The Death Penalty

[boxcar]

A federal district court judge today ruled that the death penalty is unconstitutional. What do you think and why?

Boxcar

[so.cal.fan]

Boxcar:
I voted yes, meant to vote no, please change my vote.
Thank you.;)

[MarylandPaul@HSH]

Originally posted by boxcar
A federal district court judge today ruled that the death penalty is unconstitutional. What do you think and why?

Boxcar


I've always been amazed at the debate over this issue. This is a no-brainer...no Justice system can be relied upon to return the correct verdict 100% of the time. Therefore, innocent people will be murdered. Anyone remember how many people were freed from death row when DNA testing became available?

Even one mistaken execution is too many to allow. Period.

Now, let me say that if there were a *100% foolproof* way to determine guilt, I would happily administer the lethal injection myself to some of the sub-human scum that permeates our society.

MarylandPaul

[boxcar]

so.cal.fan wrote:

>>
I voted yes, meant to vote no, please change my vote.
Thank you.;)
>>

Two things. Don't thank me. Thank PA when or if he changes it. Only he can do that.

Secondly, I'm disappointed you want to change your vote as I was just fixin' to ask you why you voted "yes". :)

Boxcar

[PaceAdvantage]

SCF,

Changed your vote...now where are those chads???? LOL


==PA

[so.cal.fan]

Thanks, PA

So. Cal. Fan is dyslexic, I must read these posts slower.

:confused:


Boxcar:

Just like a mad dog or wild animal, some criminals must be euthanized.
My friend had a doberman who went crazy and tried to kill another family dog. She tried to beat him off the small dog he was choking, finally a neighbor had to shoot him. It was a ghastly event. We had no idea what made this animal snap, but once they snap..............my dad had to put down a nice Collie we had because all of a sudden he went mad and started killing chickens and anything else he could get a hold of. We couldn't take the chance he would attack a child.
Humans are the same............my brother works at a Calif. State Hospital for the criminally insane. My brother is a liberal man.
However, he knows, the vast majority of these people can't ever be rehabilated. It is sad, but true.

:(

[boxcar]

MarylandPaul wrote:

>>
I've always been amazed at the debate over this issue. This is a no-brainer...no Justice system can be relied upon to return the correct verdict 100% of the time. Therefore, innocent people will be murdered. Anyone remember how many people were freed from death row when DNA testing became available?

Even one mistaken execution is too many to allow. Period.

Now, let me say that if there were a *100% foolproof* way to determine guilt, I would happily administer the lethal injection myself to some of the sub-human scum that permeates our society.
>>

Welcome to the Off Topic Forum, MP. I don't believe I have seen you post here previously.

You say you've always been "amazed" at this kind of debate, and that the answer is a simple, "no-brainer", eh? But, with all due respect, your objection is a straw man - a very poor one, at that.

You correctly admit to man's finite capabilities, acknowledging that we're capable of making errors in judgment during the judicial process. But so what? If you take your objection, which you have limited to the judicial process, and apply it to all human activities - all human endeavors, I think you'll quickly see that when it, then, is taken to its logical conclusion, you would have man engaging in absolutely nothing, in any kind human endeavor, that would put another human's life at risk.

Please consider the following: How many lives over the decades have been lost just to technology alone? How many lives have been "sacrificed" due to malfunctions of critically important auto parts? Or to plane parts or components? Or to medical research that has produced (and will continue to produce) life-threatening and even life-taking drugs? Or to the research that has allowed us to preserve our food with various chemicals and additives, which subsequent research has found to be harmful or even fatal? Or to chemical manufacturers with their pesticides, which do a good job killing pests (at least for awhile), but which some have proven to be fatal to humans when we're exposed too long to them or to just the sheer toxicity of those chemicals? I could go on and on, but I think you see what I mean.

I venture to say that with all the many checks and balances in our judicial system, juries and judges have made far fewer fatal mistakes in decisions involving capital crime and the death penalty.

Boxcar

[MarylandPaul@HSH]

Thanks for the welcome Boxcar. My participation in this forum was the result of a slow day at work, and a moment of weakness <g>

The examples you provide, IMO, are of such different cicrumstance that they do not apply. While the risk of driving, flying, or eating cheap margarine is real, preventing the errors that cause death is certainly more difficult. A death sentence is imposed consciously by a small number of people, each with their own personal predjudices.

Imposing the death penalty does nothing more than placate the victim's survivors and project the much desired "we're tough on crime" image on elected officials. It doesn't save money. Life without the possiblity of parole accomplishes what should be the only goal...removing that criminal from society permanently.

Add to that the fact that a defendant with greater economic means will be much more likely to avoid a death sentence. So we only kill the murderers with bad defense lawyers? Oh yeah, you have to be in the right state as well.

I don't share your faith in our justice system...unless I can afford a competent attorney. I'd rather place my life in the hands of Ford, Boeing, or even Kraft Foods than in the hands of an overworked, underpaid Public Defender.

MarylandPaul

[smf]

MPaul,

I was 100% for the death penalty until a few weeks ago. There's a case here (dallas area) that involves a mother accused of killing her 2 children, both about 6 yrs old. The way the case was presented to both the jury and the public it appeared she was guilty as hell. She was found guilty, sentenced to death.

As the years (yes, years) went by, more and more evidence has popped up and it's also been made public that the prosecutors didn't release all the necessary facts in the case (that were in the best interest/ advantage to the defense). This woman is still on death row, and now there are accounts of the hubby asking around for someone to break into their house to "collect" for insurance purposes.

The kids had a large policy on them just before the murders.

So, I've gotta agree w/ you..as long as I can't trust the local police dept's or have faith in the justice dept, I have to hope the death penalty w/ be abolished, and soon.

[boxcar]

MP wrote:

>>The examples you provide, IMO, are of such different cicrumstance that they do not apply. While the risk of driving, flying, or eating cheap margarine is real, The examples you provide, IMO, are of such different cicrumstance that they do not apply. While the risk of driving, flying, or eating cheap margarine is real, preventing the errors that cause death is certainly more difficult. A death sentence is imposed consciously by a small number of people, each with their own personal predjudices.
>>

Ahh…I was waiting for that next objection, i.e. "different circumstances…that do not apply." But I submit to you that, while the circumstances differ, they do apply. Here's why: Looking at the problem in just two categories - the judicial process itself and all other human activities outside of it, we'll discover that the end result from human error in either realm is the same, i.e. unintentional death! Outside the judicial system, no one is making a conscious life or death decision;, however, very often death results from human error. While in the sphere of the legal system , conscious life or death decisions are made with the risk of error (which accompanies ALL human judgment and activities!), and would indeed result in unintentional deaths IF not caught in time, this end result is identical to all the unintentional deaths outside this judicial realm. Therefore, your objection totally begs the question, and is another straw man.

Additionally, you seem to be making some another distinction between these two societal spheres by saying, "…preventing the errors that cause death is certainly more difficult. A death sentence is imposed consciously by a small number of people…" If you're saying that it's more difficult to prevent errors that result from conscious life and death decisions, you're wrong! It's easier to prevent those kinds of mistakes because there are far fewer things that could go wrong, and we do have so many equally as conscious checks and balances in place before we execute a convicted criminal. Whereas, this is not the case with other unintentional deaths because there are so many things that could go wrong it's impossible to foresee all the contingencies, all the possibilities and all the various circumstances that could contribute to these kinds of deaths.

Finally, it's very difficult to get just two people to agree completely on any given matter, let alone twelve!
It takes an unanimous decision to convict, and this is precisely the reason why, i.e. the sheer difficulty of getting 12 minds to agree. It's extremely unlikely that a jury of twelve different people, who were carefully screened by the prosecution and the defense are going to conspire together (with all those different prejudices) to convict an innocent person.

To summarize, your objections are straw man arguments and beg the question because:

a) It's axiomatic that as finite beings, we will make errors in judgment in every single sphere of life.

b) It's also a given that many of those errors will result in unintentional deaths in all spheres of life, making the end results identical in and out of the judicial realm.

c) The judicial system's many legal checks and balances take into account virtually all things that could have gone wrong during the judicial proceedings, and these checks and balances are consciously applied before a convicted criminal is executed; whereas, outside the judicial realm, "the checks and balances" very often prove to be insufficient because the safeguards are too few or are in some other way inadequate, since the various systems cannot possibly foresee the manifold possibilities, contingencies and circumstances that would or could lead to unintentional deaths.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

smf:

>>
So, I've gotta agree w/ you..as long as I can't trust the local police dept's or have faith in the justice dept, I have to hope the death penalty w/ be abolished, and soon.
>>

Huh? Let me see if I have all this straight:

The woman is still alive, yes?

She's still pacing her cell floor on death row, right?

If the woman had been sentenced to life, she'd still be in the slammer waiting to be exonerated, right?

The justice system (with all its faults, but also with all its checks and balances) did discover the truth, right?

So, what is your beef with the legal sysgtem that has worked in this woman's case!? Why are you now against the death penalty when she hasn't been executed?

Boxcar

[smf]

boxcar,

As much as it pains (and bores) me to converse w/ you....

>>So, what is your beef with the legal sysgtem that has worked in this woman's case!? <<<<<<<


The woman has been in prison for 6 years and it appears that it's all been a BIG MISTAKE. Does that register with you?? It does w/ most everyone else, I'm sure.

She won't get those years back in her life (which btw has been thoroughly destroyed). The Justice system faltered here, plain and simple. Two jurors have been on the local news saying that if they had all the evidence given to them at the trial that they've seen in the following years, they would have voted "not guilty".

That matters not w/ the PD involved. Their attitude is "we have a conviction..job over". They c/ care less WHO is in prison. Just give them someone so they look good. Overturning the decision is not an easy job now. She's still in line to die.

The local authorities made their choice/ target early, stuck with it out of convenience, now are looking for ways to not look like the bigger idiots over in Dallas proper, who busted 2 dozen (mostly) Mexican- Americans on cocaine busts last fall, when the substance turned out to be (MONTHS LATER) ground-up sheetrock and pool chalk- dust. A total "inside job" at the DPD, with the arresting officers getting bonuses that exceeded 6 figures. Many of those busted were small businessmen and lost their businesses b/c they were in jail and couldn't run their shops/ stores. Some were jailed for months....FOR NO DAMN REASON whatsoever, apparently just like Darlie Routier.

It gets back to the local law enforcement's and the Justice dept's credibilty and/ or competence, or lack thereof (there's always doubt now). Whether it's corruption in Dallas, New Orleans PD's or NY, LA, or wherever, there are too many cases of injustice by the authorities for me to support the death penalty now.

[boxcar]

smf wrote:

>>
As much as it pains (and bores) me to converse w/ you....
>>

Take two aspirins for the pains. For the boredom, try skydiving - but wait for the aspirin to kick in first.

>>
The woman has been in prison for 6 years and it appears that it's all been a BIG MISTAKE. Does that register with you?? It does w/ most everyone else, I'm sure
>>

Then it seems to me that your condemnation of the legal system should logically end with its abolishment altogether, and not just the death penalty portion of it. Again, I repeat: If this woman had been sentenced to 20 years, 30 years or life, she'd still be in the slammer right where she is now - except not on death row. With a long prison sentence, would she be able to get "those years back in her life"? And if she had not been sentenced to death, would you have wanted the abolishment of all long prison terms?

From what you tell me, it appears that she stands a pretty good chance of getting her conviction reversed. From where I sit, I would, generally, applaud the legal system for working with all its checks and balances; while condemning the local law enforcement and dishonest cops, and calling for charges to be brought against the cops. But I certainly wouldn't be calling for the abolishment of the death penalty or long prison terms.

To conclude: The legal system isn't perfect. But what human endeavor is? And the human race's moral condition is badly flawed to boot. But even so, I just don't think it makes good sense to be tossin' any babies out with the dirty water.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

MarylandPaul wrote:

>>
Imposing the death penalty does nothing more than placate the victim's survivors and project the much desired "we're tough on crime" image on elected officials. It doesn't save money. Life without the possiblity of parole accomplishes what should be the only goal...removing that criminal from society permanently.
>>

Did you anyone ever tell you, MP, that you have a very dismissive attitude toward the death penalty? First, you say it's a "no-brainer". If it is, why has the death penalty been with man for so long -- nearly from the beginning of time? I don't believe there has ever been a civilization on earth that hasn't, at one time or another in its history, incorporated the death penalty into its judicial system. Even the Good Book sanctions the death penalty -- "an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, life for a life" and many other such related passages that speak to this issue. How bad can it be if the Almighty himself, in all his wisdom, has put his stamp of approval on the judicial practice?

And I beg to differ with you for the second reason you've dismissed it: It does far more than merely "placate the victim's survivors". It goes a lot deeper than this. It's not even about vindictiveness or vengeance. But it does have everything to do with justice! It has to do with an eminently just and fair penalty that fits the most heinousness of all crimes.

