Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Lloyd Parker on 5 Oct 2006 05:51 In article <lef8i2prust90bdlna6vmp1r0h9p7a7a95(a)4ax.com>, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 22:52:37 GMT, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman(a)yahoo.com> >wrote: > >>In article <peb8i2lf4af0irq171tqukscc9n0lec541(a)4ax.com>, >> Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 21:51:21 GMT, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman(a)yahoo.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >In article <HLVUg.13315$7I1.5654(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, >>> > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> >> I don't care. If you're listening to a phone call to which the phone in >>> >> my >>> >> living room is party, then as a citizen of the US, I demand that your >>> >> listening be carried out according to my Constitutional rights. >>> > >>> > Probably is. Under a warrant for a phone anything that goes on over >>> >that phone is legally admissable, even if the other person's phone >>> >doesn't have a warrant on it. It well settled that as long as one phone >>> >is legally tapped, any phone that calls it or is called by it is fair >>> >game. Since there are no restrictions on tapping a phone outside of the >>> >country, it would be legal tap. Thus anyone the phone calls or anyone >>> >who calls the phone could be listened to as noted. Would be a rather >>> >interesting case to make. >>> >>> And it varies state-by-state... it is legal in Arizona to record all >>> calls on your own phone, _without_ notifying the other party. >>> >>> All I need to do is push a button ;-) >> >> There are two different things going on here. One is what you can >>do as private citizen, which in AZ is that all are fair game. But we >>were talking about what goverment (be it under the mantel of cop-dom or >>spook-dom) can do. Whole 'nother kettle of fish.. > >Of course. But I can record and then hand over to the government, no >sweat, no warrant, nada. > > ...Jim Thompson And it can be thrown out.
From: Lloyd Parker on 5 Oct 2006 05:58 In article <eg2ouk$8qk_007(a)s829.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <z3RUg.8422$GR.463(a)newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>, > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:efvurj$8ss_006(a)s811.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <eftq1i$c8p$3(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, >>> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>>>In article <p1iUg.9199$e66.6609(a)newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>, >>>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>news:452198F0.A71D16AC(a)hotmail.com... >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> John Fields wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> You miss no opportunity to lambaste the US, its population, its >>>>>>> government, its institutions, and you hate its very existence, so >>>>>>> what do you expect me to think, that you're a benevolent soul trying >>>>>>> to help with constructive criticism? >>>>>> >>>>>> I thought it was fine under Clinton ! >>>>> >>>>>Yes, but you see, if he denigrates your point of view by labelling you as >>>>>someone that could never say anything good about the US, then he doesn't >>>>>have to take your point of view seriously and try to understand that >>>>>perhaps >>>>>it might even be a valid point of view, that an intelligent person may be >>>>>capable of coming to through independent thought. It's the same thing >>>>>the >>>>>Bush administration does by labelling everyone that disagrees with it a >>>>>"traitor" (under the *extremely* liberal interpretations that disagreeing >>>>>with your government is tantamount to aiding the enemy.) What they seem >>>>>to >>>>>fail to understand is that the Constitution gives every US citizen is >>>>>given >>>>>the *responsibility* to question its government *every single* day of >>>>>their >>>>>lives. It really is sad that the Bush administration has seen fit to >>>>>legitimize this sort of anti-American behavior. >>>> >>>>Keith Olbermann had a good commentary a week or two ago about Bush calling >>>>a >>>>criticism "unacceptable." >>> >>> Which criticism was unacceptable? >>> >>> I don't understand you people; first you complain that he can't >>> think for himself; then, you object when he expresses his opinion about >>> something. >>> >>> You can't have it both ways. >> >>Calling "criticism" "unacceptable" is not an opinion--it's an >>argument-winning tactic that involves tacitly silencing anybody who >>disagrees with you. > >The reason I asked for specifics is because I want to know if the >criticism the donkey is talking about is the same one that the >Democrats here are fanning as a reprehensible act. They are >in campaign mode at the moment and are pulling as many dirty >as they can without having to state their position nor be >specific about which actions they will take when elected. > >A lot of this anti-US fervor started with Democrat Presidential >candidates trying out their sound bytes in 2002-2004 in Europe. > >/BAH OH BS. It started with Bush invading another nation.
From: Lloyd Parker on 5 Oct 2006 05:59 In article <eg2od9$8qk_004(a)s829.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <VAVUg.13310$7I1.3298(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>news:452415BE.DB0DBC1E(a)hotmail.com... >>> >>> >>> Keith wrote: >>> >>>> rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... >>>> >>>> > And you think you can defeat 'radical Islam' with bombs and bullets ? >>>> >>>> I know there is no choice. Perhaps you want to submit? >>> >>> There is no need to 'submit' >>> >>> You're living in a perversely stupid fantasy paranoid world. >> >>It comes from the constant bombardment by Bush's fear-mongering--it's his >>way of keeping power over people. > >I think you should start to listen to Bush instead of listening >to other people supposedly repeating what Bush said. I would >suggest you start with his January, 2006 TV speech. > >> People start to lose perspective on what >>is happening and why. It really is a very powerful narcotic. > >People can also lose perspective if they assume that Bush >is always wrong So what has he been right about? >and is the cause of all ills which is the >only thing you hear from his political opposition. > >This causes a lot of people to overlook the fact that these >same politicians do not intend to deal with the threat >to the nation. > Bush has increased the threat. His own NIE says so. >/BAH
From: Robert Latest on 5 Oct 2006 10:10 ["Followup-To:" header set to sci.electronics.design.] On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 13:52:07 +0000 (UTC), Ken Smith <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote in Msg. <eg32m7$okg$4(a)blue.rahul.net> >>A surprisingly small number of Islamic extremists are actually willing to >>die for their cause you know? > > Their belief system encourages it with promices of virgins etc. The warped belief system of the deluded extremists does, yes. Islam itself doesn't. robert
From: John Fields on 5 Oct 2006 10:21
On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 20:43:04 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Fields wrote: > >> "Homer J Simpson" <nobody(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >> >"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote >> > >> >> They did break US law. There's lots of legal precedence here. If a >> >> Canadian kills a US citizen in Canada, that's a violation of US law. >> > >> >Don't care. It's a violation of Canadian law and must be punished under that >> >law. >> >> --- >> I agree. The crime should be prosecuted in the jurisdiction in >> which it's committed. > >So are you going to press for a change in US law ? --- Of course not. Why should I? -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer |