Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 5 Oct 2006 18:10 John Larkin wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >John Larkin wrote: > >> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: > >> > >> >>A lot of this anti-US fervor started with Democrat Presidential > >> >>candidates trying out their sound bytes in 2002-2004 in Europe. > >> >> > >> >>/BAH > >> >OH BS. It started with Bush invading another nation. > >> > >> Actually, it started with FDR invading another nation. France, > >> specifically. > > > >You're being very very silly. > > > >Graham > > I don't think so. A couple of things are at work here. One is the > military and cultural and technological and scientific dominance of > the USA as compared to Europe, which is bound to cause some > resentment. The other is expressed in the Chinese proverb, "if you > save someone's life, they will hate you forever." You really are monumentally stupid. Maybe we could change our maps to call the USA 'stupidland' instead ? Graham
From: lucasea on 5 Oct 2006 18:10 "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message news:z8KdnXZUI_tF5rjYRVny2Q(a)pipex.net... > > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > news:_kdVg.8930$GR.1926(a)newssvr29.news.prodigy.net... >> >> "Keith" <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote in message >> news:MPG.1f8ef7a64499f172989d95(a)News.Individual.NET... > >>> Nope. not good enough. If the call is suspect it can't wait a >>> "certain number of hours". The value is gone by the time they can >>> call a FISA judge. >> >> No, nice try at a strawman, but it has nothing to do with what I'm saying >> and what is provided for in FISA. > > Strawman or not, the time sensitive nature of the intelligence still is > not a strong enough argument for most cases. You better believe it is in this case. However, it's provided for in FISA. I think the FISAct was extremely well thought-out, and does an excellent job of maintaining accountability as well as classified information security, and does an excellent job of protecting US citizens' civil rights and balancing them with the need for security. Damn shame our government is planning to ignore it--the *only* thing ignoring FISA and the 4th amendment does is to make the NSA accountable to nobody. Some people want to assume that the NSA will act in our best interest, but the authors of the Constitution put the system of checks and balances in there for a very good reason...governments have time and time again over history shown themselves to be untrustworthy of unilateral action. The fact that the Executive branch of the government wants to be accountable to *nobody* scares the hell out of me. If their motives are pure, then there's no reason the FISA court shouldn't at least be able to review the surveillances after the fact. Whoever said that the Supreme Court is not above any of the other branches of the government might also want to consider that that is supposed to be true of the Executive branch as well. Eric Lucas
From: John Larkin on 5 Oct 2006 18:11 On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 22:50:02 +0100, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message >news:qkrai2hvpp43t4lpu1ttca9tpq8ueb94qr(a)4ax.com... >> On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 15:03:17 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >>>Which one would that be, the dangers of driving on the nation's highways? >>>That's at least 3 orders of magnitude greater of a real threat to every >>>person in the country than is terrorism. >> >> 3000 people died at the WTC. Three orders of magnitude from that is 3 >> million. We kill about 40K people a year in car accidents. >> > >3000 people (not all of whom were US citizens) have been killed by Islamic >terrorist attacks on the Mainland US in (shall we say 80 years). How many >have died in car accidents in that time? > >That said, you are nitpicking in the same manner. More than ten times as >many people die every year as died as a result of the 11 Sep 01 attack. That >is TEN attacks of that scale (and that was a large scale attack by anyone's >standards) every single year. Year in, year out and accepted as a normal >risk in life. > Well, I'm an engineer. Numbers matter to me. "At least three orders of magnitude" isn't accurate. The comparison of a single event to the entire history of automobile use isn't vert logical either. John
From: Eeyore on 5 Oct 2006 18:11 John Larkin wrote: > On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 15:03:17 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > >Which one would that be, the dangers of driving on the nation's highways? > >That's at least 3 orders of magnitude greater of a real threat to every > >person in the country than is terrorism. > > 3000 people died at the WTC And you still haven't got over it. Graham
From: T Wake on 5 Oct 2006 18:15
"Homer J Simpson" <nobody(a)nowhere.com> wrote in message news:GTeVg.51660$E67.19518(a)clgrps13... > > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message > news:1eqdnZ1tVIQ66bjYRVny2A(a)pipex.net... > >>> And what percentage of Americans have ever been further than Canada or >>> Mexico? Or have even left their own state? >> >> Most US states are about the same size as England. I am sure a >> significant percentage of English people have never left England. I am >> equally sure a larger percentage have never been more than three >> timezones away or to two different climatic zones. Americans can manage >> this within their borders. > > I don't think you need a ferry to get from Arizona to Nevada. > Not really relevant. You don't need a ferry to go from Calais to Khabarovsk in Siberia. I don't know many people who have done that journey. |