do is see that their child is potentially homicidal, but sweep it under the rug.

gplee111 wrote- that's a pretty callous posting about these innocent people.

Innocent? Its hard to tell if they are at fault for raising a monster or if they did nothing wrong. I can't tell either way, but anyone making a hard and fast decision either way is committing a serious logical error.

Noliving wrote- Around 30k people are killed each year by guns, that also includes self defense and people killed by cops, guns are used in self defense an estimated 2 to 2.5 million times per year, so they save far more lives then they take.

Source? And you are telling us that up to 2,500,000 incidents of people drawing guns to protect themselves, but less 30,000 people are killed by those protecting themselves?

You really should think before blindly accepting statistics. What that tells me is that a whole lot of people are drawing guns but not really justified in doing so.

And why would any think they need a gun to protect themselves anyway? The number one answer has got to be fear that the other person has a gun. Guns are so rare in Japan that I feel safe with a dull replica sword by my bed. Its a glorified heavy stick, but a stick would do also. And I can remember drawing it maybe five times to check sounds in the night, but probably did more than that. Only once did I feel I needed it after the fact. That was when I discovered a near naked man hiding behind the neighbors house. But he was not violent. My sword saved no lives, and neither did most of the incidents you cite where people drew guns.

I am tempted to go kidnap this piece of filth myself and dump his drug assisted raping tush on the LAPD steps with a hard "thud".

I could understand how the people involved in this film had never heard of what he did before getting involved, but they must know by now. If I did not boycott the party, I would not be feting this creep. I would give a speech about how the unapologetic walking pile of crud should be begging for extradition to atone for his crime, and suggest no one watch the film until he does.

As a matter of fact, I suggest you boycott the film until he stops fighting the process of him paying for what he did.

genjuro wrote: Agreed 100%. This 'no-hit' disciplining is a relatively new invention,

And it requires more brains, time and patience than most people have unfortunately, and even then, I have my doubts that it will work for all kids. But its rather pointless to discuss here because this child slayer obvious did not have the brains or patience even to use the old methods properly.

dolphingirl wrote- How many times did they meet her before returning the child home?

Read the article and find out. This all started with a bruised cheek that took only a week to heal. For that the girl was in protective custody for a month, which is an eternity for a child and long enough for the slowest person to make a decision. All that is the definition of erring on the side of caution. I had all sorts of bruises as a kid. Some were caused by my step-father. But I am glad I did not grow up in an orphanage thank you very much.

Of course, you can use 20/20 hindsight all day to make it look like enough was not done. There will always be room for complaining where perfection is not present. But at least you could read the article, don't you think?

People kill fewer people when they don't have a gun to do it with. No one would trust their neighbor with a nuke, and no one would support his having one with a "people kill people, not nukes" argument. So why do they think it works for guns?

Spudman was being sarcastic by the way.

He lost control? I would guess that he was staring at that woman, hoping for a thumb to suddenly point skyward, and was lost in fantasy. Sounds like what he lost control of was himself, not the car. It also sounds like he was fully aware he hit someone and it was completely his fault. Had he just stopped and released her from the vehicle it might have saved her life even if he fled from that point. But to just drive on? All told, unforgivable.

From the article- after the car they were traveling in collided head-on with an RV on a snowy road

Interesting wording. You put the car as the subject and it sounds like they were in the wrong. Clearly the opposite is the case.

If she could not handle the kid, why not just leave? Its not like it was her own child. She could have found a man without any children, or even just live single.

Poor little mite! Only five, her real mother gone, and then get beaten to death by a nutter that daddy brought home.

I can't blame the welfare services. They are between a rock and a hard place. Can you imagine if they took the girl away from her own father, and then, 20 years later she complains? She did not know she would have been beaten to death. Nobody did. You judge as good as you can, but no one can predict the future.

some14some wrote- also, female friends. Get well soon since it is Valentine's season.

Actually female friends are well known to do wonders on the male heart and increase a man's life expectancy. The fact that I have not heard of Bill having any female friends* in 12 years and he probably had not had any for longer could explain his current condition. It was the unnecessary digging into his private life that set the stage for that void, and that digging itself no doubt also had a terrible effect.

