Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Lloyd Parker on 18 Jan 2007 04:36 In article <eonqgg$8ss_005(a)s887.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <up7qq2915be8ep5rv69kfmrjv47e60f599(a)4ax.com>, > Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >>On Tue, 16 Jan 07 10:35:41 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) >>wrote: >> >>>In article <eoinhq$8qk_006(a)s961.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>In article <eogiqt$9v7$9(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, >>>> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >> >>>><snippage for poor bah's reader> >> >>>>>Actually, since we ratified the UN charter as a treaty, it already is US >>>law. >>>> >>>>uh...No. >>>> >>>>/BAH >>> >>>Uh, yes. Read what the constitution says about treaties. >> >>Good recommendation. They are the "supreme Law of the Land." They >>take precedence over most everything. The phrase there is, "and the >>Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the >>Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." > >Are you agreeing with Lloyd that the Constitution is subservient >to the UN charter? That is what he's implying and that is >what is underlying our discussions for the last two weeks; I >happen to disagree with his assumption, emphatically disagree. > >/BAH No, that the UN charter is on par with federal law. What in the constitution do you think is at odds with the UN charter? Are you suggesting Truman and the Senate ratified a treaty which is unconstitutional?
From: Lloyd Parker on 18 Jan 2007 04:37 In article <eons1k$8qk_006(a)s887.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <45ACE35A.FDA46239(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> Congress just passed a bill that cause all food processing to be >>> moved to foreign lands. >> >>Does this bill have a name ? > >I can't remember its title. What it does is raise the minimum >wage to $7.50/hour. > >/BAH OH BS. Studies have shown increasing the minimum wage doesn't lead to lower employment. And look at the many states which already have a higher min. wage than that. With booming economies (CA, for example).
From: Lloyd Parker on 18 Jan 2007 04:41 In article <eontsk$8qk_002(a)s887.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <45AF75A8.5650D04F(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>> >> ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>> >> > >>> >> >When you eventually throw off your misguided "European" issues, you may >be >>> >> >able to learn some new things. For example, the articles of war which >make >>> >> >up the 1948 Geneva Accords (which the US signed, remember) also cover >>> >> >civil wars (which are not nation against nation). >>> >> >>> >> And the enemy of Western Civilization hasn't signed any of those >>> >> agreements. Perhaps you should consider that and spend at least >>> >> three days considering that. >>> > >>> >Precisely which enemy ? A country or Al Qaeda ? >>> >>> There is no one entity. >> >>I'm glad you understand that at least. >> >> >>> >Al Qaeda has no formal legal standing so even if 'it' or whoever they >>> >designated as their representative did sign the Geneva Convention - it >would >>> >have no meaning in law. >>> > >>> >This is yet another problem with declaring war on entities that exist only >in >>> >some phantom way. >>> >>> Then you had better figure out how to deal with these phantoms, >>> because they are deadly and intend to kill as many people as >>> possible. >> >>We deal with it using the LAW ! > >And this enemy does not recognize your law. They consider >your law illegal. So they will never obey it and are actively >trying to destroy its infrastructure. > >/BAH > > So you'd prefer the police disregard the law because criminals do?
From: Lloyd Parker on 18 Jan 2007 04:42 In article <eonug0$8qk_002(a)s887.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <45AF7BE0.13757F90(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> > >>> >> Congress just passed a bill that cause all food processing to be >>> >> moved to foreign lands. >>> > >>> >Does this bill have a name ? >>> >>> I can't remember its title. What it does is raise the minimum >>> wage to $7.50/hour. >> >>That's not very much. It's less than in the UK in fact. >> >>Now, why do you think it will cause all food processing to be >>moved to foreign lands ? > >Because it's too much money to spend on labor. If food >processing can be done cheaper in other countries, the >food processors will move their canneries to those countries. > >/BAH Isn't that unpatriotic? UnAmerican? I'm sure you right-wingers will be accusing them of that, right? After all, you accused people who merely disagreed with Bush's policies of that.
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 18 Jan 2007 10:46
On Thu, 18 Jan 07 12:18:28 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <ifvnq25pdonj1eq57u1q2u9qm3apfqkmec(a)4ax.com>, > Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >>On Mon, 15 Jan 07 13:19:27 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>>In article <45AB7C5E.4BB0A12(a)hotmail.com>, >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >>>>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> >When you call it a "war" you make them soldiers. When they are soldiers >>>>> >in a cause against you the other governments can't arrest them. When >you >>>>> >stop calling it "war" and start calling it "crime", other governments >can >>>>> >arrest them. This is part of why calling it a war is such an awful >idea. >>>>> > >>>>> But nobody was arresting them, especially in Europe. >>>> >>>>We are now. >>> >>>And then letting them go because of legal loop holes. This >>>is utter nonsense. >> >>Some of the legal loopholes, as you call them, at least in the US were >>created because of horrible abuses of power by police earlier on. They >>were not created without some context. Do you not remember any of >>those contexts? >> >>Aside from that, what exact legal loop hole are you discussing? Or is >>this just some broad hand-sweep without any facts? Who is being let >>go, what is the exact reason, and why do you disagree with it? > >I cannot remember details. Italy had to let some terrorists go because >they said there wasn't any Italian law that allowed Italy to >keep them in jail. At the time, there were quite a few news reports >coming from Europe that were similar. I recall one from France and >there was soemthing from Germany. IIRC, Germany was the first >European country to begin breaking up these cells. Details are important, not vague recollections. Plus, even with the details, I need to know your take on them before its worth time to research them myself. I'll have to await that. >France didn't act until the field tests of urban riots happened. I vaguely recollect something here, but again need details. >Spain seems to be slow to respond even after the trains were >blown up. I remember some of this. What do you mean here by "slow to respond?" By this question, I mean both 'slow' and also what you feel was inadequate about the response. >I didn't understand that one but I got the sense that >it had to do with their long history of civil war and they >had to tread very carefully to prevent another one. Again, if you are going to make your point, you need to do at least a modest level of research to make it. That way, I can do my own checking and then try to see if I can look at what you see as a problem. >If my time recall is correct (which isn't very often these days), >this happened two, maybe 1-1/2, years ago. > >There are reports coming out of Indonesia where dealing with >these extremist organization is tricky. Certainly the ones >in Russia are problematic. We only hear news from that >one place but there's a former Soviet area that I'm told >is unstable. You know, jmfbahciv, the response from you that I'm narrowly focused upon is this: "And then letting them go because of legal loop holes. This is utter nonsense." You are making quite a sweeping statement that, were I to be making it, I would have first researched my belief a bit to verify that I could defend it well. What I see from above is not at all a defense showing me that you know why you said what you said. But instead, a response that tells me you have vague recollections and nothing particularly condemning in mind, at all. And if this recollection of yours is all you are going on for such a definitive condemnation, I'd recommend that you think a little more before saying such things. When I write, and after I say something in text, I look it over again to see if I can specifically recall details to defend those points. If I cannot recall enough to make a good defense, but think I'm right, I go research it before posting, so that they are fresh in mind and clearer and then adjust what I was saying to meet those details. If I cannot recall enough and cannot research it to refresh my memory, I don't post it. I respect the people I talk to enough for that much. Jon |