Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Ken Smith on 11 Jan 2007 10:32 In article <v53bq2lqsi99hvfu939gh7f4m1i7cqopj6(a)4ax.com>, MassiveProng <MasiveProng(a)yourhiney.org> wrote: [....] > Yep. And it has one. A BLANKET WARRANT issued by concerned >Americans like me, and my duly elected officials. > > Is an image forming in your mind yet, chump? Yes an image is forming. It is one of the downfall of the US because of people like you. You are willing to see the end of your country and everything it stands for in the name of a little imagined safety. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 11 Jan 2007 10:35 In article <eo32dq$8ss_001(a)s1005.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <eo30jp$9oj$8(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: [....] >> The >>point I am making is that it doesn't matter. It is illegal to shoot >>someone who is going down the side walk on a pogostick. The law says >>nothing about pogostick based commuting. The people who are saying that >>the taps don't need a warrant would also be saying that shooting the >>person on a pogostick was legal. > >But your idea of tapping is not what is covered by the law. It might >be a desire of yours to have this happen, but it isn't yet. Commuting by pogostick isn't covered by the law. It is still not ok to shoot one. [.....] >If your idea was legal, then the only way to screen for certain >phrases would be for the government to have a blanket warrant. There is no need for the government to commit the crime of warrantless wire tapping. You seem to think that it must and therefor you look for a way to make it legal. It doesn't have to and it is not legal. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 11 Jan 2007 10:36 In article <eo5asc$8ss_003(a)s814.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: [....] >>I don't want the gov't monitoring conversations without a warrant. Neither >>did the writers of the 4th amendment. > >This doesn't happen in the US. Oh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You just changed your story. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 11 Jan 2007 10:39 In article <a6790$45a51112$cdd085b4$27887(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: [....] >> No, at least I am completely aware of how the actual signals travel. The >> point I am making is that it doesn't matter. It is illegal to shoot >> someone who is going down the side walk on a pogostick. The law says >> nothing about pogostick based commuting. The people who are saying that >> the taps don't need a warrant would also be saying that shooting the >> person on a pogostick was legal. > >That sort of depends on what the guy on the pogostick was doing. He is a threat to our very way of life. He hates us for our wheels and smooth forward motion. We know he has connections to the country of Poland. Poland has mobile spring factories and are stockpiling springs. I guess I'd better shoot him just to be safe. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 11 Jan 2007 10:41
In article <3e3bq2l2lffc8e84o6b63msfrsb9sp5ovr(a)4ax.com>, MassiveProng <MasiveProng(a)yourhiney.org> wrote: [....] > Have you ever seen a police dog take someone down? Yes, with reasonable cause. > > Where was that guy's trial? In SanFransisco. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge |