Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 3 Jan 2007 09:47 In article <enbfg7$qgt$4(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >In article <c64c8$45991a2e$4fe72a0$11039(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> In article <en90n9$5un$4(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>> >>>>In article <em3gds$8qk_001(a)s969.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>>[....] >>>> >>>>>>Are you really denying people in America are being listened to? >>>>> >>>>>Some are but none of it is warrentless. >>>> >>>>This is flat wrong. Many americans have been and are being listened to >>>>without a warrent. Bush claims that no warrent is needed. >>>> >>>>[.....] >>>> >>>>>>The military commissions bill passed recently denies people held the writ >>> >>> of >>> >>>>>>habeas corpus (check out what Sen. Spector had to say about it). >>>>> >>>>>Which people are denied? >>>> >>>>You are should you Bush happen to want you to be. >>> >>> >>> Why would he want me to be? >>> >>>>> Be very specific. I don't care what >>>>>Spector said about it; there was a campaing and election going on. >>>>>There still is a campaign going on. >>>> >>>>You should care. It is the very things that have made the US a free >>>>country that are being lost. >>> >>> >>> I see. You cannot list those who are denied their US Constituional >>> rights. Perhaps those who are being monitored under this law >>> are those who have no Constitutional rights? IOW, they are not >>> of this country but are an enemy of this country. >> >>This argument is simply one about just who "the enemy within" >>might be. We have plenty of those who are "of this country" >>actually, no matter what definition is used. >> >>As to the other discussion embedded in the thread: >> >>If a communication is capturable outside the United States, >>then it is up for grabs as far as US monitoring (listening) >>without a warrant goes. > >No it isn't. US law and the 4th amendment are clear on this. > >>Where the listener is sitting >>physically becomes moot. I don't think the expensive >>inconvenience of putting the listener on a ship outside >>the 50 mile limit, or in Mexico or Canada or some other >>place is going to achieve anything other than the cost >>of doing business. > >If you're going to eavesdrop on people in the US, you need a warrant. What >part of that do you not understand? > >>Once one establishes the fact that a >>communication can be captured outside the USA then what >>purpose is served by requiring that the listener be >>physically outside the US since constitutional protections >>afforded communications have already been negated. >> > >How? What part of the constitution allows that? The Patriot Act allows those monitoring actions. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 3 Jan 2007 09:54 In article <enbata$6p7$2(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <enb17e$8qk_002(a)s957.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>In article <en90n9$5un$4(a)blue.rahul.net>, >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>In article <em3gds$8qk_001(a)s969.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >[....] >>>You should care. It is the very things that have made the US a free >>>country that are being lost. >> >>I see. You cannot list those who are denied their US Constituional >>rights. Perhaps those who are being monitored under this law >>are those who have no Constitutional rights? IOW, they are not >>of this country but are an enemy of this country. > >I listed one that should matter to you. You BAH have been denied your >Constitutional rights. No, I haven't. It is only your opinion that I have, but you are wrong. > Bush has made the claim that he can listen to your >phone calls. In your opinion, perhaps you don't deserve these rights. He can listen using the procedures described in the Patriot Act if, and only if, I cause attraction to myself by talking about procurement and disbrusement of mess-making subjects. So I don't do that. I also haven't said the word bomb in an airport since 1975 or so. Has my Constitutional rights been taken away because it is no longer a prudent thing to say the word bomb when I'm going through security? Use your noodle. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 3 Jan 2007 09:55 In article <vjtip2pqh5ampi1rckamcaikviomtfq2b7(a)4ax.com>, JoeBloe <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >On Mon, 1 Jan 2007 15:55:22 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken >Smith) Gave us: > >>In article <enb17e$8qk_002(a)s957.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>In article <en90n9$5un$4(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>>In article <em3gds$8qk_001(a)s969.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>[....] >>>>You should care. It is the very things that have made the US a free >>>>country that are being lost. >>> >>>I see. You cannot list those who are denied their US Constituional >>>rights. Perhaps those who are being monitored under this law >>>are those who have no Constitutional rights? IOW, they are not >>>of this country but are an enemy of this country. >> >>I listed one that should matter to you. You BAH have been denied your >>Constitutional rights. Bush has made the claim that he can listen to your >>phone calls. In your opinion, perhaps you don't deserve these rights. > > You're an idiot. That won't help prevent the messes that are going to happen. He is parroting the current Democrat leadership without questioning their goals, motives and sanity. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 3 Jan 2007 10:00 In article <2f7c7$459af753$4fe4f0f$23899(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >JoeBloe wrote: >> On Tue, 02 Jan 07 10:41:55 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) Gave >> us: > >>>>Here it is again, international calls. > >>>Involving people IN the US. Without a warrant. > >> You're an idiot! The moment one places an international connection, >> one NO LONGER has ANY right to privacy on that comm link. PERIOD. >> It doesn't get any more plain than that. > >> Get yourself a clue. > >I generally don't bother with Parker because of >what looks a lot like selective reading. Or could >he actually be that stupid? Honey, I've been trying to tell you that a lot of people are that stupid, especially certain Democrats who are slated to run for President this year. Why do you think I keep writing in this hopeless thread? /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 3 Jan 2007 10:07
In article <1167795024.451323.271660(a)n51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, "Winfield Hill" <hill(a)rowland.org> wrote: >Ken Smith wrote: >> Americans don't want to pick lettuce. So long as there is a strong market >> for the labor with political clout, the fence won't be built or effective >> if it is. > > Plenty of Americans DO pick lettuce. But they don't want to work for > factory farms at $4 or $5 per hour doing it; they need $8 to $10 to > make it reasonable. And the newly elected Democrats in Congress are saying that the "right" amount is $15/hour. > It's a bit surprising to realize that this labor > cost difference would only modestly raise the final selling price. Are you joking? Do you buy your groceries? A moderate raise in the price of a head of lettuce these days is a lot of money. > And, if all the growers had to live by the same wage rules, for the > most part it wouldn't greatly affect their profits either. You know nothing about how much paperwork and accounting and overhead costs these days. /BAH |