Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: lucasea on 6 Oct 2006 12:27 "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message news:Z9idnbtj5I7o67vYnZ2dnUVZ8tKdnZ2d(a)pipex.net... > "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message > news:4525CE02.456E30F6(a)earthlink.net... >>T Wake wrote: >>> >>> I don't have to. Your country can intercept other nations to gather >>> foreign >>> intelligence. >> >> >> Unless you are a terrorist, what are you worried about? >> > > Interesting argument. And completely false. It's tantamount to "If you aren't a criminal, then why are you worried about me searching your basement." The authors of the Constitution knew that, at some point, some demagog would use this argument to violate somebody's rights, so they put it in the constitution that, whether you're a criminal/terrorist or not, you don't have to worry about somebody invading your house to have a look around, just because they don't like you. > I work in corporate security and often work for governmental > organisations, will you please surrender to me all your bank records so I > can check what transactions take place. I also want you to record your > movements and actions at all times. > > I am sure, that as you are not a terrorist, you will have no qualms > against this. > > I await the data. Well put. I wouldn't hold your breath. Eric Lucas
From: John Fields on 6 Oct 2006 12:33 On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 21:20:18 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Fields wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >T Wake wrote: >> >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote.. >> >> >> >> > That's very hypothetical but I reckon I'd fight against any tyranny >> >> > suppressing important freedoms. >> >> >> >> Aha, you only defend "Important" freedoms. Ok. >> > >> >It was meant to be emphasis about *fighting*. >> >> --- >> Busted!!! >> >> If it was, you would have written: >> >> "That's very hypothetical but I reckon I'd fight against any tyranny >> suppressing freedom." > >So ? --- You make a distinction between "important" freedoms and whatever's left over, which must be the "non-important freedoms." Which ones would those be? -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: lucasea on 6 Oct 2006 12:35 "Lloyd Parker" <lparker(a)emory.edu> wrote in message news:eg5taf$70s$9(a)leto.cc.emory.edu... > In article <tfhbi29cplhgpsm87rtvtddpq3sggh8cpm(a)4ax.com>, > JoeBloe <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >>On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 20:20:14 GMT, "Homer J Simpson" >><nobody(a)nowhere.com> Gave us: >> >>> >>><lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >>>news:yecVg.8912$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. > > Depends. In CA, you can only do so if both parties consent. And on interstate calls anywhere in the US, at least one party must be aware of the recording. I don't believe any state has less restrictive laws for intrastate calls. >>LEOs cannot. Except, as in time of >>war, > > Which Congress has not declared. Well, ya see, here's the rub. It is a war, when it suits Bush's purposes (to whip people into a fear-induced frenzy), but it isn't a war when that suits Bush's purposes (to get around the rules of war established in the past 50 years, to prevent a demagog like Hitler from ever again doing whatever the hell he wants. Eric Lucas
From: T Wake on 6 Oct 2006 12:39 "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message news:gqcci2duvnibipspv1ni2a8mi7r52cb6re(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 01:47:13 GMT, "Homer J Simpson" > <nobody(a)nowhere.com> Gave us: > >> >>"JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message >>news:7fcbi2t7o8chj90omrt9n69qg4jqjiejq8(a)4ax.com... >> >>> You're an idiot. People don't stalk idiots. You prove that one >>> *can* be wrong *all* the time. >>> >>> Doing a lookup on *your* IP address is NOT stalking, dipshit. >> >>The FBI begs to differ. >> > > Every legitimate post made to Usenet contains the sender's IP addy > in it. All you google fucktards and other asswipes that anonymize are > not legitimate... but can still be found out. When you say "you" - who do you mean? Is this a case of you typing what the voices in your head are saying without any processing by what remains of your brain?
From: lucasea on 6 Oct 2006 12:43
"Kurt Ullman" <kurtullman(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:kurtullman-4FD46D.11541406102006(a)customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx... > In article <6KuVg.13910$7I1.13144(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > >> Yeah, I hate Ohio drivers, too. >> > Nothing compared to those jerks from Michigan... North till ya smell it, west till ya step in it.... Eric Lucas |