Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 18 Jan 2007 11:13 Lloyd Parker 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. > > 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). Expect BAH to now suggest that the agriculture in California is about to collapse. Graham
From: Eeyore on 18 Jan 2007 11:16 Lloyd Parker wrote: > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > > > >Can you answer this one with a straight yes or no please? Would > >leaving Saddam in control have been less bad than the situation > >we have at present? > > Yes, definitely. Thousands of Iraqis would be alive, 3000 Americans would be > alive, we'd be a trillion dollars ahead... That's nearly 10% of US GDP. It's a damn serious amount of money. Oh well, added to the trade deficit, in for a penny in for a pound eh ? Graham
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 18 Jan 2007 11:28 On Thu, 18 Jan 07 12:51:28 GMT, 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. I knew what Lloyd was talking about. I was imagining that you don't. I've read a few Supreme Court decisions, enough of them to see the Justices referring to these treaties with other countries in making their decisions. If you may remember, there was (and is) some not infrequent complaining from various far right wing news services saying that there is something "deeply wrong with our Supreme Court system because they use 'foreign law' in making their decisions." It's considered newsworthy by many services to talk about this: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42889 http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-07-07-foreign-usat_x.htm http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50370 Just a few examples, including one about Scalia's comments. It's controversial, to say the least about it. However, the constitution is fairly clear about treaties being the supreme law of the land. The reason isn't hard to fathom. If a treaty were not granted this status, then what good would it be? How could our country's wish to negotiate a treaty be granted any seriousness, at all, if such a treaty would then be subject to state law and perhaps US law and the Supreme Court and any number of laws that Congress may later make? A foreign power would have no way to know if a treaty engaged in for good, serious purposes couldn't just be tossed into the garbage can in a year or two. And think about this in terms of our country's very feeble status in the world around the time the Constitution was signed. No foreign power would even bother with us, if a treaty were not given a supreme status in our own system. It would be a source of mochery towards the US and no foreign power would care to waste their time. In regards to the United Nations, its charter was set up as a treaty. The United States Senate ratified the United Nations Charter that was originally signed on June 26th, 1945 in San Francisco, as a __treaty__ by a vote of 89 to 2, about a month later on July 28th, 1945. This treaty (charter) is now the supreme law of our land. http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/index.html That's my understanding of it, right now. Jon
From: jmfbahciv on 18 Jan 2007 11:36 In article <45AE2C52.5FC660CF(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>>T Wake wrote: >> >>> >> >>>>What else can you treat terrorists as, other than criminals? They are not >> >>>>"soldiers" fighting for an opposing power. >> >>> >> >>>Certainly the way Guantanamo is run suggests that too. Soldiers should be >> >>>treated according to the Geneva Convention(s). >> >> >> >> This isn't a Geneva convention styled war. >> > >> >His stupidity keeps boiling to the surface. >> >> There happen to be a lot of people who think that, if the US >> plays by Geneva convention rules, the Islamic extremists will. > >Really ? I didn't hear anyone say that. You might try to read Carter's book. You might listen to Hillary Clinton. You might notice the places both she and Kerry have been visiting in the last few weeks. <snip> /BAH
From: unsettled on 18 Jan 2007 11:48
Jonathan Kirwan wrote: > On Thu, 18 Jan 07 12:51:28 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>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. > I knew what Lloyd was talking about. I was imagining that you don't. > I've read a few Supreme Court decisions, enough of them to see the > Justices referring to these treaties with other countries in making > their decisions. There's an inherent problem with any document, which is supposed to be the supreme law of the the land with specific methods required to be followed in order to modify itself then turning around and allowing itself to be modified by actions answerable to much lower standards. We could create and implement a treaty with England that we would respect their state religion as ours, for example. Our states have no say in such matters if it is a treaty. This is an awful loophole giving the federal government far too much power at the expense of the states. |