SuperJerk

Awesome. Somewhere a 12 year old boy is getting some really messed up ideas about women.

credit: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7120284/site/newsweek/

I like that idea, also.

But wasn't the whole point of Taboo Tuesday that it was unpredictable? If the WWE picks the title contender, it becomes just another PPV. I think the mistake was that there was no sense that the title might change hands.

Ricky Steamboat needs a DVD. Seriously.

Do you honestly think that eliminating the death penalty for children is equal to giving up on punishment altogether?

Ann Coulter Logic: -Liberal X said this statement/might believe this position/has this character flaw. -Saying this statement/believing this position/having this character flaw makes you evil. -Liberal X is evil. -All liberals are the same. -All liberals, therefore, are evil. Its the same attack strategy Michael Moore uses on conservatives. They're both idiots. Jerk, who do you see embraced more between the two? My embracometer is busted, so I couldn't tell you.

Yeah, you might want to rephrase that a bit. No kidding. Where the fuck do you live? Actually, based on my logic, they should lower the drinking age to 18.

I wish I'd have known that when I was sixteen. That way I could have touched a gun, then went and bought some lottery tickets, smoked some cigarettes, and gone to a tittie bar. WHERE? With their parents' permission, perhaps. Face it, folks, 16 year olds are NOT adults. They are not considered legally to be resposible enough to do any number of things, but its okay to have them EXECUTED?

Amen.

It seems as though Stephen Joseph is arguing against the very concept of Judicial Review.

Ann Coulter Logic: -Liberal X said this statement/might believe this position/has this character flaw. -Saying this statement/believing this position/having this character flaw makes you evil. -Liberal X is evil. -All liberals are the same. -All liberals, therefore, are evil. Its the same attack strategy Michael Moore uses on conservatives. They're both idiots.

So we essentially have a Constitutional Amendment that outlaws stuff that's already been outlawed? Somehow I fail to see the logical consistency in that. The Court's interpetation has already been established as changing over time. Look it up. Considering you hold Scalia in such high esteem, I wouldn't consider your opinion of what constitutes a "fool" to be worth much at all. I didn't realize that one of the qualifications for working at the DOJ was an encyclopedic knowledge and understanding of the origins of Constitutional principles. If it is, then I feel really sorry for anyone trying to get a job there as a janitor. Besides, if we're going to play the "I'm right because I have a job in the field" game, then let me point out that ALL the people on the Supreme Court with which you disagree actually work for the FEDERAL COURT SYSTEM, and thus probably have an even better understanding on how to interprete laws than you do!

That's actually the standard to be executed. Hence the insane aren't executed. Actually, I think its based on "Is this person able to fully understand the consequences of their actions." You might want to check your source on that. You're saying the only way to make sure states can allow it is to tell them they can't allow it. I don't understand your reasoning. Facts can be used to form opinions. In fact, they have to be. The court is, thus, clarifying that the law contradict's the Constitution. There's nothing wrong with that. Giving people the death penalty for crimes committed when they were under 18 violates the 8th Amendment, which bans cruel and unusual punishment. It is cruel punishment because our society has already decided that you are not legally an adult until you are 18, because people under that age have less ability to make rational choices. Therefore, by applying adult standards to those who are not adults is unfair (hence, we have juvenile correctional facilities). To KILL THEM for it is outright cruel. It is unusual punishment because not only do most countries not do it, but most states within THIS country refuse to do it.

The ruling IS based on an actual case, and there are people who this decision applies to.

Me too. I have to admit, the WWE came up with a great way to promote the HBK/Angle match.

1) An 18 year old is legally an adult. 2) There are also psychological differences. And you can point them out, right? Yes. I've had years of work experience dealing specifically with 14-18 year old teens, in addition to taking numerous child psychology courses both for my teaching certification and for my master's degree. There's no question that 18 year olds are further developed mentally than 16 year old. And I do not remotely believe that a 16 year old does not know right from wrong --- which was the long-standing standard. The difference mentally between a 16- and 18-year old is minimal, at best. Assuming you were, which I doubt, you are not everyone else. Therefore, what you say is true about yourself is not automatically true about the average person. And there is zero reason to believe that any 16-year old who doesn't know right from wrong could possibly be redeemed. -=Mike Knowing "right from wrong" isn't the basis of the psychological differences. A 7 year old knows right from wrong, but we wouldn't presume to execute them.

1) An 18 year old is legally an adult. 2) There are also psychological differences. And you can point them out, right? Yes. I've had years of work experience dealing specifically with 14-18 year old teens, in addition to taking numerous child psychology courses both for my teaching certification and for my master's degree. There's no question that 18 year olds are further developed mentally than 16 year old. Assuming you were, which I doubt, you are not everyone else. Therefore, what you say is true about yourself is not automatically true about the average person.

1) An 18 year old is legally an adult. 2) There are also psychological differences. Banning something is not the same thing as making a law.

The Constitutional basis for the decision was the 8th Amendment, guys.

I remember reading this last week. The Supreme Court's choice of rationale is questionable, but the conclusion was not. Please note that the remark about international opinion was only ONE thing cited, and not the entirety of the argument. SEE?

They couldn't resist the alliteration.

Wouldn't it be great if you could have cable, but pay a reduced rate to only get the five channels you actually watch? Sorry, random thought.

So, the question is who in this match is going to face Triple H at WM22?

I still prefer her to that Carmilla skank.