On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 02:44:15 GMT, Gunner Asch
wrote:

But W wont decide that.

Any more than he claimed "WMDs" or wanted to consider
suspending the elections .... or violating the US constitution.
--
Cliff

On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 02:44:15 GMT, Gunner Asch
wrote:

Either way..the little scumbag is hosed.

No due process or constitutional rights, eh?
Secret courts? Tortured for a "confession"?
--
Cliff

On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 03:02:33 GMT, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:

If Bush is so smart why in hell isn't
Saddam dead. I mean, didn't anybody in the administration realize that his
trial would be exactly the sort of mockery we don't need?

Better to have guilty folks in legit courts than as dead martyrs.

His dead body
would have been a better example than what we are seing today and Hussein
has no rights. He really was the enemy.

But it very much looks like many of the claims against Saddam were,
in fact, lies, just like the WMD claims.
IIRC The US even declined to provide their claimed "evidence"
against him, just as the neocons refused to tell the UN's
inspectors about the claimed "WMDs" when asked.
--
Cliff

jim rozen wrote:

Ah, now I understand. The shrubbie has become a libertarian now?

How do you, as a card-carrying member, feel about that?

Jim

No. He is just the "lesser of the evils" at the moment.
When there is only two choices that is all we can do.
...lew...

Gus wrote:


If the judge had come up with 139 pages of the opposite conclusion
would you have thought it was so good?


IF the dog haden't stoped to take a pee, he would have caught the rabbit.
...lew...

John R. Carroll
I do have a question for you though. If Bush is so smart why in hell isn't
Saddam dead. I mean, didn't anybody in the administration realize that his
trial would be exactly the sort of mockery we don't need? His dead body
would have been a better example than what we are seing today and Hussein
has no rights. He really was the enemy.


I ask myself that question every time I see his ugly face on TV.
The soldier that found him should be court marshaled. :-)
...lew...

In article .com, Gus says...

With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open
mind.

No, they're not. The ID proponents love to cast this debate into
the 'open mind' or 'fairness' form.

Nothing can be farther from the truth. They don't want to teach
all the alternative viewpoints of how life came to be in the universe.
Their sole mission is to teach a single version: the fundie
christian story told in one particular version of the bible.

But this is quite unpalateable in the press, so their favorite
tactic is "teaching to the controversy" which means they want to
stir up a false schism that makes it appear that science and
religion have a fundamental opposition. Again, this is not true.
But the plaintive cry of 'fairness' is sounded again and again.

There are plenty of evolutionary biologists who also have faith.

And there are plenty of religions that have zero, zip, none (nada)
trouble with the idea that religious dogma controls in matters of
faith, and science controls in the realm of the material world.
To put it another way, there are plenty of religions that feel
that god wasn't a watchmaker who rolled out the world exactly as we
see it now after a 7 day installation period. They rather think
that he made the rules, wound the thing up, and let the rules
play out as planned - and one of those rules was evolution.

The creationist ID folks basically want their story pushed
to the head of the line and installed as fact in school curricula.
This is quite at odds with the normal way that scientific though
works. But it suits their agenda.

Gus, seeing as you are such an expert on creationism g can
you explain what would happen if those folks got their wish, and
had evolution ousted from classrooms all over the country - like
it has been in Kansas?

In particular, how do you explain what happens when the folks from
Kansas wind up taking the GREs, or the MCATS, or for that matter
the SAT exams? What's going to happen when they flunk the biology
sections because they've been taught fairy tales in their science
classes? Remember, the rest of the world still teaches science
as science, and expects their students to know and understand
evolution, speciation, natural selection, and how those concepts
have influenced our medical and scientific fields.

What do you do, Gus? Do you convice the shrubbie to pass a federal
law to prevent GRE questions about evolution?

This has been done before you know. At one time some state legislator
passed a law that said that pi was exactly equal to three. g

Maybe while you're at it you could likewise pass some laws that say
we have to return to the theories of geocentrism, and phlogistion.
And you can rest assured your doctor will graduate from medical school
knowing about the four Humours. And not much else.

