sceptic

HAVE YOU EVER BEEN GUILTY OF LOOKING AT OTHERS YOUR OWN AGE AND THINKING, SURELY I CAN'T LOOK THAT OLD. WELL.. YOU'LL LOVE THIS ONE. MY NAME IS ALICE SMITH AND I WAS SITTING IN THE WAITING ROOM FOR MY FIRST APPOINTMENT WITH A NEW DENTIST I NOTICED HIS DDS DIPLOMA, WHICH BORE HIS FULL NAME. SUDDENLY, I REMEMBERED A TALL, HANDSOME, DARK-HAIRED BOY WITH THE SAME NAME HAD BEEN IN MY HIGH SCHOOL CLASS SOME 30-ODD YEARS AGO. COULD HE BE THE SAME GUY THAT I HAD A SECRET CRUSH ON, WAY BACK THEN? UPON SEEING HIM, HOWEVER, I QUICKLY DISCARDED ANY SUCH THOUGHT. THIS BALDING, GRAY-HAIRED MAN WITH THE DEEPLY LINED FACE WAS WAY TOO OLD TO HAVE BEEN MY CLASSMATE. AFTER HE EXAMINED MY TEETH, I ASKED HIM IF HE HAD ATTENDED MORGAN PARK HIGH SCHOOL .. "YES. YES, I DID. I'M A MUSTANG," HE GLEAMED WITH PRIDE. "WHEN DID YOU GRADUATE?" I ASKED. HE ANSWERED , "IN 1975. WHY DO YOU ASK?" "YOU WERE IN MY CLASS!", I EXCLAIMED. HE LOOKED AT ME CLOSELY. THEN, THAT UGLY, OLD, BALD, WRINKLED, FAT ASS, GRAY-HAIRED, DECREPIT SON-OF-A-BITCH ASKED, "WHAT DID YOU TEACH ???

Thx Tim, sometimes I really am stupid (no need for a poll on that one)

I was looking at a thread today and I can not vote in it as I am not an expert, so it would be nice if all polls had a vote here for no opinion I just want to see the result of the poll itself

g'day dodgy

5 Tricky Questions 1. A murderer is condemned to death. He has to choose between three rooms. The first is full of raging fires, the second is full of assassins with loaded guns, and the third is full of lions that haven't eaten in 3 years. Which room is safest for him? 2. A woman shoots her husband. Then she holds him under water for over 5 minutes. Finally, she hangs him. But 5 minutes later they both go out together and enjoy a wonderful dinner together. How can this be? 3. What is black when you buy it, red when you use it, and gray when you throw it away? 4. Can you name three consecutive days without using the words Wednesday, Friday, or Sunday? 5. This is an unusual paragraph. I'm curious as to just how quickly you can find out what is so unusual about it. It looks so ordinary and plain that you would think nothing was wrong with it. In fact, nothing is wrong with it! It is highly unusual though. Study it and think about it, but you still may not find anything odd. But if you work at it a bit, you might find out. Try to do so without any coaching!

Happy Ken day, hope Barbie gives you a good time

I wonder if I should use it

have you tried flossing?

There is nothing wrong with your poetry reading classes, But, I would advise you to lay off the mushrooms in your back garden I do not think you need to read the book either :)

I thought that was the whole purpose of the water cooler

No capital punishment Period. I am optimistically thinking that we have evolved beyond these barbaric customs, but I am still waiting for rehabilitation to be the main focus of the prison system and the courts. We no sooner build a new prison than it is full and we are needing more. What's wrong with this picture? I think we should use whatever we have in our arsenal and start asap to - educate, rehabilitate, de-program, re-program or whatever it takes. We had had many "leaders" who have shown us how easy this can be for a determined person. Some may never make it back into society but unless we make a bigger effort to begin to rehabilitate criminals, we will just need to continue building more jails. P I just can't get my head around, why should we bother, do we not have better people to spend our time and resources on, surely spend the money on the victims, not the prepetrators

I wonder if anyone thinks that one family one home is a good thing and houses are not investments they are for people to live in not make money out of

Have you forgiven them for the recent ones as well? and did you really forgive the Aztecs, at what point in your life did you conciously actually forgive the Aztecs. I would say you never actuially forgave them, you just made it up as an example to highlight a point which then beggars me to think you never actaully conciously forgave the church either which then makes me think your post is not valid

I totally disagree with Winston blaming America, our country has its own people to blame, Demark has its own people to blame< germany has its own people to blame Imigration, buy to let, the EU, also sorts of factors, I really just do not buy that US have *****ed us all over, we have made our own mess of things, all this was foreseeable, no one wanted to listen and they were all scared money would be diverted from them selves to go and earn these manic returns somewhere else If you want to blame someone.. Blame MR Greedy bastard

