Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: John Larkin on 5 Oct 2006 14:04 On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 18:00:08 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >Robert Latest wrote: > >> ["Followup-To:" header set to sci.electronics.design.] >> On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 14:41:27 -0700, >> John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote >> in Msg. <k4a8i29r7fefoc7u4d8ja0k5psaubo2s76(a)4ax.com> >> >> > The history of Europe is the history of war. The earliest Greek >> > writings that survive are tales of war. Europe has been at war for >> > most of the last 3000 years, >> >> The history of the US is no less war-ridden than that of Europe except >> that it is much shorter. This is as unfair a comparison as that between >> a single nation (the US) with only two borders and a not very >> well-defined conglomerate of dozens of nations and cultures (Europe). > >Considering how the USA treated its indigenous ppl, I'm appalled that >mention should even be made of the history of war. Appalled that actual historical events should be studied and mentioned, because some other bad stuff happened somewhere else? Your reaction suggests a schoolyard-level battle over who is right and wrong, which sort of thing should be above people over the age of 16. If you want to get snippy, consider this: there are several times more Native Americans alive now, in the USA, than there were when Columbus landed in the Americas. And there is a tiny fraction of the Jews living in Germany than there were in 1935. John
From: Lloyd Parker on 5 Oct 2006 09:16 In article <kurtullman-F49EC0.10524905102006(a)customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx>, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >In article <eg32hc$5l0$6(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, > lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: > >> In article >> <kurtullman-8700B9.17512004102006(a)customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx>, >> 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. >> >> Bush didn't get warrants! > Read the next para which is a nice, coherent and well thought out >suggestion as to why one may not be needed. > >> >> >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. No it doesn't. If you're listening to Americans in America, you need a warrant. The FISA act seems clear as does the 4th amendment. Further, nobody has proven the NSA was only eavesdropping on overseas calls.
From: Lloyd Parker on 5 Oct 2006 09:18 In article <fk8ai2hhr2q700qcpmdb499i7i7sga8gpc(a)4ax.com>, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >On Thu, 05 Oct 06 09:41:24 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) >wrote: > >>In article <0h18i21ket4s0m5rkk8gckp0kk4oih33hh(a)4ax.com>, >> Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >>>On Wed, 04 Oct 06 14:48:36 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) >>>wrote: >>> >>>>In article <MPG.1f8db6b8105f0bb9989d69(a)News.Individual.NET>, >>>> Keith <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >>>[snip] >>>>> >>>>>Phones (of the domestic type, anyway) aren't tapped without >>>>>warrant. Get with the program. >>>>> >>>> >>>>Tapped? That's semantics. How does the NSA know a call is going to involve >>>>someone of interest? They monitor all calls and a computer "listens" for >>>>certain key words and phrases. >>>> >>>[snip] >>> >>>That's rarely the case, and not without warrant. >>> >> >>Yes, that is the case, and Bush claims he does not need a warrant; that he >>has the inherent power as C-in-C. >> >>>What NSA was doing was using computer perusal of telephone _records_, >>>"To/From" data. >>> >> >>No, they were monitoring phone calls. >> >>>From those suspicious records, taps were authorized by a judge. >> >>Have you been in a coma? The issue is warrantless eavesdropping. >> >>> >>> ...Jim Thompson > >You sure are exhibiting your inability to read. You must be a >Democrat. > > ...Jim Thompson Fact: The NSA has been engaging in warrantless wiretaps. To claim otherwise is either ignorant or a lie.
From: Lloyd Parker on 5 Oct 2006 09:18 In article <pp8ai25rbnqffaq63m7op8bkfqkb8n051t(a)4ax.com>, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >On Thu, 05 Oct 06 09:50:29 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) >wrote: > >>In article <v2c8i2tp1kf97gkk922mmi6brvb9iibqql(a)4ax.com>, >> Gordon <gordonlr(a)DELETEswbell.net> wrote: >[snip] >>>> >>>Had the 9/11 attacks happened during the Bush inauguration >>>ceremony, would this have been because of Bush's negligence and >>>ineptitude? How about the day after the inauguration? The week >>>after? The month after? What would be a reasonable cut-off date >>>for any responsibility of the previous presidency? >>> >>>Gordon >> >>Bush was warned repeatedly OBL was a threat. He ignored them. Read >>Woodward's book. > >Woodward is an opportunist. You must be a Democrat. > > ...Jim Thompson You must be an idiot. Bush praised Woodward's first 2 books, by the way. Further, Card and others have confirmed what he wrote. I'll take Woodward's word anyday over Bush's.
From: Lloyd Parker on 5 Oct 2006 09:19
In article <mr8ai292mf71q5nm1o2m5q2lutvj1h2e4o(a)4ax.com>, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >On Thu, 05 Oct 06 09:51:29 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) >wrote: > >>In article <lef8i2prust90bdlna6vmp1r0h9p7a7a95(a)4ax.com>, >> Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >[snip] >>>But I can record and then hand over to the government, no >>>sweat, no warrant, nada. >>> >>> ...Jim Thompson >> >>And it can be thrown out. > >Not in Arizona it can't. It's up to a judge. If you appear to be acting as an agent of the state, it will usually be thrown out. >You must be a Democrat, you're so ignorant. > > ...Jim Thompson |