Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Daniel Mandic on 8 Oct 2006 09:23 Michael A. Terrell wrote: > Can't you read? I clearly stated, "I DO NOT HAVE A BANK ACCOUNT". > I am not stupid enough to give any personal information to anyone. I > don't have any credit cards, nor do I want any. I haven't used any > credit for over 20 years, and I don't intend to. I drive a 19 year > old Ford ranger that I rescued from the crusher. When it can't be > repaired cheaply I'll either find another castoff, or just give up > driving. It causes too much pain for me to drive, anyway. > > The VA sends me a paper check each month, BTW. Yet you have the insights of a modern economist to me. American, but modern! Greetings! Best Regards, Daniel Mandic
From: Daniel Mandic on 8 Oct 2006 09:23 Eeyore wrote: > America is fucked ! > > Graham No, a single politix, like to be found in so called God-states, would help. Otherwise they would have at least 15-20 parties. (like in Afrique ;.)) Best regards, Daniel Mandic P.S.: US cannot start a new world-order, after the christianity released the world from the 'thousand gods' thinking/order, and practicing/rituals. Also romans got their proove :-) ((even they were strong enough to vanish such thinking/singlegod-order in that time, indeed)) 2 is not an advancement to 1, in this case! Making 4 parties in the U.S.A. can be also a first and recommendable step, IMHO. We had 12 in the last voting.... 5 of them managed to go in the parliament. (34.22; 35.71; 11.21; 10.49 and 4.20%. Rest is ~3.10% in 7 parties)
From: T Wake on 8 Oct 2006 09:33 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:egaj1m$8qk_002(a)s779.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <GtidnRHJ2eFoSbXYnZ2dnUVZ8qSdnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:egafn9$8ss_004(a)s779.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <eg5ts4$70s$15(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, >>> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>>>In article <eg58fu$8ss_015(a)s831.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>In article <ZQ8Vg.19638$Ij.7364(a)newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>, >>>>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>> <snip> >>> >>>>>>>> People start to lose perspective on what >>>>>>>>is happening and why. It really is a very powerful narcotic. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> People can also lose perspective if they assume that Bush >>>>>>> is always wrong and is the cause of all ills which is the >>>>>>> only thing you hear from his political opposition. >>>>>> >>>>>>I don't. I evaluate critically. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> This causes a lot of people to overlook the fact that these >>>>>>> same politicians do not intend to deal with the threat >>>>>>> to the nation. >>>>>> >>>>>>Why do you assume that they "do not intend to deal with the threat"? >>>>> >>>>>They say so. Whenever asked for specifics, the Democrat leadership >>>>>replies with, "Trust me." >>>> >>>>Anything is better than "stay the course." >>> >>> So you are saying that conceding to the Islamic terrorists is >>> better? >> >>Are there only two options? > > From the p.o.v. of the extremists, yes. But the debate was not about their point of view.Your post implied that the choices were "stay the course" or concede to terrorists. From _your_ point of view are there only two options?
From: krw on 8 Oct 2006 09:37 In article <eg6464$fjf$15(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu says... > In article > <kurtullman-4CDB3C.12183406102006(a)customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx>, > Kurt Ullman <kurtullman(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >In article <eg5rop$70s$4(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, > > lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: > > > >> > >> > Didn't. If the American is CALLING France, warrants are still needed, > >> >even under the Bush statement. When calls originate OUTSIDE the country > >> >and just come, then Bush says they don't need warrants. This is backed > >> >up by current law, more or less. > >> > >> Which law is that? > >> > > > > Case law. See below. This has been in place at least since my > >training in the mid-70s. > > > >> >If there is a legal tap on Goomba 1, > >> >then if Goomba 2 calls G1, anything G2 says is usable against G2, > >> >because the tap was legal. > >> > In this case, when calls originate outside the US, there are no > >> >requirements for warrant. Thus, if Terrorist 1 calls Terrorist 2 in > >> >Pakistan it is legal. If T1 calls T3 in Newark it is also legal. > >> > If one phone is legally tapped any calls to or from that phone are > >> >fair game. > >> > >> The issue is "domestic wiretapping" though. > > Which was illustrated by Goomba one and two. As in Mafia type > >one and two. One side is legal, then what is heard either way is okay. > > Actually we are talking international wiretapping. Domestic by > >most definitions remains inside the US. In this case the tapped phone is > >outside the US. The US phone isn't tapped. But when someone from the > >tapped phone calls or is called then the conversation is probably legal. > > There isn't "tapping" anyway. The NSA monitors phone calls. ALL phone calls. > Computers flag those with certain words or phrases, or certain voices, or > certain locales, etc. But we have no way of knowing which things cause calls > to get flagged, nor do we have any assurance nobody is looking at the others. > > That's why a judge declared the whole program unconstitutional a couple of > weeks ago (just stayed by an appeals court pending appeal). > The judge's decision was an embarrassment (written by Al Franken?). Even the leftie loons are saying the decision doesn't stand a chance in hell of surviving (the reason the appellate court shelved the opinion). -- Keith
From: krw on 8 Oct 2006 09:37
In article <SgvVg.13917$7I1.3691(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net says... > > >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> >> > >> >> Sure. That's local politics and wonderful to use as smoke and > >> >> mirrors to distract your attention from the real threats. > >> >> > >> >> /BAH > >> > > >> > > >> > Local? I guess you don't keep up with the news. > >> > >> All politics is local. The subject we were talking about > >> is national security. If the Democrats, who are campaigning > >> for office, talk about dirty words in emails when they meet > >> with their voters, they don't have to describe what they > >> are going to do about the national threat. The one running > >> for governor here keeps harping about what our current governor > >> didn't do. However, when asked what would he have done, he > >> leaves the meeting. > >> > >> It's a tactic not to address the issue of the threats to our > >> national security. > > Uhh...no, it's a tactic to deal with a sexual predator, and send a message > to other sexual predators. To deny that 1) tacitly denies the problem of > sexual predation, and 2) serves only to refuse to admit that your political > opponents can ever do any good about anything. That's the problem with the > political process in this country now--nobody can admit their adversary > might actually have a good idea. This country is doomed if we don't learn > to respect sound arguments from our opponents, rather than just rely on our > worst-case assumptions to justify the actions of our cronies. Have you noticed that the page in question is over 18. Did CBS news publish the fact that the Democrats that brought this event to light won't turn over the unedited emails and refuse to tell how they were obtained to the FBI? There is more stink here than a Republican perv. > Another perspective type of statistic for you. In 2000, 88,000 children > were victims of sexual abuse. The statistics I saw said a 300 % increase in > sexual predation of children from 1980 to 1990. Just to WAG some numbers, > let's say the problem started at zero and increased linearly until now, > passing through the 88,000 data point at 2000. I think you will probably > agree with me that this *vastly* underestimates the problem, since it > ignores any incidents before 1980. Integrating over time, that means that > 570,000 kids have been sexually abused by adults since 1980. That's > compared to 3000 people dying at the hands of terrorists in that same time > period. That means that a child born in 1980 had a 200X greater chance of > being molested than he had of dying at the hand of terrorists by 2006. And > yet you deny that sexual abuse of children is no more than a smokescreen > issue, blown out of proportion to avoid dealing with "real" issues like the > imminent threat that terrorists are going to destroy your home, your > computer, your technology, and make you be Muslim....despite the fact that > there is absolutely zero evidence that that is even a remotely credible > scenario. Nice _guesses_, but how is that relevant? How many died in car accidents? How many from cancer? How is throwing Foley in the can (which is where he should be) help your 88,000? > I think you have that just a little backward. > I think you're naive. This *IS* about politics> Can you say "October surprise"? I knew you could. -- Keith |