Helen you are wrong , not even close What drove the prices up, Take 1990 crash about 9 - 12 months prior to this happening the governement reduced double tax allowances so only one person could claim, this caused a small surge in prices (I do not think it was the reason it crashed and burnt, it was just a foolish move on the inevitale happening, ,the problems and the effect were already in place for it to happen the current situation is one caused predominately by the availability of credit (I do not even begin to think that the current government can accept responsibility in full, about 10 years ago, the buy to let market opened up and legislation about rental laws changed, the effect of this was dual ownwership, i.e. one person could own (easily) more than one property and get a rental income, when I started doing it, the rate on my investment of return was about 10% comfortably, the current return if fullymortagaed is in the region of less than 4-5% the mortages around 10 years ago were available in bulk, the lack of controls on someone being able to afford the investment were relaxed (by the banks) this is what caused the price increase, then when it was made aware that bricks and mortar were a money making machine, everyone jumped on the band wagon. the banks did not carry out proper checks on peoples income and claims, the FA's and mortgage brokers, did not do proper checks and aided the buyers to mislead the banks of thier status(not that it took much misleading when the banks etc, were willing to turn a greedy blind eye they drove the price up, the ridiculous loans available i.e 125% of the property value, the ease with which someone could buy big chunks of property from new developers for no cash outlay, pure debt was rife, you could make a fortune by knowing how to get money. I would like to have seen the Northern Rock crash and burn, all we are doing by proping it up, is giving a bank an open cheque to do what the f*** they want, I would feel sorry for the investors of N \Rock, but I think it is the right thing to do, whilst I am no economist, you can see that the only thing that caused this is pure greed on the bank and shareholders part No one considers the consequence on the ordinary person trying to buy a home for thier family, greed has made things quite bad for our kids and is in part perhaps why a portion of the youths are giving up on the state, because quite honestly as usual they are only applying lipservice to people

If the death penalty was voted in, someone would have the right to make the decision and someone would have the right to carry out the act Legal right, sure. But, moral right? depends, I am sure that I could live with myself if this were the case, so yes they would have the moral right also

If the death penalty was voted in, someone would have the right to make the decision and someone would have the right to carry out the act Just the same as we give rights to other people doing other tasks in the world, because we have rules in society that are generally accepted, we give the right to a judge to judge people, we give the right to a prison officer to incaserate someone for whatever time the judge has decided, we give the right for people to appeal against decisions collectively (majority rule) we can give the right for someone to do what has to be done

But that is not the case, some of them kill guards and inmates so it is not succesful, you can argue it is nearly succesful nearly succesful is not good enough to sway me from thinking that death would be 100% succesful in preventing that person from killing anyone else an example of this would be a man or woman jailed and put in solitry confinement, they have the right to prison visits, people still find a way to conduct and influence others from inside jail.. and that could result in further deaths

Does that mean he hit the nail on the head for the rest of the statement?

What are you referring to by "financing various genocides"? Fred, usually I am all for criticizing the Catholic church, Agree - I could have used less inflammatory language. Sorry to those who were offended. Fred Gitelman Bridge Base Inc. www.bridgebase.com bet you cant name a bigger one?

The reason I think it is not acceptable, is it does not seem to work, I can assure you if sending someone to jail worked, I would not feel a need to want the death penalty

In order to even begin to respond to this, it's necessary for me to understand what you think is wrong with: life imprisonment in essentially solitary confinement as an example. The US government has a variety of these, known as SuperMax prisons. See: Supermax. Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber, and the guy who set off a bomb and the Atlanta Olympics, Eric Rudolph, are both held in such facilities. life imprisonment in essentially solitary confinement, that is quite heartless if I read it correctly, just locking someone up forever with no contact from anyone else, isolation (I believe could send you mad) so I think that is worse than the death penalty, at least you can kill someone quickly and relatively painlessly though maybe the time up till death could cause the individual a bt of stress

in all this debate, I have still yet to see an alternative answer (workable) that we can use instead of the death penalty please repost if I did not understand one of your posts and it shows a compelling arguement that may make me reconsider my stance on the subject, o would change someone elses view on the subject if you feel I am incapable of changing my opinion

the cost of life someone does something bad, I consider it worth the death sentance he is executed (2 years later it is proven he is inoccent) cost one inoccent life someone does something bad, I consider it worth the death sentance he is jailed, good behaviour he is out of jail (maybe his probation officer or social worker considers him ok to release) he does something else bad an inoccent person dies he is jailed again cost one inoccent life someone does something bad, I consider it worth the death sentance he is executed (2 year slater it is proven guilty again) cost one not so inoccent life sometimes by not taking a difficult decision. we somehow absolve our responsibility to the safety of the inoccent and ease our concience at the same time, as long as the crime is in the newspapers and on TV and does not physically effect us does that really mean we can not act as judge jury and excecutioner beacuse in all reality, what even gives us the right to judge anyone Jail for Life, take away someones hope in life, is that not a death in itself?

I am intrigued Just because someone has not met an evil person, does not mean they are not out there (no matter how well it is phrased and how well respected the individual is that wrote it, does not mean it is correct, what it does is make us aware that people define evil in different ways) this is not a personal attack on Mike by the way perhaps wicked would be a better word than evil?? can someone give me an example of what we should do with someone that has commintted a crime that is quite bad, As we in England have just had a case of someone stabbing a young girl to death and having sex with the body (look it up on the net if you want the details) lets make an assumtion that this person is not evil, but has some social issues, maybe he held down two jobs and the pressure got to him and he had to let it out somewhere ( a somewhat frivolous way of putting it, but I am sure you know what I mean) :) The interesting thing about this case, is if ( and a big if because I am sure the sanctity of life brigade would be appauled by the suggestion that this young man with one or two issues in his life was a bastard or in anyway evil) he was excecuted after one of the 6 other serious sex offences he had committed he would not have been able to kill this young inoccent girl (maybe one or two of you would care to challenge that she was not inoccent, maybe she brought it upon herself) if he was executed after the first one, we would have save five people from emotional turmiol possibly lasthing their whole life, we would have saved a girls life, we would have saved a fortune in financial resources that could have benefitted a worthy person Just what price are you anti death sentance people going to accept to uphold your views on the sanctity of life????????????? p.s this has been thought and is not an emotional rant, there is a serious question at the end which I will repeat if anyone does not understand it Just what price are you anti death sentance people going to accept to uphold your views on the sanctity of life????????????? please feel free to correct spelling and gramatical errors