Climate models suck - It's the programming
in [Cobol]
|
From: Howard Brazee on 8 Feb 2010 15:17 On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 15:36:33 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf(a)panix.com () wrote: >That depends on who defines this 'pale', Mr Dashwood... members of the >'wrong' political party, the 'wrong' religious persuasion or who obtain >sexual gratification in certain manners have all been defined that way. > >This is, I believe, to be avoided in *my* United States of America, >period. My definition of "beyond the pale" is stricter when applied to me and mine than when I define it for actions taken by others. I demand myself, my family, and my nation to have higher self-standards than I expect out of the enemy. -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison
From: Anonymous on 8 Feb 2010 15:42 In article <n9g0n55ck07goamdlkvtiig7a3asab73lo(a)4ax.com>, SkippyPB <swiegand(a)Nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote: >On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 20:31:41 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf(a)panix.com () wrote: [snip] >>If anyone, anywhere, >>can find an equivalent of an American Wannsee Conference then I'm more >>than willing to see this discussion cast into an entirely different >>light... but until then it seems to be more of the 'We don't like what You >>do so We'll do to You the opposite of some of that which is essential to >>making Us We.' > >The government got away with it during WWII mainly because there >wasn't much flow of information and people just didn't know. The government of the United States of America did not, to the best of my knowledge, have an equivalent of the Wansee Conference nor the purposes which were stated in said Conference. If you have evidence to the contrary then, by all means, produce it; if not then consider the thread Godwin'd. DD
From: Anonymous on 8 Feb 2010 15:51 In article <y72dndiHsv1F0O3WnZ2dnUVZ_j6dnZ2d(a)earthlink.com>, HeyBub <heybub(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: >docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote: >>> >>> Heh! >>> >>> No, the U.S. is NOT following my analysis - at least in the current >>> administration. >> >> And this, I'd say, is a Good Thing, for This or Any Other >> Administration. > >And I'd say the failure to treat saboteurs as enemy combatants is criminal >negligence on the part of the current administration. There are people who say that failure to acknowledge the creation of the Known World by Divine Fiat six-thousand-and-change years ago is grounds for eternal damnation, as well; what is discussed here is a matter of law, not religion. One step at a time, and as has been asked before: what legal requirements must be met in order to change the black-letter imperatives of the Constitution when it comes to how 'no person' is to be treated? No 'sigh' needed, no 'per se' to weasel around it: when is, according to the corpus of Constitutional law, a human being not to be treated as 'a person'? Answer that simple question and you're on your way to putting forward a reasonable argument. DD
From: Anonymous on 8 Feb 2010 16:03 In article <0e-dnfKo6_-66O3WnZ2dnUVZ_sydnZ2d(a)earthlink.com>, HeyBub <heybub(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: >docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote: >> Notice how one how one respondant here has >> been hammering away at the black-letter law of the Constitution... >> and the other saying 'I took a course and this just isn't what I came >> away with.' >> > >Had you taken such a course you would know that it doesn't matter what the >Constitution says. The only thing that counts is what the Constitution >means. And what the Constitution means is solely determined by the courts. If taking such a course would make me appear to be completely and utterly ignorant of the black-letter imperatives of Article III, Section 2, then one's education might have been the better for having missed it. 'In all other cases before mentioned (ed. note.: including 'all cases, arising in law and equity, arising under this Constitution') he Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.' So... what regulation, applicable to Amendments V and VI, has the Congress made which renders a human being a non-person? DD
From: SkippyPB on 9 Feb 2010 10:57
On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 20:42:21 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf(a)panix.com () wrote: >In article <n9g0n55ck07goamdlkvtiig7a3asab73lo(a)4ax.com>, >SkippyPB <swiegand(a)Nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote: >>On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 20:31:41 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf(a)panix.com () wrote: > >[snip] > >>>If anyone, anywhere, >>>can find an equivalent of an American Wannsee Conference then I'm more >>>than willing to see this discussion cast into an entirely different >>>light... but until then it seems to be more of the 'We don't like what You >>>do so We'll do to You the opposite of some of that which is essential to >>>making Us We.' >> >>The government got away with it during WWII mainly because there >>wasn't much flow of information and people just didn't know. > >The government of the United States of America did not, to the best of my >knowledge, have an equivalent of the Wansee Conference nor the purposes >which were stated in said Conference. If you have evidence to the >contrary then, by all means, produce it; if not then consider the thread >Godwin'd. > >DD Just because the US Government didn't have an equivalent to the Wansee Conference doesn't make what they did during WWII any less deplorable. In fact the Wansee Conference was only delegating out to various German Department's Hitler's anti-Jewish policies which were already in place. You can't tell me there wasn't some congressional committee or presidential group that didn't talk about or at lest give approval to the FBI for rounding up the Japanese Americans or approve and/or plan the importation of Germans and Italians for the purposes of interment in US prisons from the various Latin American countries they came from. These things could not have been undertaken by the multiple US agencies involved without approval from above. And that kind of approval doesn't happen in a vacuum. Regards, -- //// (o o) -oOO--(_)--OOo- "An oral contract isn't worth the paper it's written on." -- Sam Goldman ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Remove nospam to email me. Steve |