Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 19 Jan 2007 08:27 In article <eomntq$a6g$3(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <eol8sc$8ss_007(a)s812.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>In article <eohgj8$rri$10(a)blue.rahul.net>, >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >[....] >>>I think you may be near the truth here. The democrats have not uniformly >>>been saying "cut and run". This is how the republican spin machine has >>>characterized it. They have been all over the map with suggestions like >>>moving the troops out of the cities and over the horizon and forcing the >>>Iraqi army to do most of the work, moving the troops to the border areas >>>and just getting the heck out. They certainly haven't spoken with one >>>voice. BAH however seems to think that they have. The obvious way that >>>whe could have gotten this impression is if she thought republican talking >>>points were "the news". >> >>Honey, I live in Massachusetts. I do know what the Democrats >>are saying and I do know how and when they begin their herding in >>any direction. > >I don't think you actually know what they are saying. I suspect you get >it second or third had. Uh, not at all. There is little "he said, she said" reporting when the marvelous politicians we all love speaketh. >By time the signal gets to you it has been >filtered. If you start with random noise you can get any signal you want >by applying the right filter. Perhaps you should listen to what these Democrats say, when they say it, like I do instead of the field tested sound bites that make it over your airwaves. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 19 Jan 2007 08:31 In article <eoo0ln$bib$1(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >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? You misunderstand what I wrote. These peoples' demands require that, if there is a difference between the US Constitution and the UN Charter, then the UN Charter takes precedence. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 19 Jan 2007 08:39 In article <ji5vq2htqol3agkgvq2ein35tognib0fc1(a)4ax.com>, Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >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. Lloyd, among others, are misinterpreting what "supreme law" of the land means. They think that the UN has vetoing power of anything the US Constitution says. That is how they are thinking. >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." Yes. This is another thing that needs public discourse. > >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. And supreme law of the land implies that a treaty overrides the States local laws; it does not imply that treaties can overrule the Constitution. > >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. You are right. I'm trying to undo some really bad assumptions in certain people. Remember that people who are not US citizens are also reading these posts. I've heard a number of hints that the UN should be the supreme law of the globe. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 19 Jan 2007 08:52 In article <45AFFB18.3858A933(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >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 $7.50/hour. >> >> >> >> OH BS. Studies have shown increasing the minimum wage doesn't lead to >> >> lower employment. And look at the many states which already have a higher >> min. >> >> wage than that. With booming economies (CA, for example). >> > >> >Expect BAH to now suggest that the agriculture in California is about to >> >collapse. >> >> It already has. Adding the burden of a minimum wage hike will >> make it worse. > >I truly don't believe it ! Now read the past few weeks' weather reports. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 19 Jan 2007 08:54
In article <eooim7$tri$2(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >In article <eoo8aq$8qk_002(a)s1231.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>In article <45AF9CC5.DD8A4533(a)hotmail.com>, >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>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. >> >>It already has. Adding the burden of a minimum wage hike will >>make it worse. >> > >CA has had $6.75 an hour since 2002; they voted (the people) to raise it to >$7.50 an hour starting Jan. 1. Did those wages include all agriculture--from planting to canning? >Are you trying to suggest CA's economy has >been collapsing since 2002? Besides the latest agriculture mess, you haven't been listening to news from California. They've been having a mess since Jerry Brown. /BAH |