Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 8 Nov 2006 08:17 In article <6ca90$455098da$4fe7725$6596(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> In article <62167$454e14f0$49ecf9b$23713(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >>>>I wish you would stop the namecalling bullshit. It's taking >>>>too long trying to find the cogent posts that I want to read. >>> >>>You probably ought to extend the same courtesy to a person >>>who is more on your team than not that you extend to the >>>idiots you're arguing with. > >> You waste other people's time and ASCII bit storage. And it's boring to me. > >This discussion, let alone this world, doesn't revolve around you. Children. > >>>>As a result, I'm missing important stuff. > >>>Perhaps you should understand that to others this is a >>>hobby. > >> In the case of this topic, it will kill them. > >In my case, and perhaps yours as well, something else >will take care of that. We aren't experiencing an >immediacy. You are wrong. There is an immediacy which is why I'm working here in this thread. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 8 Nov 2006 08:19 In article <45509EF9.BE1B73C6(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote >> ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message. >> >> >> >> My state is going to have an all Democrat political system with >> >> no checks nor balances. >> > >> >....and yet somehow you completely fail to see how unhealthy that has been >> >for the entire country. >> >> You do need to learn about Consitution. There are checks and >> balances working. > >Bush has been busy removing some of them. He can't. His powers are checked by the legislature and judicial branches of our government. All presidents have tried to do certain things. So far they have failed, as the Constitution designed it. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 8 Nov 2006 08:22 In article <eirjrn$qa6$4(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <eipsta$8qk_001(a)s900.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>In article <RRH3h.6197$B31.1642(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, >> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>> >>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>news:ein6vl$8qk_002(a)s943.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>> >>>> My state is going to have an all Democrat political system with >>>> no checks nor balances. >>> >>>....and yet somehow you completely fail to see how unhealthy that has been >>>for the entire country. >> >>You do need to learn about Consitution. There are checks and >>balances working. > >They don't mean Jack Abramoff is adding checks to the balances in the >republican's bank account when they refer to checks and balances. If the Constitution's checks and balances weren't working, these kinds of people would still be operating. There seems to be one of these types in the news and on trial about every two years. Clinton's terms had theirs. Regan's did. Carter didn't need others to make his messes. The fact that the ruling heads change causes keeps this kind of corruption from becoming entrenched. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 8 Nov 2006 08:24 In article <eiq592$qnu$5(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >In article <eipt15$8qk_002(a)s900.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>In article <454FA606.6BE1BCE2(a)hotmail.com>, >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >>> >>>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>> > >>>> > My state is going to have an all Democrat political system with >>>> > no checks nor balances. >>>> >>>> ...and yet somehow you completely fail to see how unhealthy that has been >>>> for the entire country. >>> >>>She doesn't think that Republicans require any checks and balances. That's >>>what's really scary as they gradually dismantlke the provisions of the US >>>Constitution ! >> >>The Republicans do not have a voting majority in Congress. > >Uh, they have more than 50% of the House and Senate. Except for the few >things the Constitution requires to be by supermajorities, that IS a voting >majority. No. You seem to think that all Republicans will "obey" the President and ignore their constituencies. They will not. So far, these politicians know which side their elective bread is buttered. I'm seeing this changing in my state. I hope it doesn't creep up to the Fed level. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 8 Nov 2006 08:25
In article <0d14h.8294$B31.2861(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:eipt15$8qk_002(a)s900.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <454FA606.6BE1BCE2(a)hotmail.com>, >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >>> >>>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>> > >>>> > My state is going to have an all Democrat political system with >>>> > no checks nor balances. >>>> >>>> ...and yet somehow you completely fail to see how unhealthy that has >>>> been >>>> for the entire country. >>> >>>She doesn't think that Republicans require any checks and balances. That's >>>what's really scary as they gradually dismantlke the provisions of the US >>>Constitution ! >> >> The Republicans do not have a voting majority in Congress. > >What planet are you living on????? Earth. /BAH |