Obama

"Steve" wrote in message
ews.com...
Ahem.

"A 34-year-old Italian man who had sex with a 13-year-old girl has had
his sentence cut by a two-thirds because a court decided there was
"real love" between the pair...blah, blah.....

You want to give us something like a clue as to who this is addressed to,
why, and what it concerns?

Wolfgang
who, personally, thinks it's probably a cry for help or something.

"Steve" wrote in message
ews.com...
On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 12:28:56 -0600, "Wolfgang"
wrote:

Parity? Do you know what that word means?

par·i·ty1 /?pær?ti/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled
Pronunciation[par-i-tee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
-noun
1. equality, as in amount, status, or character.

go /go?/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[goh]
Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, went, gone, go·ing,
noun, plural goes, interjection, adjective
-verb (used without object)
1. to move or proceed, esp. to or from something: They're going
by bus.


**** /f?k/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fuhk]
Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation Vulgar.
-verb (used with object)
1. to have sexual intercourse with.
2. Slang. to treat unfairly or harshly.
-verb (used without object)
3. to have sexual intercourse.
4. Slang. to meddle (usually fol. by around or with).
-interjection
5. Slang. (used to express anger, disgust, peremptory rejection,
etc., often fol. by a pronoun, as you or it.)
-noun
6. an act of sexual intercourse.
7. a partner in sexual intercourse.
8. Slang. a person, esp. one who is annoying or contemptible.


your·self /y??r?s?lf, y?r-, yo?r-, y?r-/ Pronunciation Key - Show
Spelled Pronunciation[yoor-self, yawr-, yohr-, yer-] Pronunciation Key
- Show IPA Pronunciation
-pronoun, plural -selves /-?s?lvz/ Pronunciation Key - Show
Spelled Pronunciation[-selvz] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA
Pronunciation.
1. (an emphatic appositive of you or ye): a letter you yourself
wrote.
2. a reflexive form of you (used as the direct or indirect object
of a verb or the object of a preposition): Don't blame yourself. Did
you ever ask yourself "why"? You can think for yourself.
3. Informal. (used in place of you, esp. in compound subjects,
objects, and complements): Ted and yourself have been elected. We saw
your sister and yourself at the game. People like yourselves always
feel like that.
4. (used in absolute constructions): Yourself having so little
money, how could they expect you to help?
5. your normal or customary self: You'll soon be yourself again.
6. (used in place of you after as, than, or but): scholars as
famous as yourselves; a girl no older than yourself.
7. oneself: The surest way is to do it yourself.

See, that's what we like.......adult minds ruled by iron will and reason.


Moron.

Wolfgang
who sometimes wonders whether the increasing ease with which one can expose
them is due entirely to practice or, on the other hand, we are simply not
getting the quality of idiot that we could once rely on.

Steve wrote:
On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 12:28:56 -0600, "Wolfgang"
wrote:


"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The language is simple enough......leaves nothing that needs interpretation.


Really?
Exactly who is prohibited from infringement?
Does it override state jurisdiction?


Can I mount a bazooka and heat-seeking missiles on my truck? Can I
construct a nuclear weapon in my garage?

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

"Steve" wrote in message
ews.com...
On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 12:28:56 -0600, "Wolfgang"
wrote:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The language is simple enough......leaves nothing that needs
interpretation.

Really?

Yes.

Exactly who is prohibited from infringement?

Everyone.

Does it override state jurisdiction?

Yes.

See how easy it is to answer questions? Easier than trying to blow smoke up
everyone's ass......especially here.

Wolfgang

"rw" wrote in message
m...
Steve wrote:
On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 12:28:56 -0600, "Wolfgang"
wrote:


"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed."

The language is simple enough......leaves nothing that needs
interpretation.


Really?
Exactly who is prohibited from infringement?
Does it override state jurisdiction?


Can I mount a bazooka and heat-seeking missiles on my truck? Can I
construct a nuclear weapon in my garage?

Hell, you can't do anything without stepping on your dick with your stubby
little legs. I'd say go for it.

