courts
just
I just ran a google search on "court decisions Guantanamo prisoners". I don't think you would like the results. Of course, you may be using a different definition of "consistently" than that which I am familiar.
Absolutely; one might be born either emotionally cold enough, or sufficiently balanced, to be able to see clearly and think rationally. But most people aren't, but you can apply feedforward correction, like learning to compensate for a slice in golf, and reduce the error by, maybe, a factor of two or three.
But emotions are the only origin of motivation and creativity, not to mention joy, so you can't just supress them.
John
Libel? Please Win, you know better. Proof of what? ...that you screech every time W does something (or doesn't)? Too many occurances of this to bother searching.
Or that you hate W? Out of your own fingers:
Or that hate clouds the mind? I thought that was fairly obvious. Libel? Sheesh, your mind _is_ clouded.
-- Keith
proper
you're
A link for you, that might keep you out of trouble in the future:
Apparently too late.
-- Keith
No, it's quite in line. You should insist on a refund. There are many classes of warrantless searches and seisures that the courts have agreed are reasonable. The gathering of foreign intelligence is one of them.
-- Keith
that
potentially-libelous
You should have read the website i gave you. Here's part:
"The law presumes in the plaintiff's favour that the statement is false, unless and until the defendant proves the contrary."
Now how will you prove that I am a "nitwit", "stupid", or "an idiot"?
on
up
Do you think you are winning that argument, also?
I did, nitwit. I suppose an attack on a finger-fumble is about all you're good for though.
-- Keith
Nothing. The supremes have consistently ruled that the president's war powers trump the "unreasonable" argument.
-- Keith
Potentially libelous? On the Usenet? Yes, nitwit!
Are you this stupid in person, or just on the Usenet? You are a real piece of work!
-- Keith
Apparently not the issue- it is well known that the FISA Court of Review itself upholds warrantless surveillance even at the individual level for purposes of gathering "foreign intelligence" on grounds of undisputed Constitutional powers vested in the President that cannot be infringed by the FISA law. This is a matter of published record in the Federal Reviews. The purpose of FISA, which is addressed to the President BTW, is to prevent Constitutional violations of individual 4th Amendment rights under "the color of law." This means the parties seeking investigation and prosecution of the President *know* of a specific case, specific instances, and at least one individual where just such an abuse of surveillance powers has occurred. You're not getting it because your powers of deduction are nil.
You are a bloody fool! Libel is pretty hard to prove when what is said is true.
You truely are an idiot.
-- Keith
We were discussing wiretaps (a.k.a. unreasonable search and seisure), nitwit.
-- Keith
Well, I don't accept your definition. Nobody was put in harms way by this supposed 'traitorous' act, unlike the Rove/Scooter/Cheney thing, which forced shuffling at the CIA to protect the lives of sources who had contacts with Ms Plame. We don't know who died because of that cavalier partisan act.
However, because of these leaks, we found out about high crimes and misdemeanors of a president. I'd say this is more of a heroic act than a traitorous one, whatever the motive. If congress doesn't move towards impeachment, they'll be voted out en masse.
On the other hand, this leak could have been another of Rove's dirty tricks; the leak came before the election, but the NYT didn't fall into the trap. Bush is now playing out the script he had prepared before (I'll do anything to help protect the lives of children, even LIE and BREAK the LAW.), but it is far less effective now, given his dramatic loss of popularity, and the resulting cynical response of the American public to his lies.
-- Regards, Bob Monsen When earlier, new functions were invented, the purpose was to apply them. Today, on the contrary, one constructs functions to contradict the conclusions of our predecessors and one will never be able to apply them for any other purpose. - Poincare
Actually, Jim, it is up to the claimant to prove his point. I don't believe it. He needs to prove it. Your logic is getting more like O'Reilly's every day, ya big bully... ;)
-- Regards, Bob Monsen In any particular theory, there is only as much real science as there is mathematics. - Immanuel Kant
There is actually a biochemical basis for your assertion that hate clouds the mind, and it can be generalized to all emotion clouds the mind to some degree. We have higher and lower brain functions with emotions largely resulting from the lower brain. The lower brain parts when sufficiently stimulated will secret biochemicals that shutdown the higher brain function. This will happen to a greater or lesser degree based on genetic endowment and its consequences for the physical configuration of the brain. If you want to think "clearly" then all emotion must be suppressed.
Sorry, I clipped the wrong quote, and responded to it. Here is the one I was really responding to, from the same messages as above:
The site is David Brock's "Media Matters". They are a watchdog group, trying to combat the disinformation spewed by such right wing heroes as Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter. I guess that makes them suspect, and part of the 'left wing media conspiracy' that is biting at the heels of our noble president as he fights a desperate war against Bin Laden and his 35 remaining recruits by attacking the wrong country...
One thing that is suspicious about this "war on terror" is that, at least according to the 9/11 commissioners, it never seems to actually do anything that would make us safer. Here is the report:
Now, some cynics would claim that they simply don't care about our safety with regards to terrorism... after all, any attacks would validate the president's position, and probably rally the country around him once again. It would also validate the positions of those yes-men in congress, and help them in the mid-term elections. So, none of these guys have a real interest in protecting the country from those 35 remaining terrorists outside of Iraq (other than their sworn duty)...
However, not being cynical, I simply assume that they are incompetent with regards to this effort. After all, they have been woefully incompetent at nearly everything else they have attempted. Why should anti-terrorism be any different?
I couldn't find any mention of this. As far as I can tell, Carter never 'fessed up' to bugging American citizens on American soil. More lies from FOX, I'm guessing. You might want to switch channels once in a while. Their claim to being 'fair and balanced' is not really supported by the facts, despite the heroic efforts of Alan Colmes. ;)
As usual, you blithely assert things as fact, but never actually back any of them up. You made the claim about all presidents using illegal wiretaps. Back it up if you can.
-- Regards, Bob Monsen In any particular theory, there is only as much real science as there is mathematics. - Immanuel Kant
In article , Bob Monsen wrote: [...]
I heard it too. He sound a lot like he was drunk and the worse for it. I think he was on a "book tour" at the time. It could be that he really was drunk.
[...]Actually, he more often promotes them. The current AG got his job after he (1) let the torture memo get on paper (2) didn't straight away burn that paper (3) let that paper get out of his offices (3) let that paper leak to the press.
-- -- kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge
And amazingly emotional involvement turns out to be necessary for the learning process, determining how quickly and permanently knowledge is absorbed into long term memory.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.