Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 11 Oct 2006 18:40 On Wed, 11 Oct 06 10:37:33 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <d6oni25av3uda9f0udpkq0vfefsk5bdtmj(a)4ax.com>, > Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >>On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 07:10:21 -0700, John Larkin >><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >>>On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 05:05:26 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan >>><jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >>> >>>>The Hamilton Amendment is Amendment 9, not 4. Read it. >>> >>>Of course I've read it. What's your intrepretation as regards privacy >>>in, say, international communications? >> >>I wasn't addressing that part of the discussion, but your quite >>specific comment that was, "The current concept of privacy as a >>Constitutional right was cobbled up by the Supremes to justify the >>Roe-v-Wade thing." >> >>This is not at all true. Not even close. >> >>By the way, have you bothered to read that decision? >> >>Jon >> >>P.S. I'm particularly interested in the period shortly before the >>formation of the US. I have one set of only 7000 volume sets printed >>by the US on the subject (3 volumes initially, two more shortly >>afterwards.) It was produced by order of a Senate resolution on >>January 24th, 1901, with the House concurring on February 9th, 1901. >>The volumes are titled, "Documentary History of the Constitution of >>the United States of America." >> >>In the first volume alone, it provides the proceedings of the >>Annapolis Convention; the proceedings of the Continental Congress; the >>credentials of the delegates to the Federal Convention; the >>proceedings of the Federal Convention (including detailed, daily >>records of the voting history for each colony/state) and much more. >> >>I read these, page by page, when I have the time. >> >>I am also personally reproducing a two-volume, five-book set by George >>Bancroft on the web. It is copyrighted in 1882 and called "History of >>the Formation of the Constitution of the United States of America." >>It's referenced in some US Supreme Court decisions. The author >>personally visited and thoroughly read through many of the letters >>exchanged by the principles at the time and it's an excellent >>reference. I've learned a few things that go against some of the >>presumptions taught in typical history classes, reading through it. > >Kewl. I have Volume 5 of a set called _The American Nation: A >History_, _Colonial Self-Government 1652-1689_, 1904. > >I want to find the volume that covers between Revolutionary War >and the convening of the Constitutional Convention. A quick start would be to start reading Bancroft at my web site: http://users.easystreet.com/jkirwan/new/hfcusa.html I have much more to type in, but it covers much interesting detail already. Jon
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 11 Oct 2006 18:41 On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 18:19:10 GMT, I wrote: >On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 07:10:21 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 05:05:26 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan >><jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >> >>>The Hamilton Amendment is Amendment 9, not 4. Read it. >> >>Of course I've read it. What's your intrepretation as regards privacy >>in, say, international communications? > >I wasn't addressing that part of the discussion, but your quite >specific comment that was, "The current concept of privacy as a >Constitutional right was cobbled up by the Supremes to justify the >Roe-v-Wade thing." > >This is not at all true. Not even close. > >By the way, have you bothered to read that decision? I take it the answer is "no." Jon
From: Eeyore on 11 Oct 2006 20:20 John Fields wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > > >> Typical European attitude. Now you expect the USA to clean up > >> China's and fUSSR's messes. > >> > >> What would you do if we simply said no more; deal with your own > >> mess. > > > >You're quite mad. > > --- > Really? > > Who else could do it? > > You guys? What's it got to do with us ? Graham
From: Eeyore on 11 Oct 2006 20:22 T Wake wrote: > "John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message > > > You guys? > > > > You'd tremble at the prospect of it unless you had the US to back > > you up, and you have the temerity to believe that we'd defend you if > > you were wrong? > > Really? Is this an unspported assertion in order that you may score some > points against Eeyore? > > I can certainly think of occasions where the UK has _not_ had US back up in > military operations. That said, our military is about 1/10th the size of the > US military so expecting the same is a fallacy all on its own. The big difference is that the UK actually *wins* the wars we take on ! Graham
From: Eeyore on 11 Oct 2006 20:23
John Fields wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >John Fields wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> >That 'alliance' - it wasn't an alliance in fact - didn't last long anyway. > >> > >> --- > >> Trying to split hairs again? > >> > >> It most certainly was an alliance, since they signed a trade agree > >> ment and a non-aggression pact: > > > >So what ? > > > >> 19/08/1939 Germany and USSR sign a trade treaty. > >> > >> 23/08/1939 Germany and the USSR sign a non-aggression pact in > >> Moscow. > > > >A non-aggression pact *is not* an alliance ! Don't you know what the words mean ? > > --- > OK, maybe you're right. From your viewpoint, how would a > non-aggression pact signal a non-alliance? Ridiculous semantics. Graham |