Jihad needs scientists

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <ehngfd$8qk_013@s885.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <ehilc2$rv0$11@leto.cc.emory.edu>,
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
In article <ehi3q8$8qk_004@s784.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <ehafo7$ot9$1@leto.cc.emory.edu>,
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
In article <ehab1j$8qk_001@s949.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <1161169073.347610.229970@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,


The people I've been talking to appear to believe that only
the US government knows how to make these things.



They
seem to believe that only the US government can OK
all chemical invoices.


Weapons? Yes. Certain chemicals? Yes again.

Our business and politics do not
work that way. I think a lot Europeans are confused by
this because their businesses are generally government
controlled.

A total lie. Europe is very capitalistic.

Not the labor. Labor is union.


So? Takes both capital and labor to make anything. Besides, you said
"government controlled."

and/or union controlled

Aw, corporations give their workers a voice in how they're run. Gee, what
a
radical idea. Straight out of biblical-era communes and Pilgrim New
England.

espeically in the
manufacturing and mining areas.

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?

Yes. The purpose of the Constitution was to give very limited
powers to the Federation, keeping all the rest within each
state.


That was written that way so that the states didn't war
among themselves. Disputes are settles in courts of law
rather than killing fields. The people who met at
the Constitutional Convention did not want to go through
the hundreds of years' war that Europe meandered in.

snip

And what is Bush doing but taking away our basic liberties?

Name one so we have something concrete to talk about.

Habeas corpus; the military commissions bill takes it away. 4th amendment
rights, requiring a warrant -- Bush's warrantless spying takes them away.
Right to confront accusers -- military commissions bill takes it away.

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.

/BAH

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <ehnhh9$8qk_016@s885.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <ehildp$rv0$12@leto.cc.emory.edu>,
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
In article <ehi52h$8qk_007@s784.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <453C44D7.540280C@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:


jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Funny, you've offered no solutions to the problems that have been
created
by the current administration.

STate a problem. You keep contending that Iraq is one. It is
not.

It's all going badly wrong in Iraq right now.

Of course it is. The goal is to Democrats in power in the US
elections.

Whose goal ?

The Islamic extremists. Based on past history, they believe
that Democrats will not retaliate with swift and deadly force
when their next mess is made against the US.

/BAH
The Democrats supported action in Afghanistan.

Yup. And Kerry's campaign for president, both in 2003 and now,
is to promise to go back and wage that war all over again.

Bush's invasion of Iraq, OTOH,
had nothing to do with the US being attacked.

It is one step in the stragegy.

Like attacking Canada after Pearl Harbor.

It is a necessary step.

Bulls**t.

It was
also the only step that could produce good results with minimum
risk.

So invade Granada again.

This is still true unless the Democrats succeed in
diverting the world from the original threat.

Which had what to do with Iraq? It's Bush who's been diverted from al Qaida
and bin Laden.

They seem to
be succeeding. The Republican running for governor in my state
has already lost the election because of one thing she failed
to do in last week's debate.

/BAH

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <ehnhl4$8qk_017@s885.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <453CBD2E.2081C49F@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:


jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

STate a problem. You keep contending that Iraq is one. It is
not.

It's all going badly wrong in Iraq right now.

Of course it is. The goal is to Democrats in power in the US
elections.

Whose goal ?

The Islamic extremists. Based on past history, they believe
that Democrats will not retaliate with swift and deadly force
when their next mess is made against the US.

And do pray tell me how these extremists can influence the elections in the
USA.

Ben Ladin said he would stop attacking if the voters voted for
Kerry.

That's a flat-out lie.

There was a news item that a similar ad is playing on
that al jazeer network. I haven't checked that one out.

/BAH

The terrorists want Republicans to stay in power. The Iraq invasion has been
their best recruiting tool ever.

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <ehni07$8qk_018@s885.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <453DA904.61F1CEC3@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:


unsettled wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

It's all going badly wrong in Iraq right now.

Of course it is. The goal is to Democrats in power in the US
elections.

Whose goal ?


The Islamic extremists. Based on past history, they believe
that Democrats will not retaliate with swift and deadly force
when their next mess is made against the US.

As has been demonstrated in the past.

Really ? The actions of the Republicans has made things far worse IMO.

If Bush hadn't organized, the bombs in the Underground would have
blasted that infrastucture to inoperability. There would have
been more airplanes used as bombs.

Bull again. Britain and Spain got attacked because they had troops in Iraq.

Spain would have had more
crippling of its infrastructure. Afghanistan would still be
training new recruits.

And Iraq had what to do with that?

The Islamic moderates would still be
in hidden in their closets. Nobody would be trying to keep
Iran from deploying atomic bombs.

We've created that too. Iran sees Bush invading nations and believes it needs
WMD as a deterrent.

Women would not be gaining
access to mobility and education in Saudi Arabia.

They aren't.

Pakistan would
still be exporting its atomic bomb knowledge without restraint.

Yeah, we sure stopped that. No, wait. We didn't. And North Korea didn't
have nuclear weapons until Bush.

Should I go on?

/BAH

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <ehni4n$8qk_019@s885.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <RT3%g.23038$7I1.13549@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehi52h$8qk_007@s784.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <453C44D7.540280C@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:


jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Funny, you've offered no solutions to the problems that have been
created
by the current administration.

STate a problem. You keep contending that Iraq is one. It is
not.

It's all going badly wrong in Iraq right now.

Of course it is. The goal is to Democrats in power in the US
elections.

Whose goal ?

The Islamic extremists. Based on past history, they believe
that Democrats will not retaliate with swift and deadly force
when their next mess is made against the US.

Ahh...so *that's* why the picked a Republican presidency to carry out their
worst attack in history against anybody, ever. Now I understand your logic.

No, the plans were made during Clinton's adminstration.

And Clinton left Bush plans to deal with bin Laden too. Plans Bush ignored.

The first
bombing did not produce much reaction. Plans were made for a
second bombing. None of this happened when Bush was president.

Do get your timelines straight.

/BAH

Yes do. Clinton had developed plans for dealing with bin Laden. Bush
twiddled his thumbs for 9 months.

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 03:41:14 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:56:33 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

Isn't that how Hitler got started?

Yes. However Germany is not suffering a massive economic depression and
smarting from a recent, unfair, peace treaty. In the 1930s Germany still had
the capability of becoming a world power in military terms. This is no
longer the case.

Especially so as the Brits and French and Russians have nukes.

Nearly irrelevant in the European context.

The way things are going we ( the above ) need to target the USA.

---
Are you advocating a pre-emptive nuclear strike against the US?


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 25 Oct 06 10:04:47 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <vb4qj29r3tpr4ctnhbffuumsdgpj704mf8@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 12:42:53 -0500, unsettled <unsettled@nonsense.com
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 23 Oct 06 10:55:36 GMT, lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:


In article <8t5nj29md56ugu8pm4epmitj8tgp66v2of@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 14:21:12 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:



Saying "I believe in evolution" is a valid sentence.

No, it is not valid within this context. You do know that
the Creed starts out with "I believe...".

It is still valid. I honestly believe in Newtonian Gravity being the
best
description of gravity in the domain in which it applies. This is not
something which can be "known" as tomorrow some one may come up with a
better description.

Does this open the floodgates for the Religious Right to send me to
hell?

Can you cite any modern case of the Religious Right denying the
accuracy of Newton's law of gravitation?


Well, there was an Onion story...


Strawman indeed. Since the
time of Galileo's house arrest, the western churches have
progressively conceded to science the domain of physical reality. I've
read, and believe, the argument that Christianity is in fact
pro-science, and Islam is not, which is why the West is so far ahead
in technology. The Irish monks kept the wisdom of the Greeks safe
through the dark ages, and the Jesuits were and are great contributors
to math and science.


So your rejection of evolution makes you more Islam than Christian?


I don't reject it. I have a long history in s.e.d. of arguing that
evolution and the operations of DNA will turn out to be far more
complex than Darwin or the neo-Darwinists ever imagined. The dispute
is that I believe in evolution more than most other people do. As
such, evolution is still very poorly understood, hence not very well
developed science.

The same statement can be made with great validity about any
of the sciences.

Most of the other sciences produce theories that work quantitatively
to some goodly number of decimal points, and can be tested
experimentally, and that have difficulty quantitatively explaining
only extreme situations. Evolution is essentially qualitative, and
only connects the dimly-understood functionality of DNA to evolution
in a fuzzy, descriptive sort of way.

There's all sorts of interesting stuff. Some people are born with six
fully functional fingers on each hand. So "finger" must be some sort
of parameterized macro, and "mirror image" must be an operation, and
there must be some sort of installation crew that hooks everything up
so that it all works.

Aircraft parts were classicly identified by drawing number and dash
number. If a part were, say, 123456-1A (the basic part defined by
drawing 123456 rev A), it was automatically assumed that 123456-2A was
its mirror image.

Yep. JMF worked with a guy whose hobby was studying that kind
of genetic stuff. He gave JMF a video tape that was considering
a hypothesis that the mechanism of making the fingers, etc.
was mechanical. I had never considered that before.

/BAH

Which brings up the interesting idea of studying heritable birth
defects, which could be assumed to be true mutations. Are heritable
physical defects ever asymmetric?

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:55:01 +0100, "T Wake"
<usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

It is still valid. I honestly believe in Newtonian Gravity being the best
description of gravity in the domain in which it applies.

I don't believe it. I demonstrated it when I did my labs.

You still believe it is the _best_ description of gravity. Tomorrow some one

Einstein

may overhaul Newtonian gravity and explain that it is actually incorrect
because of [insert reason here].

General relativity, as demonstrated in the orbit of Mercury.

This is not prohibited by anything in the
scientific method.

Nope!

John

 

"JoeBloe" <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:s3htj25bujoqqfb79vtc3qmbg3g10vtla4@4ax.com...

On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 20:34:42 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> Gave us:

But, please, don't let a little data stand in the way of your jingoism.

The cotton gin, 1794.

A patent doesn't mean crap without commercialization. Da Vinci designed a
helicopter--I suppose you're going to try to tell me that powered human
flight began in the 16th century.

Cotton was first spun by machinery in England in 1730. If the US waited
until 1794, I guess they were more than a little behind in the game.

You retarded fuck.

Obscenity and insults...the last resort of those too braindead to keep up
with a factual discussion.

Eric Lucas

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 21:14:36 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 03:41:14 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:56:33 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

Isn't that how Hitler got started?

Yes. However Germany is not suffering a massive economic depression and
smarting from a recent, unfair, peace treaty. In the 1930s Germany still had
the capability of becoming a world power in military terms. This is no
longer the case.

Especially so as the Brits and French and Russians have nukes.

Nearly irrelevant in the European context.

The way things are going we ( the above ) need to target the USA.

Graham



I knew you would say that. Do you stay up at night, dreaming of
killing?

---
Dieagra?


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 25 Oct 06 09:23:02 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In the 1930s Germany still had
the capability of becoming a world power in military terms. This is no
longer the case.

Isn't it trying to run the EU economics show? The news
over here implies that France and Germany as the main
players. All those other countries seem to get no
attention.

The actual delay in the A380 program is fitting the bomb-bay doors.

John

 

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:h5ntj2tj5na16ukm8mafsl3k29tocm4k4j@4ax.com...

On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 03:07:31 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:


"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
message
news:3g2tj2lhua1fap95hmds1gr987qu2vo90f@4ax.com...

My only real suggestion here has been that evolution should be able to
optimize evolution itself: evolution evolves. And the implications of
that are manifold, and lead to some ideas that produce some
interestingly hostile reactions.

Interesting thought. My first response is to ask what you propose as the
mechanism for that.

Mutation and natural selection, of course.

That begs the question. What exactly is the mechanism that allows mutation
and natural selection to control themselves, if both occur passively?

If that was enough to give
us kidneys and eyeballs and brains, it's surely enough to fine-tune
the hardware of evolution itself.

You're not going to win any converts with that condescending attitude.

Evolution is so passive, that it's hard to imagine any
form of active control.

Circular argument. Try imagining.

Again, I can see why you have not had anyone take it seriously--when someone
does, you condescend. I'm trying to get *you* to put some flesh around your
ideas. It's not my idea to flesh out, don't make me do your work.

There are two possible points of control that I
see--the mutation rate, and the survivability advantage due to any
particular mutation. As I understand it, mutations are based on 3 general
chemistries: 1) photochemistry of nucleobases, 2) O2 (and other
free-radical) chemistry of nucleobases, and 3) simple mis-transcription.
I
do not know in what proportions these mix. It's not clear how the first
two
can be manipulated without a sweeping change, for example to other
nucleobases besides ACGT. All three are subject to repair mechanisms in
the
body of the lifeform, and this might be one point of active control over
the
rate of evolution.

Yes, that's basic. The natural mutation rate is too high, and most
mutations are too destructive, so repair mechanisms evolve to optimize
the mutation rate. Evolution begins to manage itself. The optimum
"crude" mutation rate, the rate of gross random damage to DNA by means
of radiation and such, may well be zero.

That is known for a fact not to be true.

There are better ways to
shuffle cards than by blasting the deck with a shotgun.

To my knowledge, nobody has yet discovered a mechanism by which an organism
self-mutates. That, at most, leaves the repair mechanism as the means of
self-control of mutation rates.

Finally, it's not clear how evolution would exert any
control over the survivability advantage of a particular mutation, since
the
mutations are supposed to be, by definition, random.

That definition is dogma.

No, it's a summary of what we know so far.

DNA may have better ideas.

Maybe, but science usually starts with data and speculates a cause.

Species that
evolve better will, err, evolve better, won't they? You can't argue
with that sort of reasoning.

Except it still begs the question "How?".

However, it is possible that evolution has already selected for some sort
of
optimum rate of evolution. Considering there are probably billions of
mutations for every one mutation that is "productive", and considering
that
a mutation probably has a far, far greater chance of causing damage than
good, there will be a limit to how fast productive mutations can crop up,
without having so many catastrophic mutations that the species simply
cannot
survive. If an organism mutates at too rapid a rate, it simply won't even
survive one generation because it will likely encounter so many
destructive
mutations. This may be how we have evolved a DNA repair mechanism, and
the
evolved need to have some rate of uncorrected mutations may have set
limits
on the effectiveness of that repair mechanism. This then sets an upper
limit on the rate of "productive evolution".

It may also be that evolution should lowpass filter the selection
environment.

Again, how?

I think there is some evidence, at least in bacteria, that the
mutation rate increases in times of stress.

Again, how does this happen? It could just be that the stressors that we
have correlated with mutation rates are just those that have an effect on
the relative rates of mutation and repair. There may be no active
component--although I certainly admit that there may.

If you believe in evolution, it seems to me that you must believe that
evolution works to optimize the mechanisms of evolution itself, rather
than sticking to the passive random mutation/selection model. It
further seems to me that that course is imperative as long as it's not
physically impossible, and so long as it has adaptive advantages.

One other possible issue is the timescale. The timescale for productive
mutations that lead to new biological features seems likely to be on the
order of millions of years, at least. The timescale for modifications of
the mechanisms of evolution itself would have to wait many, many
evolutionary cycles to get to a point where they have a noticeable effect on
survivability due to increased rate of evolution. That puts the timescale
somewhere near the known age of life on earth.

I'm not saying it won't happen or hasn't happened. However, if you're going
to propose something like this, you're going to need to do some thinking
about the mechanism and the timescale, and drop the condescencion, if you
want anyone to listen and take it seriously. That is, unless you like
wearing the role of "misunderstood genius" on your sleeve.

Eric Lucas

Eric Lucas

 

[John Larkin]

On 25 Oct 2006 07:13:56 GMT, dhaude@alpha42.physnet.uni-hamburg.de
(Haude Daniel) wrote:

BTW, I'm neither a mechanical nor an electrical engineer. I'm a
physicist with an engineering streak which, by now, exceeds my
interest in scientific work. But since I only work among
scientists and not engineers, my stuff may seem to be a bit more
ingenious than it actually is. It's definetely better than
what's on the (very small and limited) market, which is of
course also mostly designed by physicists and not engineers. But
who cares. I certainly don't. Among the blind, the one-eyed is
king.

I'm an EE with a physics streak, just coming at things from a
different direction. Crossing domains opens huge opportunities for new
ideas. Lots of cool toys, too: superconducting magnets, microchannel
plates, big lasers, explosions, accelerators. I've been able to make
nontrivial contributions to Jlabs, Cern p-p collider, SLAC, NIF,
DHART, NMR, atom probing, ICCD photography, eximer lasers, jet engine
testing, radar, all sorts of weird stuff, because I get curious about
the science and learn to talk to people in their jargon. It's fun,
too, designing things that aren't just electronics boxes.

--Daniel

*) We'll see when the thing is down the cryostat in UHV.

Hard to get a scope probe in there, though.

John

 

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehnai0$8ss_004@s885.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <c3ptj2hik5d15egrtr0b9q6hcr9rv4vttt@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 03:41:14 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:56:33 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

Isn't that how Hitler got started?

Yes. However Germany is not suffering a massive economic depression
and
smarting from a recent, unfair, peace treaty. In the 1930s Germany
still
had
the capability of becoming a world power in military terms. This is no
longer the case.

Especially so as the Brits and French and Russians have nukes.

Nearly irrelevant in the European context.

The way things are going we ( the above ) need to target the USA.

Graham



I knew you would say that.

Yup. I did, too.

Do you stay up at night, dreaming of killing?

Nah, people that have his type of thinking are believing
that, if the US were gone, there wouldn't be any of these
problems. It's an opinion that's been building up
over the last decade...and another damned thought process
I've been trying to fix.

Pretty arrogant of you to know what he believes. Even more arrogant of you
to think it's your place to "fix" him.

Eric Lucas

 

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehnf70$8qk_008@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

 

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehnfkr$8qk_010@s885.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <676fc$453b76e5$4fe75d1$17105@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
unsettled <unsettled@nonsense.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@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

 

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehnfrf$8qk_011@s885.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <ehj7op$h3g$2@leto.cc.emory.edu>,
lparker@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

 

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehngfd$8qk_013@s885.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <ehilc2$rv0$11@leto.cc.emory.edu>,
lparker@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

 

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehngkf$8qk_014@s885.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <48c%g.19686$6S3.1431@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

"unsettled" <unsettled@nonsense.com> wrote in message
news:856de$453d290d$49ed52d$28493@DIALUPUSA.NET...
lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

"unsettled" <unsettled@nonsense.com> wrote in message
news:9d61d$453cfc77$49ecff9$27195@DIALUPUSA.NET...

lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:


"unsettled" <unsettled@nonsense.com> wrote in message
news:cf679$453cf606$49ecff9$26900@DIALUPUSA.NET...


Lloyd Parker wrote:



In article <ehi3q8$8qk_004@s784.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:



In article <ehafo7$ot9$1@leto.cc.emory.edu>,
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:



In article <ehab1j$8qk_001@s949.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@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

 

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehnh4d$8qk_015@s885.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <obeqj25dhnhpo19q90c1s4vtdrticvi04o@4ax.com>,
Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote:
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 12:13:35 -0500, unsettled <unsettled@nonsense.com
wrote:

snip
In our system, anything not prohibited is permitted.
snip

That shows such horrible ignorance and it is exactly the kind of thing
that Hamilton wrote about "back in the day."

Scares me spitless that anyone actually believes that crap about what
government is permitted to do.

Go back and reread the thread before unsettled's statement.
The subject was businesses in the USA. Not the government,
not the people, not anything but business.

And if you would bother to go back a couple posts further, you were talking
about businesses that might export technology related to CWA. Sounds like
national security to me.

I was talking about how the US government has very little
power over what a business does to make money.

Then you've never heard of the DoC, DoT, EPA, FDA, DEA, USDA, OSHA, DPH....
All have direct controls over what businesses can do. Need I list more?

OTOH, a country whose economics is based in socialism has
to give permission for everything new.

Strawman. Name one such country in the EU.

Eric Lucas