Climate models suck - It's the programming
in [Cobol]
|
From: Howard Brazee on 3 Feb 2010 10:56 On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 13:39:15 +1300, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >For myself, I'd rather have a person in control assess and do something >(even if it isn't necessarily the very best thing that could have been >done), than have some bureaucrat say: "Well par 12 Sub-section 26 says that >you can't do that..." as the enemy is tearing down the gates.... History tells us about other options that have been taken - namely, someone finding an excuse to gain power which is kept after that excuse is no longer applicable. I could invoke Godwin's law here. -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison
From: SkippyPB on 3 Feb 2010 11:25 On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 13:37:00 -0500, Tony Harding <tharding(a)newsguy.com> wrote: >On 02/02/10 09:52, Howard Brazee wrote: >> On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 13:36:36 +1300, "Pete Dashwood" >> <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >> >>>> Pay attention to the point: the Constitution states, black-letter, >>>> that people have rights. Such a denial of humanity has not, to the >>>> best of my knowledge, been legally codified. >>> >>> You are right, it hasn't been. >>> >>> My arguments here are predicated on it being axiomatic that inhuman >>> behaviour CAN be used to "deny humanity", and hence application of Human >>> Rights. >> >> I have seen no evidence that there are inalienable rights. Therefore, >> I believe I have an obligation to work at making sure that the rights >> that I value are accepted by those in power. Especially those in >> power who represent me and mine. >> >>> I know it is heresy, but it is certainly worth exploring. >>> >>> While this is not a strong legal case, it is nonetheless, how I personally >>> feel about it. >>> >>> (Actually, I wish I didn't feel that way, but the images of those burning >>> towers and people jumping off them, haunts me. It cannot be allowed to >>> happen and giving rights to the people who did it (and are proud of having >>> done it) just goes right against the grain. Whatever chance there may once >>> have been of me having any sympathy for their cause, evaporated when I saw >>> the means they employed.) >> >> I don't know that I ever had any sympathy for their cause. But I >> also am aware that every nation has committed similar actions, killing >> innocent people for their causes. > >Thank you, Howard, one has only to look at the no. of Vietnamese dead as >a result of the US war there after the French bailed, or the no. of >Iraqis killed since 2003, ... IMHO as intelligent, educated adults, we >must take a step back to see the whole picture and to reply with our >heads, not our hearts. > Just to clarify...the French didn't bail...they got their asses kicked out by the then unified Vietnamese. But your point about the number of innocents killed by the US (and others) in Vietnam is correct. >Pete, have you seen any of the photographs of past horrors inflicted on >various populations by the US, e.g., the young girl in VN whose village >had been napalmed? How about the wholesale use of Agent Orange to >defoliate a country? I agree, the visions of 911 are horrific; but >nothing we haven't seen before at our own hands. Any special feeling >regarding the administration who ignored the warnings that bin Laden was >determined to strike within the US soon? Regards, -- //// (o o) -oOO--(_)--OOo- "I am not sincere, even when I say I am not." -- Jules Renard ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Remove nospam to email me. Steve
From: Anonymous on 3 Feb 2010 11:33 In article <0r4jm5d28j80l35fqaigp4ehg2fbr9rk06(a)4ax.com>, Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote: >On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 14:16:08 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf(a)panix.com () wrote: > >>No, but three lefts do... sorry, cheap shot. If an enemy is defined by a >>set of activities and one performs said set of activities then it becomes >>difficult, if not impossible, to determine - based on activities performed >>- one from one's enemy. > >That isn't that often how we define enemies. More often enemies are >competitors who are similar to ourselves. Plural majestatus est, Mr Brazee... I barely know how *I* define things, let alone anyone else. DD
From: Howard Brazee on 3 Feb 2010 11:56 On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 13:39:15 +1300, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >As I mentioned in another post here, we all have 20/20 vision with >hindsight. With politics, I don't think so. Often times, both sides of an issue say "I told you so", but we can't do scientific type tests to determine which choice was really best. -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison
From: Howard Brazee on 3 Feb 2010 11:58
On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 20:03:27 -0600, "HeyBub" <heybub(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: >Criminals have these rights and a few more: > >* Indictment by grand jury (#5) >* Self-incrimination (#5) >* Due process (#5) >* Deprived of life, liberty, or property outside the law(#5) >* Public jury trial (#6) >* Confront witnesses (#6) >* Obtain witnesses (#6) >* Have an attorney (#6) > >Note that "the people" do not have the rights in the second list, only >criminals. For example, you can be compelled to present evidence against >yourself in a civil deposition. You do not have a right to an attorney in a >small-claims court. You can be incarcerated indefinitely for failure to pay >child support. You CAN be stripped-searched at an airport. Interesting. I was under the impression that those rights were for people accused of being criminals, which is not the same set as those who are criminals. -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison |