Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 13 Jan 2007 15:12 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45A93559.AFDE1EC7(a)hotmail.com... > > > T Wake wrote: > >> "MassiveProng" <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote >> > >> > You got a GriseTard that posts under several simultaneously. Why >> > don't I see any WakeTard remarks on him? At least I only post under >> > one at a time. >> > >> > Get lost, dumbfuck. Life is to be enjoyed, and you jacking off at >> > the mouth is far worse than any name I ever called anyone. >> >> Did I hit a sore spot? I have not seen Eric post under different nyms >> otherwise I may mention it. But as it seems your new nym remains as >> unable >> to debate as the old one, there is no real reason to continue debating. > > He was referring to Rich Grise who posts in s.e.d Aha. I don't read posts in s.e.d so I am not aware of any politics which take place in there :-) Still given my lack of interest in JoeBloe/MassiveDong, I don't think my lack of awareness matters. Thanks for letting me know though.
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 13 Jan 2007 16:03 On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 22:37:27 -0000, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >"Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote in message >news:l6hfq2hq3pl65gn8pceon4g8l0fbhvc9r3(a)4ax.com... >> On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 12:17:34 -0000, "T Wake" >> <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >>>"MassiveProng" <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in >>>message news:qe6eq25v7vr2l8gqjagd38781phaa5v4kq(a)4ax.com... >>>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 00:15:18 +0000, Eeyore >>>> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: >>>> >>>>> >>>>>The simple answer is that the terrorists are criminals and what's >>>>>required >>>>>is >>>>>international *police* action to stop it. >>>> >>>> >>>> There is. It's called the Worldwide Struggle Against Terrorism, >>>> >>>> AND IT IS A WAR. >>> >>>No it isn't. >>> >>>You do not declare war on things like terrorism any more than you declare >>>war on poverty or childhood obesity. It sounds good, it makes a nice >>>rallying call and fits soundbites. But it is not a declaration of war. >>> >>>Unless of course I missed the bit where the declaration was made official >>>by >>>a duly recognised authority. >> >> It's rhetoric from the administration with no other purpose at all >> than to give it an excuse it can use to justify anything and >> everything it does without having to make a rational argument to >> anyone about it. The really sad thing is that the rhetoric actually >> seems to gell with far too many here in the US. > >Aren't there certain conditions which have to be met before a "war" can be >declared by the US? You know? I had thought so in my earlier years. Honestly believed in the idea I was taught, that Congress declares wars. Of course, reality has a way of making one more circumspect about this issue. I already wrote some material about the debate about war powers for the president, so folks can refer to that other post for more details about those powers as planned for by the federal convention. However, they also never expected to see (and did what they could to prevent it) the idea of a standing army in the US. They were downright frightened of the idea and pretty much did everything they could to prevent any possibility of it. Several Federalist Papers are mostly dedicated to this problem and it was debated in various legislatures convened to approve or reject the Constitution. I think they honestly believed they had taken all necessary steps to prevent the possibility of a standing federal army and didn't believe it would happen. With that assumption in mind, the question of a president as commander-in-chief was reduced to only one of being the executive officer over an army formed for specific purposes by the Congress. And for that, most agreed that the president should be in command. But this was a case where the Congress had to first act in order to create an army (which takes money to do.) When the army exists all the time and is funded all the time, the question re-arises. And if they had had to face it, I'm sure they would NOT have permitted him such power. They simply didn't believe there was any real risk of a President running amok with a military presence in the US or elsewhere without Congressional approval and funding, since that would be needed in order to create the military that the President would then command. Since there was no standing army to worry about, a President couldn't go around fielding a military presence elsewhere without the time and Congressional funding approvals required. They felt sufficiently comfortable with a President being commander in chief during times of war __enabled__ by Congress. They felt that they had eliminated any risks of a President as commander in chief at other times, by removing the possibility of a standing, well-trained army which, to create, would require Congress to act. But on this last point, it turns out they were dead wrong. They hadn't removed the possibility of a standing army and they didn't face the question of a Presidency in control over a perpetual military force. Jon
From: Phil Carmody on 13 Jan 2007 16:25 Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> writes: > Ken Smith wrote: > > > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >Ken Smith wrote: > > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote > > >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > >> > > > >> >> Sigh! I see nobody trusting the President. > > >> > > > >> >After all the lies he's told and laws he's broken, who in their right > > >> >mind would ? > > >> > > >> It is well documented that some fraction of mankind is not in its right > > >> mind. Democracy tends to wash their affect out over the long term. It > > >> isn't the perfect answer because you can have the "one person one vote one > > >> time" situation where people will elect someone who will destroy the > > >> democracy. > > > > > >1930s Germany even ! > > > > Democracy only "tends" to not elect people like him. Without it, we'd > > have more of them. > > Thatcher ! I can put up with all the swearing and insults that this thread has had, but please - that's going too far. Phil -- "Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of /In God We Trust, Inc./.
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 13 Jan 2007 16:54 On Sat, 13 Jan 07 13:48:07 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <cijfq2p2jjodffl7agug7gie7e0f2ngbef(a)4ax.com>, > Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >>On Fri, 12 Jan 07 13:12:25 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>>>Agreed. The only argument I seem to be hearing here is that some >>>>folks seem to trust the current President enough to allow him to >>>>declare himself above the law and an uncontrained dictator in all >>>>issues where he decides he wants to be above the law. >>> >>>Sigh! I see nobody trusting the President. I see a few people >>>noticing that rpoblems are getting sorted out with interactions >>>between all four structures of the US govnerment: voters, legislative, >>>executive and judicial. >> >>I wasn't talking about people, per se. I was talking about the >>arguments I often see here, which amount to little other than that. > >I've only been talking about one problem in this thread. And I probably have noticed you talking about more than one in this thread. So we disagree. >I think >it's very stupid for people reading this thread to believe that I >trust Bush about everything just because I see him as the only >one in Washington who is dealing with this national security problem. But note that I didn't say "trust Bush __about everything__." You've just changed the point and, thus, made this a strawman. I simply said that some (and I sometimes include you here) seem to trust him. That's all. I was, in fact, careful to avoid the possibility that I might be seen to suggest that you _always_ trust him. It appears you didn't notice. >> I >>gave here a pretty good exposition of exactly why such arguments are >>simply wrong and dealing fully with FISA so that anyone can follow my >>logic and premises -- none of which you deal with I see -- culminating >>in my point, which was: >> >>>>The argument that Congress somehow implicitly authorized the NSA >>>>program when it enacted the Authorization for Use of Military Force >>>>(AUMF) against al Qaeda, Pub. L. No. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224 (September >>>>18, 2001), is without any merit at all. There is nothing in the text >>>>or in the congressional record or history of the AUMF to suggest that >>>>Congress in any way intended to permit the Executive to engage in any >>>>and all warrantless electronic surveillance in the United States >>>>without judicial approval or a showing of probable cause as required >>>>by FISA. More, the AUMF was decidely NOT a declaration of war. And >>>>even it it were, the explicit words only permit 15 days at most for >>>>the Administration. >> >>Which is, I think, a proper and almost inevitable conclusion from the >>facts. >> >>However, taking you squarely on your point, quite a few arguing here >>(and I sometimes include you in this group) seem to imagine that the >>President is right when he claims he is above the law. > >I have never said this. As I said, I sometimes include you here. But the implication is that also "not always." You don't say it explicitly, but implicitly in other ways. If I see you do it again (no, I'm not going to search around in the past just to make this point) and I care to point it out, I will. >And for you to read into my words that >I have said this is you having to have to categorize me in a certain >crazy state so you can continue to live in your fantasy land. We all have the right to evaluate and weigh what others say. You definitely have the right to say I'm wrong about you, though. No one but you knows your internal state of mind and no one but you can comment on it. However, I said "seem to imagine" and that means, of course, in the context of how I read you. Feel free to be absolutely clear and tell me that you feel these presidential signings where Bush places himself outside the law are always wrong. When you do that, I will have to admit my impressions are wrong about you. >> In doing so, >>you must be 'trusting' him. > >And I have repeatedly said that he is the only one in Washington >show seems to be dealing with the _real security problem_. He has made a complete disaster out of things, never ever explains himself to anyone, lies to us or else is so confused himself he doesn't even know better, and I have absolutely no idea at all why you believe what you just wrote here. It's manifestly wrong. >Now, >if this is trusting him implicitly in everything he does, then >you are completely delusional and illogical. That's just rhetoric from you. No, like I said earlier I never said you "trust him implicitly in everything." Those are your words you are trying to put in my mouth. Look back. In any case, even if I did believe that about you, trusting Bush implicitly in everything he does would make _you_ completely delusional and illogical and not me. But the reality is that my beliefs about your internal state of mind about Bush are fairly irrelevant -- all you need to do is say what your actual state of mind is and it dispels anything I might say. So feel free to be absolutely clear and tell me that you feel these presidential signings where Bush places himself outside the law are always wrong. >> Because it is certain that there is no >>other means by which such a rogue administration is being constrained >>when they choose to place themselves outside of law. If you agree >>with their approach, I can __only__ conclude that you trust them. >> >>That isn't and shouldn't ever be an acceptable thought to anyone. > >It is your decision that this is a rogue adminsistration; that >is what the Democrats have been trying to do...see Bush as Bad >so they can get into the White House in 2008. I'm not a Democrat and feel they have much to answer for, in fact. But I am able to think for myself, outside of what either party tries to tell me. In all my personal life and in all my reading about earlier administrations and the history of the US, I cannot think of a more authoritative or worse administration. This administration represents an abuse of power beyond any of the others and I'd thought that his father as VP under Reagan had almost taken the cake before. Do you remember Iran-Contra? Or the CIA involvement in shipping in cocaine for money as part of a triad policy to fund their wars in Central America? Or the savings and loan collape? Or the conversion of the US from the world's largest creditor to the world's largest debtor under one administration?? And these folks beat even that out. And they had a hard act to follow. This has nothing to do with Democrats, who were themselves complicit in much of the above. >Did you listen to their rebuttals to Bush's speech the other night? No. I don't ever watch TV or listen to the news. I always choose sources that require me to read and think more carefully. Haven't seen TV in 15 years or more, bought a newspaper in as long, etc. >None of them dealt with the real problem. That's none of my business. Bring your complaints to the Democrats. >All of them were >campaigning. Doesn't this elision bother you just a little bit? Now that you make me think about it, I really wouldn't care that much. Everyone in the Democratic Part __AND__ the Republican Party are suspect of such motives every time they speak, write, or travel somewhere. And does your comment here somehow suggest that you imagine that Bush wasn't compaigning when he spoke, perhaps? Oh, well. No matter. If I let those kinsd of things bother me much, I'd be in constant pain. What do you make of it? (I don't make anything much of it.) Jon
From: Ken Smith on 13 Jan 2007 17:49
In article <eo834m$8qk_002(a)s788.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <eo5kh2$gtn$3(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>In article <eo5c66$8qk_002(a)s814.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>[....] >>>They are not oblivious; these people are still thinking in >>>the old ways. >> >>No, they are simply unwilling to allow the wrong word to be applied to the >>situation. If you control the language, you control the debate. By >>calling something "a war", you are claiming certain things are true about >>it. If the thing being called "a war" doesn't really have those >>characteristics, using the term can lead to confusion. > >Then me a word to use that describes the fight to the death >between two civilizations. I call this war. I'm sure there is someone in a rubber room somewhere that calls a peanut butter sandwich a "lemming". This doesn't mean that we should expect them to start jumping off cliffs. The situation we have is nothing like a "war". You can claim it is a "new kind of war" but this just gets you into expecting your peanut butter sandwiches to start jumping. The stuggle against the Mafia is a far-far better model for what you claim we have. Others believe that the threat from the Islamic extremists has been massively overblown. They remember global communism adn the threat it was. It was a far greater threat than the terrorists and yet we survived. > It is European-style >thinking that has limited the description between two countries. No, it is the real world that applies this limitation on the use of the word. When a word serves only to increase the confusion of the reader about what you mean, it is time to stop using that word. >Islam didn't have the notion of nationalism until recently and >they still don't quite use this heirarchy for classification of >people groups. Until you understand this, This is another thing that you assume on no basis. > I guess you will >continue to ignore that this war[or whatever] exists. It is >not a simple conflict. You bet it isn't simple. It is not a major threat to the US. It is also not a war. >> >>The US can't send troops against this new enemy and force them to >>surrender. > >We are not doing this. Right so, it isn't a war is it. >> They don't have a capital city to bomb. Basically "the tools >>of war" are useless against them. This makes it far better to not refer >>to it as a war so people don't get confused about what is going on. > >So what do you call it? I would call it "anticrime measures". It is a better model of what will work and it calls them "criminals". [...] >>The real deanger to the US is not from a small group of people outside who >>wish to destroy it. > >There exists a mindset that considers anything having to do >with Western civilization an abomination. This mindset requires, >by religious edict, to destroy it and all products of that >civilization. If both guys that have this mind set attacked the US on the same day they would not be a serious threat. [....] >> The US is >>far to strong to be fell in such a way. The real threat is an internal >>one where the US commits suicide by giving up the things that make it the >>US of today. > >This is NOT about only the US. I wish you could broaden your >objectivity a little bit more. It may not be about the US but the US's actions are most of the problem. If the US would stop acting like a bunch of frightened children and look at the real problem, they would stop making it worse and perhaps help in making it better. > >/BAH -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge |