Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Lloyd Parker on 27 Nov 2006 06:11 In article <ekdfd1$906$11(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <4569F8E3.9C04DE39(a)hotmail.com>, >Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>John Fields wrote: >> >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> > >>> >> When they talk about capitalism, it isn't our definition and >>> >> we get in fights. What seems even odder, Europeans call >>> >> the thingie we call socialism, capitalism. I haven't explored >>> >> this further. So add a grain of salt. >>> > >>> >There is no such confusion other than in your interpretation of the >>meanings of >>> >the word. There is no socialist party in the USA btw. >>> >>> --- >>> What's this, then? >>> >>> http://sp-usa.org/ >> >>Do they have any elected representatives ? > >Bernie Sanders aint chopped liver. > > But he's not a member of the Socialist (capital S) party -- he's an Independent.
From: unsettled on 27 Nov 2006 12:06 Lloyd Parker wrote: > In article <d6db5$4568f041$4fe7791$11303(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >>Phineas T Puddleduck wrote: >> >> >>>In article <FOCdnQH6YZ2HQvXYRVnyrQ(a)pipex.net>, >>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>Well, not so much idiot but total lack of _any_ grasp of History. It has >>>>been a fair while since our monarch had "absolute power." >>> >>> >>>If one of course wanted to be totally picky and vindictive, you could >>>point out it was not that much further after the US was founded. >>> >> >>Magna Carta limited the power of the king in 1215. >> > > > It also only empowered the nobility, not the common folk. That came much > later. > Not really, the essence was there in the 12th century which thus predated Magna Carta: "Blackstone cites the first recorded usage of habeas corpus in 1305, in the reign of King Edward I. However, other writs were issued with the same effect as early as the reign of Henry II in the 12th century. Winston Churchill, in his chapter on the English Common Law in The Birth of Britain, explains the process thus: "Only the King had a right to summon a jury. Henry accordingly did not grant it to private courts...But all this was only a first step. Henry also had to provide means whereby the litigant, eager for royal justice, could remove his case out of the court of his lord into the court of the King. The device which Henry used was the royal writ...and any man who could by some fiction fit his own case to the wording of one of the royal writs might claim the King's justice. " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus The short version is that the King was not free to do as he would with his subjects. >>It was more than 5 more centuries before the US was founded. >>But you're Welsh, so what would you know.... The basics were in place well before the birth of the US. In fact, one of the complaints on this side of the pond was that Englishmen in the Americas were not being afforded the same justice they were due in England proper. There was a lot of dissent about the revolution over this issue. Had George Rex extended the same protections to the American colonies there might never have been a revolution at all.
From: unsettled on 27 Nov 2006 12:15 Ben Newsam wrote: > On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 17:48:44 -0000, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >>"YD" <ydtechHAT(a)techie.com> wrote in message >>news:l8ukl293srote1hpn3ipljupe27qggjbgl(a)4ax.com... >> >>>So, have the lot of you reached a consensus, does jihad need >>>scientists or not? >>> >>>- YD, just throwing some spanners in the works. >> >>You need to give it a few more weeks. There haven't been enough posts to >>come to an answer yet. > > > So, come on everybody! Get posting! We've a couple of thousand to go > yet! Forget Jihad, I think *we* have a shortage of scientists.
From: unsettled on 27 Nov 2006 12:17 Lloyd Parker wrote: > In article <e4ba5$4569fea8$4fe7485$23334(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >>Ken Smith wrote: >> >> >>>In article <C18DE6C3.4E65C%dbowey(a)comcast.net>, >>>Don Bowey <dbowey(a)comcast.net> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>On 11/25/06 9:31 AM, in article ek9uln$lag$9(a)blue.rahul.net, "Ken Smith" >>>><kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>In article <MPG.1fd11c17f0518b5a989c65(a)news.individual.net>, >>>>>krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >>>>>[.....] >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Whether you like it or not, radio is an interstate issue. Perhaps >>>>>>there should be some local control for ultra=-low power, but other >>>>>>than that 50 FCCs would be a nightmare. Can you imagine getting 50 >>>>>>certifications for a piece of gear? >>>>> >>>>>I like radio just fine. >>>>> >>>>>Is radio "interstate commerce" if the broadcast can't be heard in another >>>>>state? If not, I don't think the constitution gives the federal >>>>>government preemptive control. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>Since the FCC DOES coordinate and regulate all forms of radio transmission, >>>>what is the purpose of your post? >>>> >>>>Perhaps the problem is with your understanding. >>> >>> >>>No, the question goes to a core issue. A FM station in SanFransisco is >>>not "interstate" but is controlled by the FCC. Under some peoples reading >>>of the constitution, it should not be. >> >>I'm sure you can make a good case for that, however >>it belongs to a reguated class, so it is actually the >>definition of the class that you'd be fighting. It >>gets to be a hairy battle. >> >>OTOH there's also the argument that it affects interstate >>commerce. >> >> > > Sure, and the USSC used that argument to uphold the feds overruling states > which passed medical marijuana laws -- even if the marijuana is grown and used > within a state. I don't mind of you smoke the stuff, your brain is mush already. Just don't get caught.
From: unsettled on 27 Nov 2006 12:17
Lloyd Parker wrote: > In article <ekdfd1$906$11(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: > >>In article <4569F8E3.9C04DE39(a)hotmail.com>, >>Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>>John Fields wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>When they talk about capitalism, it isn't our definition and >>>>>>we get in fights. What seems even odder, Europeans call >>>>>>the thingie we call socialism, capitalism. I haven't explored >>>>>>this further. So add a grain of salt. >>>>> >>>>>There is no such confusion other than in your interpretation of the >>> >>>meanings of >>> >>>>>the word. There is no socialist party in the USA btw. >>>> >>>>--- >>>>What's this, then? >>>> >>>>http://sp-usa.org/ >>> >>>Do they have any elected representatives ? >> >>Bernie Sanders aint chopped liver. >> >> > > But he's not a member of the Socialist (capital S) party -- he's an > Independent. How do you know he hasn't paid his dues? |