Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No they don't. All Bush released makes the same point -- our presence in IraqIn article <eg335h$5l0$10@leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker@emory.edu
says...
In article <eg2od9$8qk_004@s829.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <VAVUg.13310$7I1.3298@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:452415BE.DB0DBC1E@hotmail.com...
Keith wrote:
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com says...
And you think you can defeat 'radical Islam' with bombs and bullets
?
I know there is no choice. Perhaps you want to submit?
There is no need to 'submit'
You're living in a perversely stupid fantasy paranoid world.
It comes from the constant bombardment by Bush's fear-mongering--it's his
way of keeping power over people.
I think you should start to listen to Bush instead of listening
to other people supposedly repeating what Bush said. I would
suggest you start with his January, 2006 TV speech.
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
So what has he been right about?
and is the cause of all ills which is the
only thing you hear from his political opposition.
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.
Bush has increased the threat. His own NIE says so.
You're in a fantasy land. ONE SENTENCE of the NIE report was
leaked by the Democrats to try to discredit Bush. The four pages
around that one sentence, later released, say exactly the opposite.
Please get yours from other than the RNC.Please get your "news" from someone other than Franken.
One more time: First, Bush argued the courts could not even hear the case.In article <eg327g$5l0$3@leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker@emory.edu
says...
In article <MPG.1f8dd5b29aa6ac49989d7a@News.Individual.NET>,
Keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
In article <eg0vov$s36$2@leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker@emory.edu
says...
In article <MPG.1f8db882374b5dc7989d6c@News.Individual.NET>,
Keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
In article <eg0k2p$e61$1@leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker@emory.edu
says...
In article <MPG.1f8d91f2b6b5c0e8989d5f@News.Individual.NET>,
Keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
In article <efugkv$4up$3@leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker@emory.edu
says...
In article <nrc5i2tq8jr4k99aqofmbbesm7em13ktok@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 18:28:11 GMT, "Homer J Simpson"
nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@emory.edu> wrote in message
news:eftptn$c8p$2@leto.cc.emory.edu...
Tell me how many times the Bill of Rights says "people" and
how
many
times
it
says "citizens."
SCOTUS has said that even visitors have the rights of citizens
when
it
come
to legal processes. After all, you expect their homeland laws
to
apply
in
the US would you?
Correct. But they also realize that the rights apply only when
those
people are physically in the USA. Which is why some bad guys are
held
elsewhere.
John
Well, Bush thought Gitmo qualified as "elsewhere" but the USSC
said
no.
Then
he held people in Europe, which is raising a stink there. It
might
keep
some
prospective EU members out even.
Actually, no it didn't. It said only that Congress had some say in
the matter.
No, Bush claimed the detainees could not sue in US courts and the
case
should
be dismissed. The USSC said they could, and heard the case. Not
talking
about the way of trying them; talking about the right to sue.
No, it said that the Bush plan hadn't been authorized by congress,
but that they were free to do so.
---
Keith
No, Bush claimed the court didn't even have the right to hear the case
because they were held outside the US, at Gitmo. The USSC obviously
disagreed, as they heard the case.
They heard the case but the decision was that his plan couldn't go
forward without congressional approval. Pay attention.
The military commissions part. Bush tried to claim Gitmo was outside the
federal courts' jurisdiction. The courts all rejected that.
You're repeating yourself. The fact is that they ruled that Bush
could do whatever Congress allowed him to do, but that the
framework had to be set in law.
BTW, the SCotUS is not superior to any other branch, or at least is
not supposed to be. They've been told before "with what army are
you going to enforce your decision".
Oh great, the stupid response.
Nope, history. Tr reality some time. It's quite interesting.
Keith doesn't let facts interfere with his ranting."Keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
news:MPG.1f8ef7a64499f172989d95@News.Individual.NET...
Nope. not good enough. If the call is suspect it can't wait a
"certain number of hours". The value is gone by the time they can
call a FISA judge.
Apparently you can't read. They have 72 hours to notify the FISA court that
they have done it, AFTER they have done it.
The complaint now is that they refuse to record what they did and then have
it logged to a secret court. That is troubling.
Which law is that?In article <eg3f0u$j7l$8@leto.cc.emory.edu>,
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
First, we don't know that. Secondly, when did the 4th amendment get
repealed
for an American citizen calling, say, France?
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.
The issue is "domestic wiretapping" though.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.
And some states have more restrictive laws. See"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@emory.edu> wrote in message
news:eg32m2$5l0$8@leto.cc.emory.edu...
In article <lef8i2prust90bdlna6vmp1r0h9p7a7a95@4ax.com>,
Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 22:52:37 GMT, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com
wrote:
In article <peb8i2lf4af0irq171tqukscc9n0lec541@4ax.com>,
Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 21:51:21 GMT, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com
wrote:
In article <HLVUg.13315$7I1.5654@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
I don't care. If you're listening to a phone call to which the
phone
in
my
living room is party, then as a citizen of the US, I demand that
your
listening be carried out according to my Constitutional rights.
Probably is. Under a warrant for a phone anything that goes on over
that phone is legally admissable, even if the other person's phone
doesn't have a warrant on it. It well settled that as long as one
phone
is legally tapped, any phone that calls it or is called by it is fair
game. Since there are no restrictions on tapping a phone outside of
the
country, it would be legal tap. Thus anyone the phone calls or anyone
who calls the phone could be listened to as noted. Would be a rather
interesting case to make.
And it varies state-by-state... it is legal in Arizona to record all
calls on your own phone, _without_ notifying the other party.
All I need to do is push a button ;-)
There are two different things going on here. One is what you can
do as private citizen, which in AZ is that all are fair game. But we
were talking about what goverment (be it under the mantel of cop-dom or
spook-dom) can do. Whole 'nother kettle of fish..
Of course. But I can record and then hand over to the government, no
sweat, no warrant, nada.
...Jim Thompson
And it can be thrown out.
Maybe, maybe not, but in any case, the scenario that Jim presented is
immaterial. It is still a private citizen behaving as a private citizen.
Now, if the government were to come to that citizen and say "please tap your
phone when you call X", it would be thrown out in most courts in the US,
since that person would be interpreted as working as an ad hoc agent of the
government. The US Constitution only says what the Federal government can
and cannot do. Period. There is a reason that essentially every single
clause in the Constitution says: "Congress shall", or "The Federal
Government shall". A Constitution is a list of rules what a *government*
can and cannot do to or for its citizens. The fact that a private citizen
can do something in no way means that the Federal government is allowed to
do the same thing.
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. So if Jim calls me, John cannot record the phone call
unless either Jim or I know the recording is taking place. Of course,
Federal laws only apply to interstate calls, but Jim is in Arizona and I'm
in Ohio (or am I?), so there you have it.
Eric Lucas
3000 people in say, a 20-year span vs 800,000 people in a 20-year span withOn Thu, 05 Oct 2006 15:03:17 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Which one would that be, the dangers of driving on the nation's highways?
That's at least 3 orders of magnitude greater of a real threat to every
person in the country than is terrorism.
3000 people died at the WTC. Three orders of magnitude from that is 3
million. We kill about 40K people a year in car accidents.
John
Uh, the Taliban are still there and actually control more of Afghanistan thanIn article <452590E2.F828860@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
Lobbing missiles
The targeting was quite precise actually.
Yep. He hit that aspirin factory dead on. Managed to put down the
chimney of the Chinese Embassy during Kosovo, too, Rip roaring accuracy.
in the general direction (with a forewarning to
Pakistan) is not an "attempt to get OBL", just an attempt to show that
"something is being done".
It's still 100% more than GWB ever did.
Yep GWB never did get around to clearing out the Taliban and
On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 13:22:17 -0400, Keith <krw@att.bizzzz> Gave us:
In article <eg335h$5l0$10@leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker@emory.edu
says...
In article <eg2od9$8qk_004@s829.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <VAVUg.13310$7I1.3298@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:452415BE.DB0DBC1E@hotmail.com...
Keith wrote:
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com says...
And you think you can defeat 'radical Islam' with bombs and bullets
?
I know there is no choice. Perhaps you want to submit?
There is no need to 'submit'
You're living in a perversely stupid fantasy paranoid world.
It comes from the constant bombardment by Bush's fear-mongering--it's
his
way of keeping power over people.
I think you should start to listen to Bush instead of listening
to other people supposedly repeating what Bush said. I would
suggest you start with his January, 2006 TV speech.
People start to lose perspective on what
is happening and why. It really is a very powerful narcotic.
People can also lose perspective if they assume that Bush
is always wrong
So what has he been right about?
and is the cause of all ills which is the
only thing you hear from his political opposition.
This causes a lot of people to overlook the fact that these
same politicians do not intend to deal with the threat
to the nation.
Bush has increased the threat. His own NIE says so.
You're in a fantasy land. ONE SENTENCE of the NIE report was
leaked by the Democrats to try to discredit Bush. The four pages
around that one sentence, later released, say exactly the opposite.
Please get your "news" from someone other than Franken.
Good one.
Yes, as good as Iraq had WMD.
Depends. In CA, you can only do so if both parties consent.On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 20:20:14 GMT, "Homer J Simpson"
nobody@nowhere.com> Gave us:
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:yecVg.8912$GR.1933@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.
Which Congress has not declared.LEOs cannot. Except, as in time of
war,
Where in the constitution does it allow parts of itself to be ignored?we have situational rules which govern the behavior of our
country's national security agencies.
Like Hitler did in 1930s Germany.They have followed all such
rules, and are perfectly within their rights in the task of making
this country safe again.
What parts allow other parts to be ignored?Tough luck, chucko, that you only kept the parts of the constitution
in mind that you liked.
Yes, but also note the mileage peaked a few years ago and has started goingIn article <QziVg.11645$6S3.234@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"JoeBloe" <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:t1dbi2pob3u7ic3dp19guns746jria0n2e@4ax.com...
On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 18:29:00 GMT, "Homer J Simpson"
nobody@nowhere.com> Gave us:
importing oil to feed its ridiculous fleet of
inefficient cars
I doubt that you even have any clue as to the model and make
distribution of cars in the US population.
Over half are SUVs and pickup trucks, that all get less than about 17 mpg.
I think that's all he really needs to know to make statements like he did
about "ridiculous fleet of inefficient cars".
The EPA stats indicate that at least at the 2004 model year, the
average mpg for the fleet (those acutally sold) was 21.5 mpg, up from
around 17 in '82 or so. The half sold was right.
http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/CAFE/docs/Summary-Fuel-Economy-Pref-2004.
Yawn. He distorts, plays on fear, and lies. Iraq had nothing to do withIn article <w88Vg.9105$vJ2.869@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eg2m74$8qk_002@s829.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <45226CD9.FF260140@earthlink.net>,
"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
The anti-Bushers keep saying this and it makes absolutely no sense.
What do you mean "retain power"? He has a term in office which
will end. He won't retain any powers after the Inaugeration in 2009.
take away peoples' rights, and kill a
segment of the world population, in much the same propagandistic way
that
Hitler did.
You've been listening to Democrats without thinking. Everything
coming out of their mouths is campaign speeches for 2004. This
is not a typo...I meant four.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Bush is the next
Hitler, just that there *are* parallels between their misanthropic
behavior,
if hugely different in degree and consequence.
You are excoriating Bush for doing one of his primary jobs which
is national security. I suppose you long for the days of the
Clintons where the goal was to breakdown all national security.
The Republicans are in a real panic here in Florida over Mark Foley.
They are afraid that the Democrats will get the seat he just vacated
because of the scandal.
Sure. That's local politics and wonderful to use as smoke and
mirrors to distract your attention from the real threats.
You mean kind of like gay marriage amendments, embryonic stem cells, Iraq
(as opposed to the *real* fight against terrorism), and so on?
Did you find the speech that Bush made in January? He described
why Iraq is important.
The IMs? Their content has been all over the news.To consider those real issues but to call the abuse of minors by a
Congressman "a smokescreen" is about as disingenuous as politics gets.
Did you purposely mininterpret what I wrote? Or did I not
write clearly enough? The Democrats are using this behavior
as a distraction. Do you not think that they are minimizing
the behaviour? Nobody has reported what those emails said.
All I've heard is that there was sex mentioned. Does that
mean he wrote, "Fuck" or something else?
/BAH
So why aren't we devoting all our resources to getting him?In article <P4Kdnb9ApIGR47jYRVnyrw@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:qkrai2hvpp43t4lpu1ttca9tpq8ueb94qr@4ax.com...
On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 15:03:17 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Which one would that be, the dangers of driving on the nation's highways?
That's at least 3 orders of magnitude greater of a real threat to every
person in the country than is terrorism.
3000 people died at the WTC. Three orders of magnitude from that is 3
million. We kill about 40K people a year in car accidents.
3000 people (not all of whom were US citizens) have been killed by Islamic
terrorist attacks on the Mainland US in (shall we say 80 years). How many
have died in car accidents in that time?
That said, you are nitpicking in the same manner. More than ten times as
many people die every year as died as a result of the 11 Sep 01 attack. That
is TEN attacks of that scale (and that was a large scale attack by anyone's
standards) every single year. Year in, year out and accepted as a normal
risk in life.
Amazing really.
So much for mess prevention. So how many people does Bin Laden
have to kill before you deal with this problem? 300,000?
3,000,000? 300,000,000? A billion?
After the first choice, Bin Laden will be the least of
the world's problems.
/BAH
Anything is better than "stay the course."In article <ZQ8Vg.19638$Ij.7364@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eg2od9$8qk_004@s829.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <VAVUg.13310$7I1.3298@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:452415BE.DB0DBC1E@hotmail.com...
Keith wrote:
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com says...
And you think you can defeat 'radical Islam' with bombs and bullets ?
I know there is no choice. Perhaps you want to submit?
There is no need to 'submit'
You're living in a perversely stupid fantasy paranoid world.
It comes from the constant bombardment by Bush's fear-mongering--it's his
way of keeping power over people.
I think you should start to listen to Bush instead of listening
to other people supposedly repeating what Bush said. I would
suggest you start with his January, 2006 TV speech.
I do and I did.
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."
If they had anything worked out, they
would specify. Now, it is possible that their plans are such
that noboby, including the most rabid leftist, would vote for them.
However, I am still assuming that these people have a single
functioning brain cell among them.
You
don't think that perhaps they have a *better* way to deal with it than is
being used now? (Yeah, yeah, I know, we've gone full circle on the whole
thread.)
No, I don't think they have a better way to deal with it. If they
did, they would be trumpeting it in all campaigning and getting votes
and getting elected. In fact, I don't they have any plans to deal
with it.
/BAH
in those countries are paying LESS.In article <4525DA2C.7CFA4E5E@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:
So, you don't carry anything else?...........
.........An insurance card so you don't die while waiting for
the hospital to make sure they will be paid for their services?
You really don't know much about the UK do you ?
Medical services are free.
You pay for them through taxes (among other ways). They ain't free no
matter what the politicians tell you.
Since health care costs per capita are lower in every western nation, people
---Kurt Ullman wrote:
So, we just all capitulate and become Muslim states?
Since when was that an option ?
You really shouldn't give so much credence to what a few thousand ppl say they
want.
Since it makes you happy to be unhappy, keep blaming the US for whatThe only thing that worries me about the 'state of the world' is what
idiocy America's up to next.
You are blaming externals for an internal state, a convenient and
paralyzing cop-out. For anyone reasonably healthy and living in a
free, developed country not to be happy is stunning stupidity. Sad,
too.
Our freedoms are under threat as a result of American stupidity.
And our plan is to stay there, bolstering the non-self-sustaining violence,In article <452561A0.981EE687@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
Jim Thompson wrote:
You must be a Democrat.
So when does the new Civil War start ?
I estimate that it could fester for at least another 2 years before it
gets to the point where the violence becomes self sustaining.
No, it isn't. You only have to declare if you want to vote in a primaryIn the US
it is normal to state which party you belong to when registering to vote.
And as a matter of history, fear is a great tool in doing this. Make peopleThe lower tech one is the liars contest where the speaker must convince
the public of a long list of things that aren't true.
Har dee har har har, Alice.Most Americans are well aware that a civil war can never really happen.
Can you imagine trying to fight a war where each soldier has to say to the
one for the other side "Excuse me. I have to shoot you. Would you prefer
it in the head or the heart." before he can pull the trigger.
In article <4525DA2C.7CFA4E5E@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:
So, you don't carry anything else?...........
.........An insurance card so you don't die while waiting for
the hospital to make sure they will be paid for their services?
You really don't know much about the UK do you ?
Medical services are free.
You pay for them through taxes (among other ways). They ain't free no
matter what the politicians tell you.
That's actually true. "American" culture, which is actually worldOur freedoms are under threat as a result of American stupidity.
Now I understand you. It is not Bin Laden's fault that he
is going to kill a lot of people. It's the Americans' fault
that caused Islamic extremists to want to destroy Western
civilization.