Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 25 Jan 2007 19:27 Lloyd Parker wrote: > In article <45B8CE4B.DE00B4A2(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: >>>> >>>> >>>>>And what about judges who have a political agenda and are >>>>>very willing to set bail so they can go about their mess-making >>>>>plans? >>>> >>>>Excessively 'political' judges seem to be a uniquely US phenomenon. >>> >>>A lot of them are elected. >> >>Judges here aren't elected. We would shudder at the very idea. >> >>Graham >> > > > You should. We elect judges here in Georgia, and it's a real mess. Georgia has always been a real mess. Next time you folks want to secede I think we'll let you.
From: Eeyore on 25 Jan 2007 19:28 unsettled wrote: > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>>Excessively 'political' judges seem to be a uniquely US phenomenon. > >>> > >>>A lot of them are elected. > >> > >>Judges here aren't elected. We would shudder at the very idea. > > > > Each US State has their own way of getting their judges. > > Federal judicial appointments are extremely politicized, with > Supreme Court justice appointments the most politicized of all. You could learn something from us in that case. Graham
From: unsettled on 25 Jan 2007 19:31 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > In article <6f37f$45b7d4b2$4fe74e1$20782(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >>Ken Smith wrote: >> >> >>>In article <ep7plh$8qk_001(a)s899.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>[.....] >>> >>> >>>>Or the defense attorney produces a legal loophole. That's >>>>what happened in Italy. Now, I have not heard if Italy's >>>>legislatures (or whatever they call theirs) has plugged >>>>the loopholes. England's response was holding people for 30 days. >>>>This is not adequate. >>> >>> >>>These "loop holes" you see are the rights of defendants to a trial etc. >> >>Usually they're mistakes made by legislators when they're >>drafting a new law. >> >> >>>You are arguing that the government should be able to hold people without >>>cause for as long as the government chooses to do so. >> >>I haven't seen that. Has she actually said that? > > > No, I haven't. They jumped off the deep end with their assumption > that these matters fall into the criminal category and claim > that this will deal with the dangers of these terrorists. What is > really puzzling is that their method did not stop their > home grown terrorists at all. Their methods allowed those people > to continue to make messes and they appear to be willing clean > up the messes. The never have gotten over Ghandi and their guilt for their wholesale mistrating of all their colonials for centuries. There appears to be some British sense that if they spoil their criminals the government will finally be better loved around the world. LOL
From: unsettled on 25 Jan 2007 19:33 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > In article <45B8C4A5.BCD7F27C(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> >>>They [Europeans] can afford to make >>>these errors because their governments assume the US will >>>save them with its military might. >> >>What do we need your military might for ? > > > I don't know. I suspect so the politicians can point at the > US and call us the bad people when things don't go perfectly. > Smoke and mirrors. We saved them twice in the last century. They've done nothing to improve their security situation since then, so eventually we'll probably have to save them again.
From: unsettled on 25 Jan 2007 19:39
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > In article <45B8C531.7FF0433D(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: >>>> >>>>> jasen <jasen(a)free.net.nz> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>Please measure the miles between Israel and the Mediteranean. >>>>>> >>>>>>0 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>Note the number of miles between Israel and the Suez Canal. >>>>>> >>>>>>about 120 at closest approach, 140 from Beersheba, 160 from Tel Aviv >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>Now consider that Iran does its atomic bomb testing on >>>>>>>Israel soil. How long do you think the Canal will be closed? >>>>>>>You may assume that Iran doesn't "miss" and take out the >>>>>>>core of Egyptian commerce with the same single attack. >>>>>> >>>>>>at that range? a couple of months. >>>>> >>>>>Possibly, if all political winds blow exactly the correct way. >>>>>I can't even guess the effects of no oil tankers delivering >>>>>oil for a couple of months. From Thatcher's book about her >>>>>government and the coal miners' strikes, England had about >>>>>3 months reserve. >>>> >>>>Of *COAL* ! >>> >>>Yes, child. If no oil is delivered, then your country >>>will have to use its coal reserves. Right? >> >>Hey Granny, we don't have any coal reserves any more. We import coal now. >> >>The genius Thatcher saw to that by shutting the mines. Did she mention that > > in > >>her book too ? > > > Yes. She wanted to shut the ones that weren't productive and > were costing lots of money just to keep open. The unions > didn't agree and shut down all of them with their strikes. > Unions never have thought long-term. When the US coal mining industry wanted to ply some profits back into new product research because they foresaw the demise of coal for home heating in the US, John L. Lewis, the head of the miners union, said no, the money rightly belonged in the pockets of the workers. He damned their future all right. Thatcher was right. It was, and remains, cheaper in the UK to import coal and to pay unemployment to former miners incapable of doing other work. Why was that? Was/is the standard of living in the countries from which UK imports coal so much lower than in the UK or did the miners price their jobs out of economic viability? |