Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Michael A. Terrell on 10 Oct 2006 00:43 John Larkin wrote: > > On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 02:50:52 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell" > <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > > >John Larkin wrote: > >> > >> I studied the Jefferson-Hamilton debate in school, as most of us have, > >> and I'm not ignorant of it. Amendment 4, > >> > >> "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, > >> papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall > >> not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, > >> supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the > >> place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." > >> > >> doesn't address whether the people have a right to privacy when > >> engaged in public affairs, or when using a NASA-launched satellite to > >> send messages to another country. Censorship of international > >> correspondence in time of war would not have shocked the Founders. > >> > >> Your insertion of phrases like "of which you appear ignorant" is > >> silly. And I don't care what you consider to be "excusable" because > >> you have no means of enforcing your rules. So you might stick to > >> trying to make sense. > > > > > > Soldiers letters home were censored during WW II, I have seen > >pictures of letters with words or sentences cut out. I have a DVD with > >some WW II training films, including one about "Loose Lips Sink Ships", > >telling the military what they could, and could not write home about in > >any war related effort. > > There's always a compromise between liberty and safety. That's why we > have traffic lights. Yes, not to mention idiots on motorcycles who blow through red lights without slowing down. -- Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida
From: Eeyore on 10 Oct 2006 01:00 "Michael A. Terrell" wrote: > John Larkin wrote: > > > There's always a compromise between liberty and safety. That's why we > > have traffic lights. > > Yes, not to mention idiots on motorcycles who blow through red lights > without slowing down. Red light cameras should be replaced by red light cannons ! That would stop the fu88ers. I was once crossing the road on a pedestrian green light only to find a car being driven by 'Daddy' trying to run me down ! I hope I made a decent dent in his hood / bonnet with my fist and I hope his wife and 2 daughters gave him hell when they got home too ! What makes ppl drive like this ? He wasn't even going to get from A to B any faster ! Graham
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 10 Oct 2006 01:05 On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 19:27:57 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 18:49:35 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan ><jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: > >>On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 09:03:48 -0700, John Larkin >><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >>>On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 14:37:23 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>> >>>>"T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message >>>>news:uOCdnaYSs6Z5oLfYRVnygg(a)pipex.net... >>>>> My biggest issue with the UK government at the moment stems on the way we >>>>> are throwing away rights and freedoms I grew up to take for granted >>>>> (possibly part of the problem). >>>> >>>>I disagree--I think most Western nations view those rights as (to use a word >>>>from one of our founding documents), inalienable--as they should. >>> >>>The Founders certainly didn't have our modern idea of "privacy." For >>>the first 200 years of the Republic, it was illegal to use the US >>>Mails for "immoral" purposes, and mail was opened, and people >>>prosecuted for felonies, if immorality was suspected. Such >>>"immorality" included explicit letters between a husband and his wife. >>> >>>I don't think that any of the Founders would think it unreasonable to >>>snoop on international communications, or even domestic >>>communications, looking for signs of known conspiracies to commit >>>murder. They did list "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" in >>>that order. >>> >>>The current concept of privacy as a Constitutional right was cobbled >>>up by the Supremes to justify the Roe-v-Wade thing. >> >>Hardly, John. I suspect you've not really been reading your history >>much. The concept of privacy as a right abounds within any reasonable >>interpretation of the Constitution itself, as well as in the >>Declaration of Independence explicitly, as well as in the debates over >>ratification, debates raging in the New York Journal of the day, and >>in the personal letters -- those anyway for which we still have copies >>of today. >> >>But setting aside those details, of which you appear ignorant, there >>was also quite a deep concern about rights, generally. Some states >>had specific declarations that prevented gov't from encroaching the >>rights of minority groups (majority groups don't need protections, as >>they can pass laws easily to get what they want.) Some states didn't. >>On early development of the Constitution, there were no Amendments >>specifically attached. And there was deep concern among many, >>including Jefferson who wrote about this lack, that there was a >>specific need to list at least some of the more important ones so that >>there would be no possibility of mistake in later generations. >> >>Hamilton argued fiercely, though, against their inclusion. He argued >>that they would become our prison bars, as later generations would >>imagine that having listed any at all, that those were all there were >>to protect. Like owning 1000 acres of land and putting up a tiny >>picket fence around only 1 acre about your solitary home, others >>arriving into the area might very well imagine that you only claimed >>just one acre, because that is where you put your fence. Jefferson >>likened putting out explicit rights very much like this picket fence >>that later generations might imagine, or be convinced to imagine, was >>the only real province of their rights. When, in fact, quite the >>opposite was true -- that the listing of some rights should not at all >>be construed as to mean that others did not also exist and with equal >>force, too. So we have the 9th Amendment added, to satisfy Hamilton. >>It's known as "The Hamilton Amendment." >> >>The principle guiding the writing of the Constitution of the US is >>that "All rights reside within the individuals and that individuals >>cede to gov't only those rights they deem are necessary for the good >>of the whole and only for so long as that continues to be the case." >>The presumption here is that gov't has NO RIGHTS at all and that only >>individuals innately have rights; that individuals choose consciously >>to cede only some of those rights to gov't for such good purposes as >>seem appropriate for a time. >> >>The point is that the right to privacy was not some silly concoction >>to satisfy some weird, twisted means to write Roe v. Wade the way it >>is. The right to privacy is quite real, apart from any of that. >> >>Being ignorant of this is excusable. But claiming that the "current >>concept of privacy as a Constitutional right was cobbled up by the >>Supremes to justify the Roe-v-Wade thing," isn't excusable. It's not >>even enough right to be considered wrong. It's just pure ignorance >>speaking. >> >>Jon > >I studied the Jefferson-Hamilton debate in school, as most of us have, >and I'm not ignorant of it. Amendment 4, The Hamilton Amendment is Amendment 9, not 4. Read it. >"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, >papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall >not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, >supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the >place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." > >doesn't address whether the people have a right to privacy when That doesn't. But then you didn't know what I was talking about, either. >engaged in public affairs, or when using a NASA-launched satellite to >send messages to another country. Censorship of international >correspondence in time of war would not have shocked the Founders. > >Your insertion of phrases like "of which you appear ignorant" is >silly. And I don't care what you consider to be "excusable" because >you have no means of enforcing your rules. So you might stick to >trying to make sense. I did. You just can't recognize it. Jon
From: jmfbahciv on 10 Oct 2006 05:28 In article <YtsWg.12731$6S3.12584(a)newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:egd9oe$8qk_008(a)s891.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>>> >>>>>So why aren't we devoting all our resources to getting him? >>>> >>>> Because this intent to destroy all traces of Western civilization >>>> is not isolated to one human being. >>> >>>Where do you *get* these assumptions??? >> >> What assumptions? Islamic extremists wish to kill me and mine? >> They've told me so. Furthermore, their statements were not >> empty threats; they demonstrated their intent. > >No, they did nothing of the kind. They demonstrated their intent to destroy >three or four buildings. It's a huge leap of faith (i.e., assumption) to >extrapolate from this that they are "intent to destroy all traces of Western >civilization." Which word do you have troubles with meaning: World, Trade, or Center? > >As I've said before, you don't even know what your assumptions are, and how >ludicrous the premises on which you predicate them. Fine. I started with actual events, then learned the history and made conclusions based on that learning and how people act and think. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 10 Oct 2006 05:33
In article <eu7ii29h4mg456buqubhpp38jnl4c95aq9(a)4ax.com>, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: <snip> >To a pinhead, obviously! I don't appreciate the name calling. It accomplishes nothing. /BAH |