Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 4 Jan 2007 13:06 "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message news:itqpp29sjamikrggoj2u7eng3jng5lretq(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 03 Jan 07 11:55:22 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) Gave > us: > >>No, it says the president can designate anyone, anytime, anywhere as an >>enemy >>combatant, and gives the person no way to challenge that. > > In time of war, it has always been that way, dumbass. > > He can also declare marshall law, and beat down every door in the > country in a search too. You really are dumb. Even in a largely shallow thread like this you are out of your depth.
From: T Wake on 4 Jan 2007 13:12 "Lloyd Parker" <lparker(a)emory.edu> wrote in message news:enj8io$74m$5(a)leto.cc.emory.edu... > In article <itqpp29sjamikrggoj2u7eng3jng5lretq(a)4ax.com>, > JoeBloe <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >>On Wed, 03 Jan 07 11:55:22 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) Gave >>us: >> >>>No, it says the president can designate anyone, anytime, anywhere as an > enemy >>>combatant, and gives the person no way to challenge that. >> >> In time of war, it has always been that way, dumbass. >> > > We're not at war. Congress has not declared war. He seems to be aiming for a self fulfilling circle. In time of war the president can do what he wants and he can choose when "war" is declared. The war against obesity was obviously justification for martial law in any town with a McDonalds......
From: unsettled on 4 Jan 2007 14:00 T Wake wrote: > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message > news:277b1$459c3442$4fe7356$31499(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > >>T Wake wrote: >>>Something sold as crime prevention needs to prevent crime. When it fails, >>>finding a new use (in crime solving) is not something which can be >>>trumpteted as a valued reason. >>Oh come on. The mainstay of politics is selling "the big lie" >>and the bigger the better. > Yet is does not make it "right." Of course. >>"Follow the money." >>In the US we call that pork. > Really? What an odd term for money you have. In the UK we call it "money." > Sometimes it is called "cash" as well..... (;-)) The original term was "pork barrel projects." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pork_barrel > Earlier you said sacrificing freedom for safety was acceptable Let's accept that was the precise intent, I've written a lot of things in this thread. Not worth the research to get the exact statement and context. This seems to be heading into a good discussion. > - yet here it > seems to be you have to assume the government are going to lie. It is best to assume that government, in the context of elected officials doing the business of the government, is bound to lie if that's what it takes to get the current agenda legitimized. > In these circumstances, how can the electorate be expected to make a > reasoned, willing, sacrifice of freedom? Sorry to say that this statement has a built in bias suggesting that the electorate as a whole is capable of doing so if they have valid information. Sorry to say I don't agree with any such premise. Check the reading and comprehension capabilities of "average Joe" in your country, then look at the same stats in mine. You'll discover the facts are appalling. There's an article in yesterday's newspaper about the problems people taking medications are having because they do not read and understand well enough to take their medications as prescribed. No, not mental patients, the general population. If they can't get simple instructions right as a rule then how would anyone expect them to make informed choices about elections? > I agree that it should generally be taken as a given that politicians are > lying to you, but the average voter can not be expected to know the > technical ins and outs of each new policy. They have trouble at much more elementary levels than that. > As a result people come to rely > on "specialists" giving them advice - which is worse than a government as > these people are not elected, are not answerable to the public and are often > _selected_ by the government. That's a nasty job, but someone has to do it. LOL > I remember about 15 years ago seeing senior civil servants, police officers > and government selected experts telling everyone how CCTV would reduce crime > by massive amounts. There were occasional dissenting voices but the majority > of expert opinion was it would work. It didn't. [*] The expert opinion providers also stood to benefit from the installation, no? > Similar things happen the world over - the insanity which airport security > has become is an example. People _seem_ to think that sacrificing freedoms > automatically gives security and (for some reason) that security can not be > improved without sacrificing freedoms. Generally speaking while airport security is somewhat over the top we haven't had any significant difficulties since they were imposed. Saner approaches delivered to us a "shoe bomber". With that example in mind security makes it as close as possible to perfect safety on airliners. Heck, I always thought it absurd that US courthouses (almost all of them) have metal detectors and security almost as bad as airports. OTOH we've had a number of judges shot and killed while presiding on the bench. In Illinois a prison inmate mailed a federal judge a match head bomb he created in prison. Every weakness is exploited. In the Chicago instance the mail is *all* examined by x-ray in a secure location before being delivered to the judges. Before the bomb it seemed an overkill and wasted money. (deleted snide comment about the replacement value of a judge vs. money spent keeping them safe.) I don't like any of it, but I understand the need to take care, even if that care sometimes appears excessive. It is all against the spirit of constitutions. Personally I think Osama and his followers had the idea to shut off as much of the openness in western society as they can, bringing our living conditions closer to theirs as least in some ways. It appears to me to be somewhat convoluted, but then there they are, doing as they do. Osama et alia aren't clever enough to realize that all this is temporary. They're not going to be able to maintain their threatening ways over the long haul. Without that, we in the west will eventually revert to the status quo (more or less) before 9/11. It is almost funny that while we executed the guy with 80 palaces we can't seem to rid ourselves of a guy (who needs regular dialysis) in a cave. BTW, if you have any ideas on how to maintain airport or courthouse security without the fuss you really ought to write about it. Blogs are so easy to create these days that even a cave man can do it.
From: unsettled on 4 Jan 2007 14:05 T Wake wrote: > "Lloyd Parker" <lparker(a)emory.edu> wrote in message > news:enj8io$74m$5(a)leto.cc.emory.edu... > >>In article <itqpp29sjamikrggoj2u7eng3jng5lretq(a)4ax.com>, >> JoeBloe <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >> >>>On Wed, 03 Jan 07 11:55:22 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) Gave >>>us: >>> >>> >>>>No, it says the president can designate anyone, anytime, anywhere as an >> >>enemy >> >>>>combatant, and gives the person no way to challenge that. >>> >>> In time of war, it has always been that way, dumbass. >>> >> >>We're not at war. Congress has not declared war. > > > He seems to be aiming for a self fulfilling circle. In time of war the > president can do what he wants and he can choose when "war" is declared. The > war against obesity was obviously justification for martial law in any town > with a McDonalds...... LOL. Have you heard about New York City banning trans fats from restaurant food? http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/cardio/cardio-transfat.shtml There's talk around the US in other places about following the example.
From: Eeyore on 4 Jan 2007 22:04
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > > > >Part of the disagreements in this thread are real legitimate > >head on crashes. Some of them are the product of a significant > >cultural mismatch which perhaps neither of the two of you > >actually grasps. > > I know that gap exists. I'm working on trying to learn their > mindset. I have discovered that the reason people who think > European-style, w.r.t. culture, cannot comprehend how our > Constitution works, is because they have been immersed in > royalty-flavored thinking. It was always the case that the > roylaty were the ones who had the responsibility of dealing > with these kinds of problems (threats to their subjects). > They equate our President with their king or queen. Where on earth do you get such a hare-brained idea ? > >In saying this I am not taking sides, merely making an > >observation. I often disagree strongly with some of the > >stuff being promoted. I often don't bother to comment > >where the things I disagree with appear to have become > >an issue of quasi-religious belief. > > > >Hope this helps. > > This (differences) is one of the things I'm studying. Since > SOP of European thought is what happened in the 1930s, my > style is to study it and then try to figure out a way to do > mess prevention. Appeasement is a fact of life in European > politics and foreign policies. So that has to be taken as > a fact when thinking about dealing with this global danger. European policy is all about avoiding what happened in the 30s. That was the underlying reason behind the 'Common Market' that preceded the EC and EU and the Iron and Steel agreements that preceded the Common Market. Graham |