Murder, especially cold-blooded, premeditated murder, differs essentially and substantially from all other crimes. Murder makes all other criminal acts pale by comparison. A thief can take away a person's wealth; but that wealth consists of mere temporal goods, and are replaceable at that. A violent act can rob someone's health by crippling him for life, but he still has his life. Or a violent act can radically change a person's lifestyle for any number of reasons, but is life is still his own, and in time may learn to adapt to his new lifestyle. Or a violent act, such as rape, can steal the victim's dignity or sense of self-worth or self-esteem; but with time, love and support from family, friends, etc., even these qualities can eventually be regained.

And with all these kinds of crimes, a truly remorseful (and perhaps even repentant) offender can cry out to his victim. He can still look his victim in the eye and beg for forgiveness. But he can't do that when there isn't a victim around to listen, can he?

Murder, though, is in a class all by itself. Once a murderer snuffs out another human being's life, that act becomes irreversible. The offender can never make good. There is no opportunity to restore anything to his victim in any way, shape or form. He can never seek forgiveness from his victim. The very essence to any premeditated murderous act is the murderer's utter disdain and complete despise for the God-given inalienable rights and human dignity of his fellowman - in fact, for all men. It's also the ultimate slap in the face to his victim's Creator, who created man in his own image and likeness - something never said about any animal. Indeed, the murderer himself becomes something less than an animal, since it is extremely rare that an animal will kill for the thrill, fun, pleasure of it - or for some other perverse satisfaction. Yes, vicious dogs can kill, but not before they've been trained and conditioned for it…by humans, of course.

So yes, the ultimate and severest punishment possible clearly fits the worst crime possible against humanity -- the willful taking of another person's life. Only then is justice truly served.

Boxcar

[Tom]

I get your point. It seemed obvious to me.

[Lefty]

I've been in Nev. since 1976 and noone on death row has been put to death that hasn't "volunteered." Some of the guys been there over 20 yrs and probably will outlive me.

[boxcar]

Tom wrote:

>>
I get your point. It seemed obvious to me.
>>

I got it too. Here it is in a nutshell: SMF wants to abolish the death penalty because it's alleged that law enforcement and the justice system screwed this poor woman around so badly that she has already spent six years in prison unjustly, even though the same "broken" justice/legal system's built-in checks and balances were good enough to have discovered the very injustice(s) about which SMF is writing.

All makes perfect [non]sense to me.

I suppose if the legal system had executed this woman and this story broke afterwards, SMF would want to abolish the entire justice system?

Boxcar

[Tom]

Originally posted by boxcar
Tom wrote:


All makes perfect [non]sense to me.

I suppose if the legal system had executed this woman and this story broke afterwards, SMF would want to abolish the entire justice system?

Boxcar

As usual, you missed the point. But thanks for being consistent.

[boxcar]

Yesterday two commercial jets collided in mid-air over southern Germany, unintentionally killing over 100 people in one fell swoop. Initial reports seem to indicate fatal pilots' errors were the cause of the tragedy, as each plane dived directly into the path of the other.

I think I'll drop a line to Kofi Annan and strongly recommend that he draft a global resolution that would either abolish anymore airplanes from ever flying again anywhere in the world, or that would finally abolish human fallibility forevermore. In either case, more needless deaths of innocent people would be avoided.

I bet such a plan would have the support of at least two people on this forum.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Tom wrote:

>>
As usual, you missed the point. But thanks for being consistent.
>>

Well geesh, Tom, don't leave us hanging. Please "enlighten" us with that "missed point". Your pearls of wisdom have to be worth at least the price of a bus locker rental wherein you keep them stashed.

Boxcar

[PaceAdvantage]

The insults are really not necessary....I've seen how out of hand political message boards can become, and I'm not going to let the off-topic section head into that direction....


==PA

[smf]

Originally posted by Tom
I get your point. It seemed obvious to me.

Tom, What is interesting is that a cycling buddy of mine (since 1988) is a Narcotics Officer for the city's PD I live in. The guy is as trustworthy and honorable as the day is long and the way things are done in other local PD's narcotics depts makes him sicker than it does me. It lites his short fuse just to talk about it.

