From: mmeron on
In article <igiai25e5nq59bupp5ko8l96ek978lhmrj(a)4ax.com>, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> writes:
>On Thu, 05 Oct 06 09:43:44 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>
>>The military commissions part. Bush tried to claim Gitmo was outside the
>>federal courts' jurisdiction. The courts all rejected that.
>
>Good. Sticking to principles is the best thing, in the long run.
>
>>
>>>BTW, the SCotUS is not superior to any other branch, or at least is
>>>not supposed to be. They've been told before "with what army are
>>>you going to enforce your decision".
>
>I don't think any other branch of government has ever defied the
>Supremes, which is remarkable clout for "nine old men."
>
Well, Lincoln defied them, once. Those were exceptional times,
though.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron(a)cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
From: JoeBloe on
On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 21:11:06 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us:

>
>
>Keith wrote:
>
>> rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says...
>> > Keith wrote:
>> > > jfields(a)austininstruments.com says...
>> > >
>> > > > Graham is vehemently anti-American, as can be seen in his posts
>> > > > which have nothing to do with US policy.
>> > >
>> > > Yep! ...right down to the way local school districts run their
>> > > school buses. He knows all.
>> >
>> > It seems Americans are too stupid to even consider the concept of double decker
>> > buses if you need to move more ppl than fit in a single deck one !
>>
>> See folks" He is _that_ stupid.
>
>Tell me something. What's your objection to a 130 seater bus except that the stupid
>USA doesn't make one ?
>

You're an idiot.
From: Homer J Simpson on

<lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:vGiVg.11649$6S3.3193(a)newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...

> Were those also more tolerable during the Clinton administration, or was
> it just our foreign policy?

They're the hamburgers of movies. Quick, filling, but hardly memorable.








From: JoeBloe on
On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 20:20:14 GMT, "Homer J Simpson"
<nobody(a)nowhere.com> Gave us:

>
><lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>news:yecVg.8912$GR.1933(a)newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>
>> Oh, and there is also a Federal law that say in any recording of a phone
>> conversation, at least one of the parties to the conversation must be
>> aware of the recording.
>
>IIRC, Federal law makes it a crime to disclose illegally obtained material.
>So if you tap your calls to your married lover to get him to admit killing
>his wife that gets thrown out in an all party state - except in Modesto CA.
>

People CAN record a phone call. LEOs cannot. Except, as in time of
war, we have situational rules which govern the behavior of our
country's national security agencies. They have followed all such
rules, and are perfectly within their rights in the task of making
this country safe again.

Tough luck, chucko, that you only kept the parts of the constitution
in mind that you liked.
From: JoeBloe on
On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 21:22:31 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us:

>
>
>"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:
>
>> The dumbass doesn't
>> realize it would use more fuel to move a heavier bus through two routes,
>> than two lighter busses. It would make the kids have to wait longer for
>> their ride, and they would get home even later.
>
>Since when were 2 routes involved ?
>
>The original issue was one of students of different ages being picked up on the *same*
>routes FYI.
>

Most of our schools here start and end at different times in the
morning and afternoon for each level of schooling so as not to jam up
the roads too badly. Also, said schools are separated by long
distances so letting them out all at once in an attempt to use a
single stream of buses is just ludicrous, no matter how big one makes
the bus.

You have no concept of population density, boy.

You are batting a thousand on stupidity though.