Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 9 Nov 2006 09:12 In article <%Ul4h.9702$r12.8296(a)newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:eislgp$8qk_005(a)s995.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> 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. > >In an ideal world, yes. However, you'd better open your eyes, because Bush >has been slowly dismantling a number of the checks-and-balances that the >Constitution sets up. Wiretaps without warrants issued by the Judicial >branch is one example. The last I heard that classification of wiretapping was checked by judiciary. > There are several others that I can't think of right >now because I'm tired and my memory is worthless before noon. Night owl. :-) I'm the opposite. Anti-Bushers like to trot this wire tapping thing out to prove that he is a bad person. It was part of the Patriot Act. The wire tapping does need an order but the process is different from the usual process. The kinds of wires tapped are very specific, including direction. However, people like to present this example as if all phones can be tapped at any time without any due process.
From: jmfbahciv on 9 Nov 2006 09:14 In article <4551EEA8.CD325E84(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> 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. > >You're saying he *hasn't* effectively removed habeas corpus ? For me? No. /BAH
From: lucasea on 9 Nov 2006 09:22 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eivbij$8qk_012(a)s839.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > > Keeping a whole country cages in perpetuity is never a solution. > It is a prerequisite for making a bigger mess later. See the > Nazis' history for an example. Clinton's answer to everything > was babysitting. And in your haste to indict Clinton, you conveniently ignore the fact that that particular "babysitting" was set up by Bush 1. >>It >>also worked very well in Germany - which if you haven't noticed is now a >>democratic nation where the Nazi party are outlawed. > > Huh? Keeping Germany caged is how WWII started. Nice smokescreen. He's talking about the same thing I was--Germany, post WWII. Worked quite well, thank you very much. >>One critical point is that, while lessons from history should be heeded >>and >>learned, it is a major fallacy to make assumptions that because "A" caused >>"B" in Country "C" then "X" will cause "Y" in country "Z." This is >>especially true when the two countries are populated from very, very >>different cultures. > > Humans tend to act similarly when it comes to survival tactics > and strategies. I thought you just said that the Muslims act very different than us, and we cannot possibly understand them. Which is it? Eric Lucas
From: jmfbahciv on 9 Nov 2006 09:19 In article <eiteeu$coj$1(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >In article <eislr0$8qk_007(a)s995.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>In article <eiq592$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 > >Ah, then you meant to say "Bush does not have a voting majority." > >However, except for immigration, what has the Republican Congress failed to >give him? Patriot Act revisions. Appointment approvals. He said yesterday social security and education still need work. So that didn't get done. We probably will never know how many ideas taken for vetting by Congress got nixed. This is all normal. /BAH
From: lucasea on 9 Nov 2006 09:23
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eivbm2$8qk_013(a)s839.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <4551EA1F.E3590169(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>> >>> >You cant have it both ways. >>> >>> Tying up the military in babysitting jobs is doing nothing useful. >> >>On the contrary. Sometimes it's very useful / effective indeed. >> >> >>> That seemed to be Clinton's style. I never understood it because >>> this approach did not work with Germany. >> >>Explain what you mean about Germany. > > Germany was put into a cage when they surrendered WWI. Keeping > a country permanently caged never works long term. Hmmm... Worked quite nicely for 45 years after WWII. Eric Lucas |