Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: lucasea on 25 Oct 2006 12:06 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ehnf70$8qk_008(a)s885.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > > I would need to know this before I'd even bother reading the > report of estimated death count. So you put up a smokescreen excuse in order to justify ignoring a study that might make you question your tenacious hold on the assumptions that you deny you have, but which are obvious from your writings. Interesting way to justify your position. I suppose it works with the uncritical crowd. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 25 Oct 2006 12:11 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ehnfkr$8qk_010(a)s885.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <676fc$453b76e5$4fe75d1$17105(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > <snip> > >>> Do these people own no logic circuits in their brains? >> >>Lucas & Wake have trouble nustering a single correctly >>functioning neuron between them. > > I realize that. It a serious problem and you should be very > worried about their kind of thinking because it is becoming > the politcally correct way to think. Yes, it is politically correct to question all assumptions. In fact, not only is it politically correct, it is logically correct as well. You might try it sometime. > This will cause political > leaders who pander the same way to be elected. Nobody is pandering to me. They get my vote because they are willing to challenge the current power structure that is using fear-pandering in a desparate attempt to tighten their grip on power that is slipping through their fingers because of malfeasance and mismanagement. > These people > will make the decision to not deal with Islamic extremists. > They will deny reality until it is too late to do anything > about it. Evidence, please. > This is why trying to dismiss these people with name calling > is not an acceptable tactic. Well, you haven't been doing so well with logic, either. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 25 Oct 2006 12:13 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ehnfrf$8qk_011(a)s885.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > > In article <ehj7op$h3g$2(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, > lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: > >>The hell there isn't. Bush's own NIE says our presence there is fueling >>insurgents. > > Now we're back to the beginning. Whacking that mole started this > long thread. > > We'll have think of name for this; it's a law of threads. Yes, we will indeed have to keep whacking the moles of your false assumptions, as you leap from one assumption to another to try to justify your untenable position, until you accept that you have assumptions and that at least several of them have no basis in fact. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 25 Oct 2006 12:18 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ehngfd$8qk_013(a)s885.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > > In article <ehilc2$rv0$11(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, > lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: > >>And what is Bush doing but taking away our basic liberties? > > Name one so we have something concrete to talk about. Note > that Bush needs Congressional approval for what he does do. > So I want you to name one liberty that Bush, the person, has > removed. Yet another smokescreen intended to obscure the fact that the Executive branch of the government, under the leadership of GWB, is taking away freedoms specifically named in the Constitution. Since Bush is the Chief Executive of the US, that means that he is responsible for the actions of the entire Executive branch. Try the 4th Amendment prohibition of searches and seizures without the probable cause that would get them a warrant, for starters. Try the implicit right not to be dragged into a war unilaterally by the Executive branch of the government. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 25 Oct 2006 12:18
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ehngkf$8qk_014(a)s885.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <48c%g.19686$6S3.1431(a)newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>, > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >>"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >>news:856de$453d290d$49ed52d$28493(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >>> lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >>> >>>> "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >>>> news:9d61d$453cfc77$49ecff9$27195(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >>>> >>>>>lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >>>>>>news:cf679$453cf606$49ecff9$26900(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>Lloyd Parker wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>In article <ehi3q8$8qk_004(a)s784.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>>>>>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>In article <ehafo7$ot9$1(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, >>>>>>>>>lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>In article <ehab1j$8qk_001(a)s949.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>>>>>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>In the US, the federal government isn't allowed to do anything. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Except start wars. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>When the nation is threatened, yes. It's in our Constitution. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>And is it unconstitutional to do so when we're not threatened? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>In our system, anything not prohibited is permitted. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Uh, sorry, no...the Constitution *specifically* limits the powers of >>>>>>the >>>>>>Federal government to those listed in the Constitution. >>>>> >>>>>Did you not read what I just wrote? Is your brain incapable of >>>>>understanding that "specifically limits" is a prohibition? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Uh, no..."specifically limits" says what they can do. Anything else is >>>> prohibited, not permitted. >>> >>> Precisely. So everything which is not prohibited is permitted, >>> exactly as I wrote. >> >>You need to brush up on your propositional logic. "A implies B" is not >>the >>same as "(not A) implies (not B)". >> > > And unsettled was talking about C. Un, no, please do try to keep up. Eric Lucas |