Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 7 Jan 2007 07:10 In article <61322$459fab4b$cdd08562$20256(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> In article <d206e$459e6ffe$cdd084a8$12688(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >>>For heavens sakes. The minute trans fat content is forcibly >>>reduced Crisco will fall in line. Currently their label says >>>1.5 grams per serving. The New York model allows 0.5g per >>>serving. Total fat in Crisco is 12g. They should be able to >>>achieve this reduction without breaking a sweat. > >> The talk in this state is not about reducing but banning. > >They can and probably should ban the artificial stuff. They won't >ban the trans fats occurring naturally in bovine products. You are making an invalid assumption. One stupid law will lead to another nonsensical law. > >> This is all noise so that nobody has to work on the real problems. > >It isn't, sorry. It is. Whole schools have been shut down in this region due to virulent infections. Dealing with that kind of stuff is more important than making possession of some food chemical illegal. > >>>Legislating what we eat has a very long conservative history. >>>Taxing it is even older. > >>>I wish government taxed trans fat sold at retail instead of >>>outright banning it. After all, its just another sin. > >> In case you haven't noticed, all food is already taxed through >> delivery costs. > >Nope. Not if you go to some farms. If those farms are making an income, they're using tons of stuff that is delivered and you are traveling to the farms to pick up the stuff. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 7 Jan 2007 07:11 In article <459FB034.F90D52B0(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> In case you haven't noticed, all food is already taxed through >> delivery costs. > >That's not a TAX ! > >Just how far are you prepared to drift away from reality ? Perhaps you should think about delivery trucks and the fuel taxes they pay so you can travel to a store using a vehicle that also uses fuel. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 7 Jan 2007 07:13 In article <459FA5BC.5CB9DD80(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> butter isn't really butter anymore. > >No ? Does it not come from cows any more ? Buy some butter. Melt it. See how much of the brick is fluff [there's a cooking name for this but I can't remember it]. > >> You think it's funny? Legislating food chemical content is >> new trick. It used to be set by a committee who, presumedly, >> had some education about these things. Now it's lawyers >> legislating the latest diet fad^Winsanity. > >Trans fats are chemically manufactured. > >It's not a natural FOOD ! Really? /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 7 Jan 2007 07:22 In article <enoqbr$74t$3(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >In article <eno667$8ss_005(a)s795.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>In article <enm0ff$6ka$1(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, >> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>>In article <enll0p$8qk_003(a)s965.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>In article <459DC24E.2A4AD092(a)hotmail.com>, >>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> When you use your wireless telephone, >>>>>> do you believe that conversation is a private communication? >>>>> >>>>>Once upon a time I never expected to be listened to by spies whether real >>or >>>>>electronic. That's for sure. >>>>> >>>> >>>>Then you had a serious reality filter. The Cold War mythologies were >>>>all about spies and electronics and stuff. The US embassy in Russia >>>>couldn't be used because of all the bugs. Hollywood movies are >>>>filled with people talking in the bathroom with the water running. >>>>Little girls learn all about how sound carries. >>>> >>>> >>>>/BAH >>> >>>How do you like Bush asserting he's got the right to open and read >>first-class >>>mail? >> >>During WWII all mail going and coming from overseas was read. > >Now we have laws forbidding that. These are peacetime laws. > >>Any sensitive words were literally cut out of the letter. >>My uncle married a Tunis who came from a town called Whitehall. >>So his letters would read that he was still in Whitehall which >>was code for a certain area on the African continent. >> >>Now, whether you like it or not, we are at war. > >The president cannot suspend laws just because he feels like it. There are war powers which are necessary when the country is at war. > >>The news >>reports have not specified which mails are in question nor >>any facts about this news bite from CBS. >> >> > >Bush left it pretty open-ended. All of these faux reports are done for the purpose of trying to get sensitive information public. It astounds me that people, who think like you, cannot figure out that publishing who is being tapped will be used by these enemies to make big messes. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 7 Jan 2007 07:26
In article <enq1pe$cuv$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <eno667$8ss_005(a)s795.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>In article <enm0ff$6ka$1(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, >> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >[....] >>>How do you like Bush asserting he's got the right to open and read >>first-class >>>mail? >[....] >>Now, whether you like it or not, we are at war. The news >>reports have not specified which mails are in question nor >>any facts about this news bite from CBS. > >It has been spelled out on several news casts. Here's the text that >causes the most concern: > >******* Begin quote ******** >The executive branch shall construe subsection 404(c) of title 39, as >enacted by subsection 1010(e) of the Act, which provides for opening of an >item of a class of mail otherwise sealed against inspection, in a manner >consistent, to the maximum extent permissible, with the need to conduct >searches in exigent circumstances, such as to protect human life and >safety against hazardous materials, and the need for physical searches >specifically authorized by law for foreign intelligence collection. >******************* > >Note that it applies to all mail of any kind. The claim is one of quite >broad authority since the definition of "exigent circumstances" is quite >wide. How are you going to make it more specific? Should there be legal handcuffs on inspections even if new types of containers are dripping powder or tick or can't be x-rayed or zapped to kill bacteria? ARe you really insisting that a law be passed for each and every new method people use to transport deadly materials? Congress can't pick which toilet paper to use within 12 months. You're being silly. /BAH |