Wolfgang

"Wolfgang" wrote in
:


"Larry L" wrote in message
...

...Electing Clinton II shortly after electing Bush II will increase
the impression that we are really becoming a place of dynasties....

Oh, good grief. Does the name Roosevelt ring any bells? No? Adams?

Wolfgang
well, what can one expect in a world in which some local "sports"
franchise or other wins some parochial championship or other and
everybody starts to bleat about "dynasties"?




Not to mention the Harrisons...wait...I just did....

Steve wrote:

Ahem.

"A 34-year-old Italian man who had sex with a 13-year-old girl has had
his sentence cut by a two-thirds because a court decided there was
"real love" between the pair.

Antonio de Pascale, a butcher from Vicenza, admitted that he had a
four-month long relationship with the girl, who sent him a stream of
torrid text messages on his mobile phone.

His lawyers argued, however, that there was a "deep tenderness"
between him and the girl and that he had "fallen head over heels in
love" after a sexual encounter in his car. They said the girl had
consented to every action.
advertisement

The court in Vicenza accepted their opinion and sentenced de Pascale
to only one year and four months in jail out of a possible 12-year
term.

Because of a general amnesty for anyone who receives a sentence of
less than three years, de Pascale is unlikely to serve any prison time
for his Lolita-esque romance.

Antonio Marziale, the president of the Association for the Protection
of the Rights of Minors, said the decision was "execrable".

He said: "It is not right to judge whether or not a 13-year-old girl
is willing. The law should safeguard young girls who are too immature
to make these decisions against adults without scruples."

However, Simonetta Matone, a judge in Rome, said the law must "always
look to be reasonable in these cases".

She added: "Every relationship is a relationship and the real
maturity, whether physical or psychological, of the minor must be
weighed, with the help of experts."

The court decision has unleashed a wave of condemnation in Italy, and
even authors of teen novels stepped forward to caution their readers
against early sexual encounters.

Federico Moccia, the author of Excuse Me But I Love You, said: "This
seems a very strange situation to me. Obviously in a relationship
between a child and an adult, the adult has to stop himself. A girl
has to be able to value the situation, and a girl this young is
certainly not capable. My appeal to 13-year-olds is to wait for your
time."



uh...straw woman...g remember, principled decision-making. one
idiot doesn't establish an axiom.

jeff

"Steve" wrote in message
ews.com...
On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 15:13:35 -0600, "Wolfgang"
wrote:

Does it override state jurisdiction?

Yes.

By what authority?

From Article VI of the United States Constitution:

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in
pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the
authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and
the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the
Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

Wolfgang
who, though he never envisioned himself as a teacher of constitutional law,
finds the task rather less daunting than he supposed.

"Steve" wrote in message
ews.com...
On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 15:13:35 -0600, "Wolfgang"
wrote:

Exactly who is prohibited from infringement?

Everyone.

So state and federal regulations are illegal?

A strict constructionist would have to be an idiot to suppose otherwise.
Which is to say that strict constructionists are idiots.

Meanwhile, we can continue to play this game for as long as you care
to.....and that's just fine with me.

Or, you could grow up. Personally I find this the less attractive
alternative as it will deprive me of a plaything. Not that this will
produce any hardship for me.......I just like variety.

Wolfgang
who never tires of explaining the simple things.

"Jeff Marso" brachycentrus@hotmaildotcom wrote in message
. 97.136...
"Wolfgang" wrote in
:


"Larry L" wrote in message
...

...Electing Clinton II shortly after electing Bush II will increase
the impression that we are really becoming a place of dynasties....

Oh, good grief. Does the name Roosevelt ring any bells? No? Adams?

Wolfgang
well, what can one expect in a world in which some local "sports"
franchise or other wins some parochial championship or other and
everybody starts to bleat about "dynasties"?




Not to mention the Harrisons...wait...I just did....

It's true that Ernie and wayno are old enough to be dynasties unto
themselves but, to the best of my knowledge, they are not closely related.

Wolfgang
who won't even go into that whole legitimate transfer of power thing.