For gunner

Ed Huntress wrote:


Americans choose the best "C" student they can get, even if by a small margin. Kerry finished Yale with a cumulative score of 76. Bush finished Yale with a cumulative score of 77.
--
Accidental creation should not be taught as a fact.
Intelligent creation should not be banned from teachings as
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 21:22:39 -0500, "Ed Huntress"

One should note..that the time of war snooping on electronic media, was instituted by FDR at the beginning of WW2. It was further implimented by Jimmy Carter (Hostage Crisis) and carried forwards since then by every president.
Gunner
"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire. Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us) off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give them self determination under "play nice" rules.
Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you for torturing the cat." Gunner
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

on
for
hear
One can note it, but one will be noting in a vacuum if he doesn't note several other things. One is that FDR was operating under a declared war. Two is that there is nothing in this noting to note precisely what FDR authorized, nor how it relates to the Fourth Amendment. One should also note the same thing about Carter.
If one has some specific, documented evidence about what they did and more than empty speculation about how or why those things might have been illegal, one will have something to talk about. As it is, it's a Rove-type statement intended to imply something that may or may not have any substance. Bush, OTOH, has flatly ignored the law and probably has overreached the Fourth. We'll see as more legal opinions -- with explanations -- come forth.
'Good to see you back. I hope all is well, and Merry Christmas if I don't catch you again today.
-- Ed Huntress
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ed Huntress wrote:

You sound surprised. That was Gunner talking, I mean blabbering.
Abrasha http://www.abrasha.com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You take one lousy week off to join Thorax at the Elvis concert, and this
2005 18:37:59 GMT in rec.crafts.metalworking :

    And over the last few years, such capacity has been compromised by media outlets, eager for a scoop and wanting to appear 'in the know' (and with an understanding of operational security based on TV shows and conversations in bars with guys claiming to be "spooks".)          
--
pyotr filipivich.
as an explaination for the decline in the US's tech edge, James
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
says...

Yeah, what's with that. They should make all those pesky newspapers have to clear all their stories with the shrubbie personally before they publish.
Assuming he can read, that is.
Jim
--
==================================================
please reply to:
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

What score did you get at Yale Jim? Was it higher than Kerry's?
Laugh laugh laugh.
Gunner
"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire. Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us) off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give them self determination under "play nice" rules.
Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you for torturing the cat." Gunner
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You take one lousy week off to join Thorax at the Elvis concert, and this
18:02:53 -0800 in rec.crafts.metalworking :

    Silly liberal, the "whats with that" is that the editorial boards doesn't understand the reality of surveillance, of real espionage, or how boasting about how We are pulling one over on Them informs Them of the problem so they can rectify it. (I seem to recall a report that in the early part of the Pacific War, the Japanese were setting their depth charges too "shallow", which made thinks better for US submarines. Till this little tidbit was published in an article of the "at war with the Submarine Fleet" nature.)     Yeah, I know, "free press " and all that. Of course, there was a time when the "free press" wasn't conducting it's own foreign policy contrary to the US Government.

    Well, that's demonstrates your qualifications on the subject: none.
--
pyotr filipivich
Most journalists these days couldn't investigate a missing chocolate cake
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
says...

You still don't "get it."
Look back carefully. Think. Take an historical perspective.
Was there ever a time when the free press was conducting its own, adverse foreign policy towards the government?
What was the result of that adverse policy?
What happened then?
Where did that first amendment actually come from?
Am I the only person who percieves irony in his statments??
Jim
--
==================================================
please reply to:
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

DING!!
A winner, finally!
The founders put all kinds of adverse press about the british out in literature. The brits used the exact same arguments that are floating around right now, and the colonists kept right on publishing.
When they formed the constitution, what was the very first thing the founders wanted in the bill of rights?
Yep, the continued assurance that anyone, anywhere, could publish literally anything about the newly-formed government.
Anything.
Anytime.
Anywhere.
Political speech is the highest level of protected speech.
No prior restraint.
No limit on content.
No libel.
No slander.
If you're talking about what your government is doing, or about a politician, the founders made it abundantly clear that anything goes. The founders realized that the free press was a terrific weapon against tyranny, and they further realized that if or when the US government became rotten, the first amendment would be pivotal in ensuring freedom for the citizens - so they penned that first amendment in no uncertain terms.
Anyone who suggest that we throw away 200 plus years of first amendment rights simply because the shrubbie is too incompetent to run his administration has his head so far jammed up his ass that the best bet would be for that person to emmigrate to some other country where the government controls its press with more authority.
There are plenty of choices.
American Constituion. Love it, or Leave.
Jim
--
==================================================
please reply to:
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The local free press - those not burnt down by the Brits - posted things like men on the street and on the high seas were taken under arms and forced labor upon British Ships as servants/workers/slaves.
Free shipment of goods from the south and Europe was cut off and taxed when allowed. Taxing wasn't light either. It was cheaper to ship cotton bales to the England and then back to Boston than from Atlanta to Boston.
Suppression and white slavery was all over. So it was published and posted and things came to a head - slaughter in the streets by the Brits - and the game was on.
Martin
Martin Eastburn @ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net NRA LOH & Endowment Member NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder
jim rozen wrote:

-
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You take one lousy week off to join Thorax at the Elvis concert, and this
10:00:37 -0800 in rec.crafts.metalworking :

    I see.
    So, the Founder were printing what government secrets they could uncover because they were in support of the British Government, or were they in opposition to said government?
    Don't worry Jim, the New York Times is very concerned that the Republicans do not prevail in thwarting "enemy" attacks, and are doing their best to keep everyone informed of what those means are.
toodles
--
pyotr filipivich.
as an explaination for the decline in the US's tech edge, James
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
says...

Well that's the peculiar thing, the law doesn't make the distinction between political speech that is in favor of the government, or against it.
It doesn't matter if you are nazi or the jdl. Doesn't matter if your red or blue. Doesn't matter if your The Progressive or the NY Times. Doesn't matter if you're daniel ellsberg or karl rove.
The founder[s] wanted citizens to be able to speak out freely about any political activity, and they wanted the government's ability to poke around in citizens' affairs kept under check.
Hence the first, and fourth amendments.
If it's political speech, it's protected.
Searches must happen pusuant to a warrant issued on probably cause.
Jim
--
==================================================
please reply to:
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You take one lousy week off to join Thorax at the Elvis concert, and this
16:58:07 -0800 in rec.crafts.metalworking :

    Didn't say Political speech. I'm talking about reporting out Government Secrets. Something Democrats seem to believe it is their right as Journalists to do, and not suffer consequences.
    As for Political speech, that's been highly regulated, ever since the McCain Feingold incumbent protection act passed Consittutional muster . Remember, The Constitution is a Living Document, not something static, handed down engraved on stone tablets.
tschus pyotr
--
pyotr filipivich
If the world was flat - some people would complain about falling off the edge.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
pyotr filipivich wrote:

AFTER 9/11 Fear destroys what bin Laden could not ROBERT STEINBACK snipped-for-privacy@MiamiHerald.com One wonders if Osama bin Laden didn't win after all. He ruined the America that existed on 9/11. But he had help.
If, back in 2001, anyone had told me that four years after bin Laden's attack our president would admit that he broke U.S. law against domestic spying and ignored the Constitution -- and then expect the American people to congratulate him for it -- I would have presumed the girders of our very Republic had crumbled.
Had anyone said our president would invade a country and kill 30,000 of its people claiming a threat that never, in fact, existed, then admit he would have invaded even if he had known there was no threat -- and expect America to be pleased by this -- I would have thought our nation's sensibilities and honor had been eviscerated.
If I had been informed that our nation's leaders would embrace torture as a legitimate tool of warfare, hold prisoners for years without charges and operate secret prisons overseas -- and call such procedures necessary for the nation's security -- I would have laughed at the folly of protecting human rights by destroying them.
If someone had predicted the president's staff would out a CIA agent as revenge against a critic, defy a law against domestic propaganda by bankrolling supposedly independent journalists and commentators, and ridicule a 37-year Marie Corps veteran for questioning U.S. military policy -- and that the populace would be more interested in whether Angelina is about to make Brad a daddy -- I would have called the prediction an absurd fantasy.
That's no America I know, I would have argued. We're too strong, and we've been through too much, to be led down such a twisted path.
What is there to say now?
All of these things have happened. And yet a large portion of this country appears more concerned that saying ''Happy Holidays'' could be a disguised attack on Christianity.
I evidently have a lot poorer insight regarding America's character than I once believed, because I would have expected such actions to provoke -- speaking metaphorically now -- mobs with pitchforks and torches at the White House gate. I would have expected proud defiance of anyone who would suggest that a mere terrorist threat could send this country into spasms of despair and fright so profound that we'd follow a leader who considers the law a nuisance and perfidy a privilege.
Never would I have expected this nation -- which emerged stronger from a civil war and a civil rights movement, won two world wars, endured the Depression, recovered from a disastrous campaign in Southeast Asia and still managed to lead the world in the principles of liberty -- would cower behind anyone just for promising to ``protect us.''
President Bush recently confirmed that he has authorized wiretaps against U.S. citizens on at least 30 occasions and said he'll continue doing it. His justification? He, as president -- or is that king? -- has a right to disregard any law, constitutional tenet or congressional mandate to protect the American people.
Is that America's highest goal -- preventing another terrorist attack? Are there no principles of law and liberty more important than this? Who would have remembered Patrick Henry had he written, ``What's wrong with giving up a little liberty if it protects me from death?''
Bush would have us excuse his administration's excesses in deference to the ''war on terror'' -- a war, it should be pointed out, that can never end. Terrorism is a tactic, an eventuality, not an opposition army or rogue nation. If we caught every person guilty of a terrorist act, we still wouldn't know where tomorrow's first-time terrorist will strike. Fighting terrorism is a bit like fighting infection -- even when it's beaten, you must continue the fight or it will strike again.
Are we agreeing, then, to give the king unfettered privilege to defy the law forever? It's time for every member of Congress to weigh in: Do they believe the president is above the law, or bound by it?
Bush stokes our fears, implying that the only alternative to doing things his extralegal way is to sit by fitfully waiting for terrorists to harm us. We are neither weak nor helpless. A proud, confident republic can hunt down its enemies without trampling legitimate human and constitutional rights.
Ultimately, our best defense against attack -- any attack, of any sort -- is holding fast and fearlessly to the ideals upon which this nation was built. Bush clearly doesn't understand or respect that. Do we?
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/columnists/13487511.htm
--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Keep one thing in mind. No matter what a president does he always says that it was legal, whether it turns out to be or not. Presidents always overstep their authority at some point and no matter how improper their actions they will always argue that what they did was right and legal. And they always say that their lawyers have researched the issue and agree with the president's actions. It doesn't mean a thing. Any time a president does something that is questionable in a legal sense it has to go to the courts to determine whether is really is legal or not despite what the president and his supporters say. In Bush's case the odds are that his failure to stay within the bounds of the FISA act means he's guilty of a crime. With a Republican majority in Congress it's moot. He could commit murder and they would not find he did anything wrong. Which is why letting Republicans control all the branches of the government mustn't be allowed to happen again.
Hawke
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<snip>

Or Democrats. When one party controls the executive and the legislative branches, all pretense of checks and balances goes to hell -- like the earlier part of Bush's presidency, for example, and some previous terms of Democrats in our lifetimes (if my memory is correct about Dems controlling both the House and Senate at the same time, while a Dem president is in office. I'd have to check about the Senate).
It's interesting to see how Congress is behaving since Bush became a weak lame duck, however. Now it takes just a few Republicans to switch sides on an issue and it's stalled. This probably is a good thing, because we were winding up with some ideological federal legislation that didn't reflect majority interests.
-- Ed Huntress
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The current adminstration *tried* to ask congress for the ability to do warrentless wiretapping on citizens in the US. They were not allowed to this. The answer was "NO."
It also doesn't say "GW's house cannot be searched without a warrant."
So your house can now be entered and searched by the police, at any time, without them having to obtain a warrant from a judge. Right?
You've just given up your rights under the fourth amendment, and you didn't even know it.
Jim
--
==================================================
please reply to:
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
jim rozen wrote:

Our entire society ( American ) is based on the premise that we would rather let the guilty go free in a pinch rather than sacrifice the governments burden to prove guilt. That is where "beyond a reasonable doubt" comes in. THIS is what's wrong with things like the Patriot Act and warrantless searches. The presumption of innocence goes out the window in advance of any process. The Constitution either means something or it doesn't. It, and our laws, either applies equally or they don't. The term "Fighting for Our Freedoms" means Americans are willing to bear the associated burden, die even. It's worth the price of liberty to do so.
FULL STOP.
Our country is being altered in very fundamental ways and I can't believe it's going to fly. It probably is, I just can't believe it.
--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
John R. Carroll wrote:

I agree that letting a guilty person go free might be better than losing our freedom but what the uproar is all about is not that. It's about possibly missing a chance to stop a major attack which could result in a potential huge loss of life. Nobody is breaking into houses. The phone calls monitored are overseas with suspected terrorists or their friends. Maybe mistakes will be made but to not try could be worse. GW
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.