*Hillary does not count. If you think she does, then both Bill and I salute you sir!

When the people of European descent in Argentina give the country back to the natives, and pack up and move to Europe, the country their ancestors came from, well, on that day, I will wholeheartedly suggest the British leave the Falklands along with all inhabitants.

But as the situation stands, Argentina lost those islands well over 150 years ago, and its time to wake up and smell the history. In all of the messy history of the Falklands, only British rule has been neat, long and constant. If the people living there want Britian, then that's that, until the Argentinians abandon Argentina anyway.

Argentian claims to the Falklands are easily dismissed. The issue of drilling rights is more complex though.

vdpphd_qwest_net wrote- For you conspiracy theorists out there, there is still the "they knew about it beforehand" theory to fantasize about...

There are many people who believe that al-Quaida conspired to destroy the WTC, conspired as in "a conspiracy", and did in fact know about it beforehand. Conspiracies do happen and foreknowledge too. Or do you think it was all done by one man on the spur of the moment? Investigations on the hijackers as they were learning to fly were halted, and the reasons are less than clear to me but orders came from above. And GWB's initial reaction seemed a little suspicious to me. It was a look like somebody put him on the spot. It does not seem unreasonable to believe that more than just al-Quaida knew what was going to happen.

I wish them luck, but if it doesn't come it will prove something. Either God is not there or he does not listen to prayers. Either way, best to solve our own problems.

Bats are dangerous weapons. Its interesting what is banned. He could not have done this much damage with the half of them. But bats are perfectly legal.

At least we have a motive clearly established!

A lot of people will just see a little girl dancing and think its cute. If you look and see sex, what does it day about you? Maybe you just have not seen enough of the world or sex to see anything else? I just saw a movie called "The One and Only" last night that had a little girl shaking it and dancing with an adult. Looked like she was having a good time. It was cute.

The article says Brazil has troubles with sexual exploitation of children. Obviously they were not caused by little girls as Samba queens since that has not even actually happened yet! I somehow doubt Julia is going to make it all worse. She might even get kids more respected and seen as just being cute.

Since al-Quaida originally tried to destroy the towers with bombs back in 1993, and failed, it does not seem far fetched to think they would hedge their bets by using both bombs and planes the second time. Many people reported hearing secondary explosions well after the planes hit. There were even many reports that a bomb had been found. Good luck explaining those away. But if you look at videos of the North and South building collapsing, the floors above the impact collapsed first and the rest of the building could not take the stress. It was all straight up and down for the North Tower. The South Tower top came down a little cockeyed, but its still not going to look like Godzilla pushed it over. Its WTC7 that fell as if bombs blew out its base.

But these newly released photos tell us nothing really.

Beelzebub wrote: Wow, these pictures should drive the 9/11 conspiracy crowd to new heights of looney-tunes ranting over what caused the buildings to fall.

More than that the 9 and a half year release of these pictures will trigger the question: "What else has been withheld?"

He was pretty handsome bloke before he went goofball.

I guess they never heard of the sugar daddy program?

Twilight Zone? More like the nonsequitor and ignorant comment zone. Since there is nothing in the story about him molesting children, its ignorant to call him a child molester. Since there is nothing about him preying on anyone, its ignorant to call him a predator. The police can arrest anybody, even smalll children. He got the photos on the internet. He will reproduce by having sex with a woman. Even NAMBLA members know how its done, and looking at naked boys does not stop them. Closing down shops in Akihabara won't protect any kids and its not even related to the topic.

bushlover said: No the carcass is for research but the meat has to be sold for consumption. That is the deal so as not to have it killed and wasted.

That is the official story. Actually its just to get around the whaling ban. Killing whales to study them is not necessary. Enough get beached anyway. And killing them to see if numbers are self-sustaining is beyond dumb, or would be. But that is not the goal.

It sounds like the blokes pilfered and now the company is covering it up.

Toyotas are great! But this is why I always buy used ones!

They say the death penalty is carried out not for justice, but to send a warning. Bush and Blair in jail for the rest of their lives will sent a warning to politicians like them. If we don't do it this will just happen again.