Ater all, those are still "theories" too.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
news


Well reasoned and pragmatic. You are doing pretty good on your 12
step program. I glad I recommended "Fallen Conservatives CAN become
Conservatives again" to you.

Keep up the good work.

I was going to say the same to you. I have hope you'll escape the degrading
influence of the neocon brownshirts. g

--
Ed Huntress

jim rozen wrote:
In article .com, Gus says...

With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open
mind.

No, they're not. The ID proponents love to cast this debate into
the 'open mind' or 'fairness' form.

Nothing can be farther from the truth. They don't want to teach
all the alternative viewpoints of how life came to be in the universe.
Their sole mission is to teach a single version: the fundie
christian story told in one particular version of the bible.

But this is quite unpalateable in the press, so their favorite
tactic is "teaching to the controversy" which means they want to
stir up a false schism that makes it appear that science and
religion have a fundamental opposition. Again, this is not true.
But the plaintive cry of 'fairness' is sounded again and again.

There are plenty of evolutionary biologists who also have faith.

And there are plenty of religions that have zero, zip, none (nada)
trouble with the idea that religious dogma controls in matters of
faith, and science controls in the realm of the material world.
To put it another way, there are plenty of religions that feel
that god wasn't a watchmaker who rolled out the world exactly as we
see it now after a 7 day installation period. They rather think
that he made the rules, wound the thing up, and let the rules
play out as planned - and one of those rules was evolution.

The creationist ID folks basically want their story pushed
to the head of the line and installed as fact in school curricula.
This is quite at odds with the normal way that scientific though
works. But it suits their agenda.

Gus, seeing as you are such an expert on creationism g can
you explain what would happen if those folks got their wish, and
had evolution ousted from classrooms all over the country - like
it has been in Kansas?

In particular, how do you explain what happens when the folks from
Kansas wind up taking the GREs, or the MCATS, or for that matter
the SAT exams? What's going to happen when they flunk the biology
sections because they've been taught fairy tales in their science
classes? Remember, the rest of the world still teaches science
as science, and expects their students to know and understand
evolution, speciation, natural selection, and how those concepts
have influenced our medical and scientific fields.

What do you do, Gus? Do you convice the shrubbie to pass a federal
law to prevent GRE questions about evolution?

This has been done before you know. At one time some state legislator
passed a law that said that pi was exactly equal to three. g

Maybe while you're at it you could likewise pass some laws that say
we have to return to the theories of geocentrism, and phlogistion.
And you can rest assured your doctor will graduate from medical school
knowing about the four Humours. And not much else.

Ater all, those are still "theories" too.

I can go along with much of what you said but I think you take it a
little too far. I don't understand the fear of even mentioning a
different theory from Darwinism. Wouldn't that make science class a lot
more interesting?

I don't believe that these ID boogymen want to totally replace
Darwinism in the class. From what I can see, all they are doing is
trying to mention an alternative. Why all the fear?
I believe that the ID folks believe that evolution works up to a point
but doesn't answer all the questions. I don't see any evidence that
they want to throw it all out.

I agree that schools need to teach what's necessary to pass the
required exams, etc., but I don't believe that it's necessary to treat
Darwinism has the Holy Script and have a judge rule that it's illegal
to point out it's weaknesses.

When the voters threw out the school board, that's great. That's how it
should work, not some theology judge making it all up.

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article .com, Gus
says...

With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open
mind.

No, they're not. The ID proponents love to cast this debate into
the 'open mind' or 'fairness' form.

More than that. The court's decision covered a lot of bases, and one of the
first is that it determined the ID proponents were lying about their
motivations and their objective. This may sound like an aside but it's an
important issue in deciding if something is a fraud. It's the same way you
judge whether some program is a Ponzi scheme or a phony tax shelter.

