Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Kurt Ullman on 5 Oct 2006 15:21 In article <ilcVg.51612$E67.1830(a)clgrps13>, "Homer J Simpson" <nobody(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > "Kurt Ullman" <kurtullman(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:kurtullman-778428.14283305102006(a)customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx.. > . > > > But running a prostitution ring out of your house is generally > > frowned upon outside of certain circles. > > And yet the prostitutes in charge of the White House act with impunity and > compete scorn for the law. One of the weakest attempts at deflecting a statement that I have seen in awhile. You wanna mulligan to see if you can do better.
From: T Wake on 5 Oct 2006 15:24 "Keith" <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote in message news:MPG.1f8ef65cbe85b44c989d94(a)News.Individual.NET... > In article <mOqdnZ3atv90gbnYnZ2dnUVZ8qadnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, > usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com says... >> >> "Keith" <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote in message >> news:MPG.1f8dd1a463fccb53989d76(a)News.Individual.NET... >> > In article <IjTUg.51404$E67.14436(a)clgrps13>, nobody(a)nowhere.com >> > says... >> >> >> >> "Keith" <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote in message >> >> news:MPG.1f8db6b8105f0bb9989d69(a)News.Individual.NET... >> >> >> >> > Phones (of the domestic type, anyway) aren't tapped without >> >> > warrant. Get with the program. >> >> >> >> How would you ever know? >> >> >> > *You*don't know, so you assume thay are. Your tinfoil hat is >> > slipping. >> >> >> You _don't_ know so you assume they aren't. > > I've never been to the moon either, but I assume its not made of > green cheese. If you have proof otherwise, I'll listen. You are purporting an argument based on a pure logical fallacy and backing it up with an appeal to ridicule to dismiss criticism. Well done. You have made an assumption which is different to some one else. You dismiss their assumption because it is an assumption and you demand _your_ assumption be treated as more valid. As I said, well done. Your debating skills are second to none. >> Interesting stand off. Have to hope the oversight committees have the >> same >> level of constitutional values you do, but even if they don't you will >> never >> know so the stand off continues. > > You're an idiot. I've been called one enough times it must be true. Doesn't mean anything I said was wrong and as you seem to have no other argument to defend your opposition position, can I assume I was correct here? > You have no idea what my "Constitutional values" > are. Nope but I had given you the benefit of the doubt and assumed yours were in keeping with the mainstream. I now see by your response that you feel your "opinion" is more important and valid than anyone elses. I will reconsider my assessment of your values.
From: Kurt Ullman on 5 Oct 2006 15:24 In article <KsmdncSVMpRtxLjYRVnyig(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > > There are two different things going on here. One is what you can > > do as private citizen, which in AZ is that all are fair game. But we > > were talking about what goverment (be it under the mantel of cop-dom or > > spook-dom) can do. Whole 'nother kettle of fish.. > > Doesn't make it "right." Makes it legal. To paraphrase Shark on CBS.. "Right is God's problem."
From: lucasea on 5 Oct 2006 15:24 "Keith" <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote in message news:MPG.1f8ef5524ba0ae25989d91(a)News.Individual.NET... > In article <eg32hc$5l0$6(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu > says... >> 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! > > Not needed for foreign intelligence. When listening to phone calls, of which one party is in the US, of course they are. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 5 Oct 2006 15:24
"Keith" <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote in message news:MPG.1f8ef4cf73c0df1e989d90(a)News.Individual.NET... > In article <HLVUg.13315$7I1.5654(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net says... >> >> "Keith" <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote in message >> news:MPG.1f8dd485be8e903f989d78(a)News.Individual.NET... >> > In article <0h18i21ket4s0m5rkk8gckp0kk4oih33hh(a)4ax.com>, To-Email- >> > Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)My-Web-Site.com says... >> >> 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. >> >> >> >> What NSA was doing was using computer perusal of telephone _records_, >> >> "To/From" data. >> >> >> >> From those suspicious records, taps were authorized by a judge. >> > >> > YEs, and the foreign "taps" were intercepted calls from >> > "interesting" foreign numbers. They were not taps on phones. >> >> 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. >> > Your "demands" are silly. My demand that the Constitution not be thrown out in order to combat something that's 1000X less dangerous than driving an automobile is silly? I'm really starting to fear for the future of this country. You are *exactly* who Ben Franklin was talking to when he said "He who gives up freedom for security deserves neither." > When the other end of the line is in a > mosque in Iran (number captured on a &bad_guy's_laptop), I _demand_ > that your call be intercepted. While such a call would never happen, if it did, I would be happy to have it intercepted, as long as it was done consistent with the provisions of the 4th Amendment. It's called "Due Process". Learn it...know it...live it. > Your "Constitutional rights" have nothing to do with it. So, does that mean *I* get to take away whichever of *your* Constitutional rights that I see fit? Or were you just doing that to support an untenable position? Eric Lucas |