Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Lloyd Parker on 3 Jan 2007 06:52 In article <engfb1$8qk_001(a)s827.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <enbamj$6p7$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>In article <enb0v0$8qk_001(a)s957.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>In article <d5c01$45980c28$49ecf63$3990(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>[....] >>>>Does the US constitution extend its protections beyond our >>>>borders? >>> >>>This is the crux of the matter. It amazes me that the >>>anti-Bush people insist that all have to follow our >>>Constitution yet hide behind the European nationalist >>>skirts when it comes to paying for it. The US anti-Bushers >>>seem to want European law rather than US Constituional law. >> >>What planet did you fly that in from? None of the anti-Bush folks posting >>here have suggested any such thing. > >The people you are parroting do. If you bother to continue to exptrapolate >their logic, it's the only conclusion. > >> The US Constitution sets limits on >>what the US government is allowed to do. This was done to protect the >>people from the actions of an overreaching US government. The anti-Bush >>folks have been suggesting that Bush is in fact exactly the sort of >>"overreaching government" person that the founders forsaw and attempted to >>protect the nation from. > >The executive branch is not the piece of government that passed >the Patriot Law. There is no part of it that allows warrantless >wiretapping. So you admit what Bush is doing is illegal. >One of the things that has changed is the procedure >to get those warrants. In the case of global terrorism, the >target is identified by monitoring incoming communications. This >is not wiretapping. If the gov't is listening to calls, it is. >The techiques being used are undergoing >evolution, as all technology does when it's used for a new application. >It always takes years to sort out what is "legal" and what is not. >The Patriot Act is being changed as time goes on because experience >is gained. >> >>[....] >>>>> You should care. It is the very things that have made the US a free >>>>> country that are being lost. >>>> >>>>Then instead of simply talking about it you should be >>>>bringing a class action lawsuit. >>> >>>To use the US Constitutional rights would undermine their claim. >>>This one of those ironies that is beyond bizarre w.r.t. their >>>illogic. >> >>Is that from the same or a different planet? Law suits have been filed >>and some have made their way through the court system. > >Yes. and this is how our Constitution and legal system work. >Do you honestly think that any collection of humans can write >a perfect law that will apply forever and won't require any >changing? > >>This is how the >>kangaroo courts that Bush wanted to use on the captives were found to be >>illegal. > >Which captives? The ones like Padillo, a US citizen. >The ones who do not have rights under our >Constitutution? The ones at Gitmo do, according to the Supreme Court. >If you claim that those terrorists have >US Constitutional rights, then you are demanding that the US >Consititution apply everywhere, including Europe. > >/BAH No, but Gitmo is different. It's under US control.
From: Lloyd Parker on 3 Jan 2007 06:53 In article <enggrr$8qk_007(a)s827.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >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. You are a liar. Nobody has proposed raising the minimum wage to that. > >> 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
From: Lloyd Parker on 3 Jan 2007 06:50 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? Show me anywhere in the constitution or FISA law that supports your contention.
From: Lloyd Parker on 3 Jan 2007 06:55 In article <enghkv$8qk_001(a)s827.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <45999D6B.96DDFDF1(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) 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. >> >>So who gets to decide if they're an enemy ? > >The Patriot Act specifies who. No, it says the president can designate anyone, anytime, anywhere as an enemy combatant, and gives the person no way to challenge that. >Actions demonstate who are enemies. >Letters of intent give pointers to who is an enemy. And how can one man be given authority to take away constitutional rights? >> >>What happens if someone denounces *YOU* for example. > >As you people have denounced me in this thread? Nothing happens to me. >I do need to make a decision on whether it's useful to continue >to educate and learn in order to prevent messes from happening. > >> >>You can then be 'disappeared' > >I have no idea where you are getting this notion. You didn't >happen to watch a certain "Law and Order" TV show, did you? >Hint. Those stories are fiction and have started other >urban myths. > >>and you'll simply officially cease to exist. I >>believe this kind of thing was reputedly common in Communist Russia. > >I don't think I'll officially cease to exist. That means that >I no longer have to pay property and income taxes. > >/BAH
From: T Wake on 3 Jan 2007 12:07
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:engg2h$8qk_004(a)s827.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > 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. But you have used it in an USENET post now, so I assume from this point forward all your electronic comms are monitored. |