He's said a number of times in the past that in Dallas proper, if an officer asks to search your car after dark just politely inform him/ her that you w/ respectfully ask that he obtain a warrant to do so (emphasized *respectfully*)...scary stuff.

[smf]

Tom,

Check your private mail....all this BC talk of 17 yr old girls with leadership qualities better than GWB and now, 'bus station savvy' was too easy to pass up on... :) :cool:

[boxcar]

smf

>>
The guy is as trustworthy and honorable as the day is long and the way things are done in other local PD's narcotics depts makes him sicker than it does me. It lites his short fuse just to talk about it.
>>

Applying SMF-type "logic" to this problem, we'd come up with the solution that would call for the abolishment of all those narcotics divisions or even those dvisions' police departments -- provided the problem doesn't go deeper than this and extend to the local judicial system itself that might have its share of crooked judges, etc., in which case the judicial system would need to be scrapped, too.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

smf:

>>
Check your private mail....all this BC talk of 17 yr old girls with leadership qualities better than GWB and now,
>>

Yeah...here's another thing about that 17 y.o.: she'd be courageous and honest enough to have tackled the two questions I posed to you two days ago about that woman you allege was falsely accused and convicted. Puddy tat have your tongue, SMF?

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Have you ever seen an anti-death penalty protest with protesters milling around carrying their little placards? Invariably you'll find one or more that will read, "Thou shall not kill", as though the commandment had some real relevance to the issue. In similar fashion, SMF has come along (placardless but with a post) protesting the death penalty on the mere basis of an anecdotal account about some Texas woman on death row who allegedly got dealt a bad hand by some bad cops. What the sign-totin' protester and SMF have in common is that both are protesting strictly out of an emotional, knee-jerking, reactionary response to something they just plain ol' don't like. Neither of them has given any thought to conducting some research or investigation on the basis of systematic evaluation. For example, is SMF's account something other than a mere anecdote? Are bad cops doing bad things to good people all over the country? Perhaps these kinds of things are happening in epidemic proportions nationwide. But if not, then SMF and Supreme Court Justice Breyer also have a lot in common: Both have taken mere anecdotal evidence (recall Breyer's 96% Cleveland-only stat argument?) and have tried to make their respective anthills out to be something as large and significant and as relevant to an issue as Mt. Kilamanjaro is to southeast sector of the African continent.

To poignantly illustrate just how absurd these these kinds of red herring or even straw man tactics can be, it's only fitting that I contrast SMF's argument and solution to my own rather ridiculous U.N.- air collision analogy. But even so, by the end we'll see that my tongue-in-cheek solution was infinitely more reasonable and relevant to the real, overarching issue which is: Man's finite and fallible condition will never allow for human perfection; therefore, the only way to put an end to virtually all risks that could result in needless and innocent deaths, in any set of circumstances, is by the cessation of all risk-taking activities. But let's begin my examination.

1 - SMF's story was a mere anecdotal account of some woman's "close call" with her executioner; whereas actual plane crashes happen frequently (probably daily on a worldwide basis) and statistics would show, on a global scale, that hundreds (if not more) deaths occur annually as a result of those crashes.

2 - The death penalty, in SMF's story, had no direct bearing to the woman's situation because it was not the cause of her problem, nor will it serve as an eventual solution to it; whereas my analogy contained a real solution to a problem by calling for a permanent worldwide suspension of air flight, which would indeed result in many innocent lives being spared every year.

3 - In order for SMF's account about this Texas woman to escape the "anecdotal" label and become meaningful in any kind of death penalty debate, it would have to be shown, through carefully conducted systematic research and evaluation, that this woman's experience is not merely an isolated incident involving a death row inmate; whereas it is already generally known and accepted that, annually, many lives are lost due to plane-related tragedies all around the world.

4 - The core problem in SMF's story is not the death penalty, but supposedly crooked or careless cops in the law enforcement sector of the legal system who potentially could be responsible for the woman's death and even her 6+ years, thus far, of wrongful imprisonment; therefore I find it curious that SMF didn't call for the abolishment of at least all long prison terms as well, if indeed not the entire criminal justice system due to the potential therein for corruption or carelessness. Conversely, I recognize what the core, overarching issue/problem really is, i.e. man's fallibility and finiteness in all spheres of human activity, which made my solution to plane crashes eminently more practical.

5 - SMF wrongfully condemned the death penalty because a handful of cops temporarily bent or circumvented many of the legal/judicial safeguards, when the condemnation should have landed squarely and only on law enforcement officials; whereas my implicit "condemnation" of man's human frailties was right on the mark, since the human activity of air flight indeed causes many innocent deaths on an annual basis.

6 - Finally, SMF condemned the death penalty even though it appears that the bad or careless cops were unable to actually break through the many checks and balances in the legal system, as the story is now out; whereas with my analogy, I was able to point to a specific incident of how all the air flight safeguards in the world weren't able to prevent the tragedy over southern Germany, which in turn verified the premise to the real, core issue.

So, you see, Tom, I most certainly did catch SMF's [unintended] point, and many others -- which never would have occurred to either of you.

Boxcar

[Derek2U]

i think the death penalty should be abolished also; not because
murdering villains should be spared, but because its too divisive
an issue & what we don't need any more of is societal bitching,
one group pitted against another. Too many lawyers, judges,
policticos, activists fall on BOTH sides of this issue .... so the
simplest soultion is to abolish it 100%. Add to this mess the
more than occasional mistake & i cant think of no reason to
keep it. I think we should allow any prisoner the right to ask
for, seek, and get a death sentence if he (she) prefers and
of course, give the other bad guys huge sentences. But i really
think we just got to move ahead and try to unify this society.
We got many, many more important issues to tackle.

[boxcar]

Derek2U wrote:

>>
i think the death penalty should be abolished also; not because murdering villains should be spared, but because its too divisive an issue & what we don't need any more of is societalbitching, one group pitted against another. Too many lawyers, judges,policticos, activists fall on BOTH sides of this issue .... so the simplest soultion is to abolish it 100%.
>>

Hmm…the expedience approach. Tell us, D2U, would you also be in favor of taking this simplistic route with all other highly controversial and divisive issues in the same manner? Would you be in favor of abolishing abortion, affirmative action, the Political Correctness culture, multilingualism as the "official" unwritten policy in virtually every aspect of our society, sex education to the underage in public schools, class warfare tactics used by Liberals, government entitlement programs, etc., etc., etc.?

>>
Add to this mess the more than occasional mistake & i cant think of no reason to keep it.
>>

What evidence can you supply us with that would support your claim to "the more than occasional mistake"? How many innocent people have been wrongly executed in this country in the last ten years?

>>
But i really think we just got to move ahead and try to unify this society.
>>

That's easy. Shoot all the lying lawyers and divisive Liberals who only want to undermine the intent and historical meaning to the U.S. Constitution, and this nation would experience unity as never before in our history.

>>
We got many, many more important issues to tackle.
>>

Yeah…like where I should go on my next deep sea fishin' expedition.

Boxcar

[Derek2U]

i think your lumping 2 many issues. (1) Abortion is legal & the
courts have affirmed & re-affirmed a womans right therein.
But yes, I think its so outta hand, but would you endorse the
french pill, the so called "morning after" pill? And, BTW, I just
haven't decided if abortion is immoral, but I would'nt mind a
different approach. (2) Yes, I can't believe that the language
issue hasn't been revived post 9/11. English is, and should be,
this country's official language. (3) PC is a cultural abberation
and it sucks and I don't practice it in my personal life but at work
I'm a model PCer. (4) Affirmative Action sucks, but I do think
sometimes when we make a mistake its from good motives.
Back to CP .... there may be some crimes that are particularly
heinous and maybe we will devise a punishment suitable for
them, but I'm saying that there are too many issues that touch
upon CP and it makes for lots of problems & for what. So lets
just drop it & move forward.

[boxcar]

Derek2U

>>
i think your lumping 2 many issues. (1) Abortion is legal & the courts have affirmed & re-affirmed a womans right therein.
>>

So is the death penalty legal in most states. But..even so, the legality of an activity doesn't necessairly mean it's moral. Another case in point is prostitution in Nevada.

Just remember this: Right is right even when no one does it; and wrong is wrong even when everyone does it.

>>
But yes, I think its so outta hand, but would you endorse the french pill, the so called "morning after" pill?
>>

Other than perfume and wine, I can't possibly see how anything else made in France could be wortwhile. But tell me, anyway, please: How well does that "morning after" pill work on hangovers?

Boxcar

[Derek2U]

oui oui .... my only additions to your list of things french would
be french fries & a french kiss ...hehe