Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Daniel Mandic on 4 Oct 2006 14:50 Keith wrote: > Right. I don't believe in any laws WRT guns. Hi Keith! What does WRT mean? Best Regards, Daniel Mandic
From: Homer J Simpson on 4 Oct 2006 14:58 "John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:30j7i2hn4js83prh69c9bu5om0bgjch3bm(a)4ax.com... > Learn to organize your thoughts before you write, Homer. Up your nose with a rubber hose.
From: Homer J Simpson on 4 Oct 2006 14:58 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:efvurj$8ss_006(a)s811.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > Which criticism was unacceptable? > > I don't understand you people; first you complain that he can't > think for himself; then, you object when he expresses his opinion about > something. > > You can't have it both ways. Can too. Criticizing Bush for his lack of thought is really criticizing Bush. Criticizing Bush for his 'thoughts' is really criticizing Cheney.
From: Lloyd Parker on 4 Oct 2006 10:49 In article <MPG.1f8db882374b5dc7989d6c(a)News.Individual.NET>, Keith <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >In article <eg0k2p$e61$1(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu >says... >> In article <MPG.1f8d91f2b6b5c0e8989d5f(a)News.Individual.NET>, >> Keith <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >> >In article <efugkv$4up$3(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu >> >says... >> >> In article <nrc5i2tq8jr4k99aqofmbbesm7em13ktok(a)4ax.com>, >> >> John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >> >On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 18:28:11 GMT, "Homer J Simpson" >> >> ><nobody(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker(a)emory.edu> wrote in message >> >> >>news:eftptn$c8p$2(a)leto.cc.emory.edu... >> >> >> >> >> >>> Tell me how many times the Bill of Rights says "people" and how many >> times >> >> >>> it >> >> >>> says "citizens." >> >> >> >> >> >>SCOTUS has said that even visitors have the rights of citizens when it >> come >> >> >>to legal processes. After all, you expect their homeland laws to apply >> in >> >> >>the US would you? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >Correct. But they also realize that the rights apply only when those >> >> >people are physically in the USA. Which is why some bad guys are held >> >> >elsewhere. >> >> > >> >> >John >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Well, Bush thought Gitmo qualified as "elsewhere" but the USSC said no. >> Then >> >> he held people in Europe, which is raising a stink there. It might keep >> some >> >> prospective EU members out even. >> > >> >Actually, no it didn't. It said only that Congress had some say in >> >the matter. >> > >> No, Bush claimed the detainees could not sue in US courts and the case should >> be dismissed. The USSC said they could, and heard the case. Not talking >> about the way of trying them; talking about the right to sue. > >No, it said that the Bush plan hadn't been authorized by congress, >but that they were free to do so. > >--- > Keith No, Bush claimed the court didn't even have the right to hear the case because they were held outside the US, at Gitmo. The USSC obviously disagreed, as they heard the case.
From: Lloyd Parker on 4 Oct 2006 10:48
In article <MPG.1f8db6b8105f0bb9989d69(a)News.Individual.NET>, Keith <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >In article <9VQUg.8418$GR.1968(a)newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>, >lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net says... >> >> "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message >> news:7s57i2h1e9t48lv1d8i1jmfdm9kj4b9iis(a)4ax.com... >> > On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 03:09:12 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> Gave us: >> > >> >> >> >>"JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message >> >>news:5pr5i2his5dccj9emaujrv65hmohk2j4h0(a)4ax.com... >> >>> >> >>> The real problem lies with the California version of a police >> >>> academy. They have no clue what is contained in the US Constitution, >> >>> and they ALL forget their oath five seconds after they utter it. >> >> >> >>Oh, you mean like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom from >> >>unreasonable (warrantless) searches and seizures? Yet you're OK when Bush >> >>ignores those? How about a little consistency in your views? Or do you >> >>just get on Usenet to insult and swear at people? >> >> >> > >> > You're an idiot. Show me where I posted a stand on anything about >> > Bush. >> >> OK, so what is your stand on his attacks on the Constitutional rights I >> listed above? >> >> >> < Also, name one US household he has sent government agents into >> > without a warrant. >> >> Well, since that's classified information, ya got me there, I can't give >> names and addresses.... > >So, you admit that you have only your paranoia as evidence. > >> However, the answer to your question is any >> household of which the phone has been tapped by the NSA. > >Phones (of the domestic type, anyway) aren't tapped without >warrant. Get with the program. > Tapped? That's semantics. How does the NSA know a call is going to involve someone of interest? They monitor all calls and a computer "listens" for certain key words and phrases. >> You're going to >> have to come into the 21st century and understand that searches include not >> only a physical search, but also electronic surveillance...or so common >> sense and the Supreme Court would tell us. > >You're paranoia is showing again. > |