Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Michael A. Terrell on 2 Dec 2006 19:03 Ken Smith wrote: > > In article <456A8829.8F518A36(a)earthlink.net>, > Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > >Ken Smith wrote: > [....] > >> Things like FM and 802.11 can be kept within the bounds of a state. In > >> that case, it is not "interstate commerce". > > > > > > Explain why WACX TV in Orange City Florida is required to block their > >signal from radiating out over the Atlantic ocean. > > Why should I? That would be perhaps helping the other side on the NHS > debate. If they can't argue that one with out leaving a route to the NHS > in their own logic, they will be in big trouble. To prove your self? To add validity to your hair brained attitude about the FCC? To prove that you are a man? Many other reasons, but you'll blow them all off, as usual. -- Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida
From: Eeyore on 2 Dec 2006 19:33 "Michael A. Terrell" wrote: > hair brained !!!!!!! Graham
From: Ken Smith on 2 Dec 2006 19:51 In article <4fd4$456f2b60$4fe73f0$30776(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >T Wake wrote: > >> "Ken Smith" <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote in message >> news:ekmr3e$prs$1(a)blue.rahul.net... >> >>>In article <6f64d$456af1d5$4fe771a$31908(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>>unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>>[...] >>> >>>>The druggie problem is usually a dual one. The largest >>>>percentage resort to crime to acquire the funds with >>>>which to purchase. Long term incarceration tends to reduce >>>>the crime rate. >>> >>>This could be an argument for simply giving them the drugs. It would be a >>>lot cheap than jail. A few countries have tried this and as far as I know >>>the sky hasn't fallen. >>> >>>[...] >>> >>> >>>>This is one realm where studies help. The government used to >>>>put out a triennial report on drug addiction. I haven't seen >>>>the last two or three. >>> >>>I think after saying "it isn't getting any better" many times they got >>>bored. There does seem to be a trade of roles in terms of which drug is >>>the worst. I used to claim that you could tell where the CIA was up to >>>something by looking at which drug got declared the worst problem. I >>>can't make crystal methamphetamine fit the theory so maybe it was just >>>coincidence. >>> >> >> >> Depends if you have a tinfoil hat on at the time :-) > >He missed the fact that meth labs are generally local so >the CIA doesn't have any involvement. "B" does not follow from "A". Just because it would be completely improper for the CIA to act within the country, doesn't mean they don't do it. It still doesn't really help the theory about it being an indication of where the CIA is at work though. [....] >There's a case to be made for the CIA historically having >involved themselves in illegal activies in other countries. That comes under the heading of "well duh". A great deal of what the CIA does in other countries is illegal. That is in the very nature of spying. >We don't know for a fact its true or not, but there was some >pretty substantial evidence for it at one time. We don't even really know if the CIA is an actual spy agency. They may just be a distraction from the real one. In the past, their building was labeled "Department of Roads". When they got their shiny new building and all those nice signs saying "Reserved for Spys", could be when they stopped being real. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 2 Dec 2006 19:59 In article <2986b$4571a248$49ecf15$14808(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: [.....] >Look, there's nothing wrong with being poor. Being poor does >not prevent anyone from being content and happy. If you had >been happy poor you still would be. That need not follow. Happy people will learn to do things they enjoy doing. For some of them, they will discover that someone is willing to pay them a great deal for doing what they enjoy. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 2 Dec 2006 20:12
In article <MPG.1fda23a7a002a53d989d61(a)news.individual.net>, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >In article <ekpetp$cdo$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net >says... >> In article <6d32b$456dc054$4fe7752$20089(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >> >Ken Smith wrote: >> [...] >> >> No, consider only the case I gave. The station in never going to be >> >> heard out of state. How does the FCC constitutionally get the right to >> >> regulate it, that can't also be used as an argument making the NHS >> >> constitutional? Several people have asserted that the constitution bars a >> >> NHS. >> > >> >You're missing an important aspect, interference with aviation. >> > >> >Same reason they regulate transmitter towers which don't cross >> >state lines either. >> >> That would give the FAA the power to control a narrowly defined set of >> things about radio stations. They would have no right to say anything >> about program content for example. The federal government sets limits on >> what is broadcast on KALW. > >THey regulate the airways because they're a public resource. I see no mension of "public resource" in the constitution. For that matter, the word "resource" does not appear at all in it. > >> I say that they can only have this power by >> logic that also allows an NHS. >> > >I say that's not logic at all, rather a leap of fancy. Yes, but then you say a lot of things. :) -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge |