Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Lloyd Parker on 9 Nov 2006 08:29 In article <eivd0d$8qk_021(a)s839.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <%Ul4h.9702$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. Don't know who you heard, but Bush has claimed the right to wiretap without a warrant. > >> 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: Lloyd Parker on 9 Nov 2006 08:30 In article <eivd4n$8qk_022(a)s839.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >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 The law now gives the President the right to declare anyone, anywhere an "enemy combatant" and then to hold them indefinitely, with no habeas corpus.
From: Lloyd Parker on 9 Nov 2006 08:31 In article <eivdct$8qk_023(a)s839.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <eiteeu$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. Because the Dems can filibuster. Not because the Repubs don't have a majority. >He said yesterday >social security and education still need work. He never sent a proposal to do anything about SS to Congress. >So that didn't get >done. "No Child Left Behind"? >We probably will never know how many ideas taken for >vetting by Congress got nixed. This is all normal. > >/BAH
From: T Wake on 9 Nov 2006 14:12 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eiv4od$8ss_001(a)s839.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <b5udnSoHhb_ZEc3YRVnyrQ(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:eipusm$8qk_001(a)s900.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <u6adnW6SMJ3KqtLYnZ2dnUVZ8v2dnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>> > <snip--cleanup> > > >>>>>>First >>>>>>though, I though about which "Islam" could make such a decision. >>>>> >>>>> If this conflict becomes a war against Islam, all factions will >>>>> cooperate with each other temporarily. >>>> >>>>Possibly, but what are the chances of any conflict becoming a "War on >>>>Islam?" >>> >>> At the moment, I think it's very high. The goal of the extremists >>> is to convince all moderates that it is a war on their religion. >> >>Oddly, most moderates do not believe anything that the extremists say. > > That isn't odd; that's why they are called moderates. I am glad we agree. It also highlights how the Extremists are massively unsuccessful in converting moderates. What _does_ seem to work is the moderates being bombed, shot upon and invaded by people the extremists then claim are anti-Islamic. Amazing that, isn't it. >> As >>the west continues dancing to the extremists tune, bombing and shooting >>people by accident, it becomes easier for the extremists to convince the >>moderates. > > No, as these moderates see that there are people who will protect > them from the extremists, they will begin to say no out loud. Sadly, it is the other way round. The moderates see the extremists as protecting them from "Western Imperialist Aggression." The moderates see the extremists building things and providing care for the sick and wounded. They then get shot at by scared, jumpy soldiers who are in a country where no one likes them. Each time a moderate gets forced to lie on the floor while soldiers search their house, the extremists gain support. Each time soldiers, who are fed up being lied to and dumped in a place where no one wants them, get violent or abusive and it is shown on international news, the extremists gain support. The west is dancing to the extremists tune. Half the posts in this thread are an example of it. Islam is demonised already by a small segment. As people like that spread their hate and fear (using terms like un-American or Patriot Act to silence dissent) the moderates become more forced out onto the extremist region of their religion. The misnamed "War on Terror" is being lost every day. > They already are starting but they need time. The west is not assisting at all. >> >>> If that does happen, the Dark Ages will commence. >> >>I doubt it. While a global conflic would be devastating it is unlikely to >>turn the clock of society back to the ninth century - no matter how much >>the >>Religious Right may want that. > > Now study flows of knowledge. Stop being patronising then study history, politics and international relations. Add in a large helping of logic and sociology. There is no way to turn the clock back to the ninth century. Even global thermonuclear warfare would not achieve that. You would wipe out every last human first. You really do discount how much global knowledge there is, which isn't all stored electronically or in the three thousand people who died in WTC. >> >>That said, the "Dark Ages" were not a bad period of time compared to what >>followed. > > Compared with my life style today, they were bad. I do not > wish to repeat that history but I'm now certain we will. Based on your posts, the Dark Ages are not that much different from your life. I suspect you are thinking more of the Christian dominated Medieval period in Europe. That was bad. As for Asia during the "Dark Ages" - well, they were positively advanced. >> >>> Moderates need about 10 years to change this extremist trend. >> >>Randomly chosen timescale. > > Not really; it's actually too optimitic. Nonsense. What data do you have to come up with 10 years. Or any timescale. > That doesn't quite > cover a generations' worth of retraining the school systems > and start turning out kids who have learned skills that make > things rather than destroy them. I'm thinking of the span > of time from kindergarten to 12th grade and not even including > the college time frame. You are thinking along the wrong lines. >> >>> And that's being >>> optimistic. Schooling of their kids has to be converted from >>> learning how to kill and then die to learning how to thrive >>> under a society based on law. >> >>Islamic societies are based on law. It is a law which uses the Koran as >>its >>guide rather than the Bible but it is still law. > > And that law is currently being interpreted so that all people > who are not Muslim must be killed. Nonsense. Which nation applies this law? > Just because it's called > law does not, in any way, imply this coda agrees with Western > civilization's laws. No one said it did. Why are _your_ laws more valid than theirs? American law does not agree with UK law. Which is "right." > They are based on two different foundations. > The current conflict is the two sides figuring out a common > ground. The extremists are insisting there is none and will > kill anybody who taints their base. They are a very small minority.
From: T Wake on 9 Nov 2006 14:15
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eiv6u4$8qk_002(a)s839.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <45531D87.D2766E37(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>> >>> >Islamic societies are based on law. It is a law which uses the Koran as > its >>> >guide rather than the Bible but it is still law. >>> >>> And that law is currently being interpreted so that all people >>> who are not Muslim must be killed. >> >>No it's not. That is a complete fallacy. > > You haven't been listening to the extremists, then. > > I did not say that *all* of Islam has this interpretation. The conversation was about Islamic societies not about extremist factions, which are by definition a minority. There are Right Wing Christian groups who espouse all non-Christians should be killed. Does that mean Christian societies have that law? Do Christian moderates crumble under the pressure of Christian extremists or is that just something Islamic moderates do? > It doesn't, yet. But it's only a matter of years before > extremists of all kinds will have weapons that can interrupt > and destroy the world's trade. Nonsense. You have little understanding of the "robust" nature of trade. It is a centre point of all human history. > Do you want to prevent this mess from happening or wait until > it's in your lap. If you choose the latter, not only will > you have the work to clean up the mess, you will also have > additional work of trying to prevent it from happening again-- > which will be impossible. You have invented a "mess" then you demand people prevent it. Amazing. |