Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 2 Feb 2007 08:40 In article <eprlv2$8ag$2(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <epq6o6$8qk_005(a)s856.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >[.....] >>>But not sovereign immunity (or Nixon wouldn't have needed that pardon). >> >>Nixon didn't need the pardon; the United States of America >>needed that pardon. You may not remember the villification >>Ford received because he took away all chances of getting >>revenge. > >The villification had a lot of justification behind it. The current story >is that Ford did it so that the issue would be over and the country could >get back to dealing with more serious issues. A lot of people thought at >the time and many still believe that this was the wrong thing to do. Sure. > >If the trial had happened etc, people would have "seen justice done". There wouldn't have been a trail. It would have been delayed and the center of Washington's attention for two decades. There were other things that needed serious attention. >People are a lot more willing to forgive someone who gets found guilty >than someone who they see as having gotten special treatment. Requiring the opportunity for you to "forgive" Nixon is a peurile emotion. > >Nixon should have gone to jail over the 55MPH speed law and gotten 40 >lashes for the "Nixonomics". Do you honestly think that him going to jail was a worse punishment than what did happen? /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 2 Feb 2007 08:43 In article <epstsb$qbr$3(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >In article <epq6o6$8qk_005(a)s856.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>In article <epo4a4$kra$2(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, >> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>>In article <9d81f$45bf6f6d$4fe7196$2020(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>>>Lloyd Parker wrote: >>>> >>>>> In article <epne6r$8ss_002(a)s827.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>In article <45BE0B7D.D6FA8748(a)hotmail.com>, >>>>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>unsettled wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Only losing nations and their executives ever face the >>>>>>>>>>consequences. No nation or national executive engages >>>>>>>>>>in war with the thought of losing. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Hmmmm, well there's more than few in the UK who would like to see Tony >>>>>> >>>>>>Blair >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>prosecuted for war crimes. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Under whose law? Islam's? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Under British law you nitwit. Britain is a signatory to the Geneva >>>>>> >>>>>>Conventions >>>>>> >>>>>>>you know. >>>>>> >>>>>>So you want your political leaders to be punished for >>>>>>trying to do their job. That kind of thinking must >>>>>>give lots of encouragement to those who intend to >>>>>>destroy your lifestyle. >>>>>> >>>>>>/BAH >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The sovereign being above the law went out in the US around 1776. I >doubt >>>it >>>>> applies in the UK any longer either. >>>> >>>>Not completely. Judicial immunity and a few other features >>>>arise out of sovereign immunity. This has been discussed in >>>>SCOTUS opinions more than a few times. >>>> >>> >>>But not sovereign immunity (or Nixon wouldn't have needed that pardon). >> >>Nixon didn't need the pardon; the United States of America >>needed that pardon. > >Huh? If Nixon couldn't have been prosecuted, neither he nor the US would have >gone through anything. > >>You may not remember the villification >>Ford received because he took away all chances of getting >>revenge. >> >>/BAH > >Sure do. But again, if there was no way to "get revenge", why the pardon? It was to take away all distractions and force Washington to begin dealing with the real problems. Things were in a mess. Nobody had been doing their job for a long time. /BAH
From: Eeyore on 2 Feb 2007 08:51 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > >> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: > >> > >>>What part of "not having an atomic bomb for quite some years" do you not > >>>understand? > >> > >> The US started with no knowledge and built bombs within 3 years. > >> This included all of the infrastructure required. > >> The knowledge has been around for five decades so nobody > >> has to do that work. > >> > >> Why does everybody assume that countries have to take longer to > >> assemble a bomb? > >> > > > >Interesting. Before we even begin to think about this new question, are you > >saying (now) that Iran has a competent industrialised system which is > >capable of the manufacturing required? > > I think it's a shame that they are pouring their resources into > bomb manufacturing rather than more useful stuff. The more > useful stuff would have a side effect of acquiring the power and > world respect that Iran wants. All of which completely fails to address the question asked of you. Graham
From: Eeyore on 2 Feb 2007 08:56 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> > > >> >> I'll talk about the fighting that happened under Truman after WWII. > >> >> AT that time, none of the European free countries were in any > >> >> position to wage the coming fights that were to be called the > >> >> Cold War. Yet these same countries did not want Communism to > >> >> spread. So the US was the only country who had enough resources > >> >> to lead and do most of the supplying. > >> > > >> >It was the USA who was most concerned about communism spreading and it > >> >wasn't happening in Europe either. > >> > >> Are you trying to tell me that Germany isn't in Europe either? > > > >Since when did communism spread into the former W. Germany ? > > Have you forgotten that there was also an east to Germany? Perfectly of course. And communism didn't 'spread' there. > >> For the past week, I've been getting told that Russia isn't in Europe; now > >>you want me to believe that Germany isn't. What about Poland? Is that in > >>Asia? > > > >Personally I consider Russia to be a European country. > > It is both European and Asian. You got your geography right for once ! > > I wonder if I'll live to > >see it either join the EU or come to some formal arrangement with it. > > That will depend on whether the Western style of living survives. It's not that fragile you know ! Graham
From: jmfbahciv on 2 Feb 2007 08:50
In article <45C0A7E5.927D2C8A(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >> >j mfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >> > >> >>If you make each system you sell by hand, that, by definition, >> >>is extremely expensive. >> > >> > All PCs are made "by hand". >> > >> > Dell makes EACH custom PC by hand, ON an ASSENBLY LINE. It is STILL >> >THEIR product, even though they buy their motherboards and graphics >> >cards, etc. from other VENDORS, the final product they sell is THEIR >> >PRODUCT. >> > >> >Now GTFU. >> >> When I said "by hand", I meant physically knitted by women's >> hands. No machines involved. > >Relatively few printed circuit boards are populated or soldered by hand these >days BAH. I know that. Now go to the top of this page and reread the commentary. /BAH |