All three of those things -- ID, Ponzi schemes, and phony tax shelters --
are carefully constructed to confound their real purpose, by making them
look like something they're not. So truthfulness of purpose is an important
legal issue in all three.

--
Ed Huntress

On 31 Dec 2005 09:10:20 -0800, jim rozen wrote:


Their sole mission is to teach a single version: the fundie
christian story told in one particular version of the bible.

snip

Maybe while you're at it you could likewise pass some laws that say
we have to return to the theories of geocentrism, and phlogistion.
And you can rest assured your doctor will graduate from medical school
knowing about the four Humours. And not much else.

Not that it's likely to be taught in high school, but I can't wait until
someone explains Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle to the fundie rednecks.

They'll totally freak out if they learn that their so-called intelligent
designer can't simultaneously determine position and momentum.

The real danger here is what established scientific theory they will come
after next.

"And yet, it moves." - Galileo

Regards, Marv

Home Shop Freeware - Tools for People Who Build Things
http://www.myvirtualnetwork.com/mklotz

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 04:08:34 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

They didnt reveal themselves..someone else did. Thats why they call it
a secret operation. Governments do that. Most of them are quite legal.

Legitimate ogvernments do that under the law. This administration -- not
the
government, but one branch that has become a loose cannon -- just
violated
the law, flatly, and admittedly.

Got cites?

Oh, cripes, Gunner, they're all over the newswires and the Internet:

==============================

By JENNIFER LOVEN
Associated Press Writer
Dec 17 10:40 AM US/Eastern

WASHINGTON - President Bush said Saturday he personally has authorized a
secret eavesdropping program in the U.S. more than 30 times since the Sept.
11 attacks

===============================

The administration has admitted that they did not seek court warrants as
required under the law. I doubt if there is anyone in North America who does
not know this now.

So, he broke the law. He says the law is overridden by other authorizations
by Congress to use "all appropriate means." Most scholars seem to agree this
does not extend to violating the Constitution, nor did Congress intend that
it should.

But there are further issues. First, the administration may argue that the
law does not apply. It may also claim authority to violate the Constitution
under some theory of executive authority in time of "war."

These are other arguments, however. The primary one is that neither the
president nor Congress is authorized to violate the 4th Amendment.

The administration has admitted to violating the law by not seeking court
warrants. That's step one. Step two is deciding if he had the authority to
do so, laws or no laws. That's one for the federal courts to decide, not the
executive branch.

--
Ed Huntress

Gus wrote:
jim rozen wrote:
In article .com,
Gus says...


I don't believe that these ID boogymen want to totally replace
Darwinism in the class. From what I can see, all they are doing is
trying to mention an alternative. Why all the fear?
I believe that the ID folks believe that evolution works up to a point
but doesn't answer all the questions. I don't see any evidence that
they want to throw it all out.

Gus, I have first hand experience with this and I can tell you that you are
just plain wrong.
Perhaps you don't see any evidence because you aren't in a loop that would
expose you but the plain fact is that those who interpret the Bible
literally do exactly that.
Given half a chance they'd eliminate evolution from schools except to point
out the folly of man questioning the acts of God.
They really believe our world began 6,000 years ago and that is that.
Discussions and teachings to the contrary are blasphemy.
You wouldn't have a free exchange of ideas and viewpoints in the end.
This is one camel whos nose should never be allowed under the tent flap even
an inch.

--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com

In article , Marvin W. Klotz says...

Not that it's likely to be taught in high school, but I can't wait until
someone explains Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle to the fundie rednecks.

You should investigate what's being taught in schools these days.

I'm sure the uncertainty principle is discussed in many a high
school AP physics text. Heck, my daughter was being taught about
evolution and natural selection in her grammar school science
classes by 8th grade - and that was in a catholic school!

They'll totally freak out if they learn that their so-called intelligent
designer can't simultaneously determine position and momentum.

Ah, the old "if god is omnipotent, can he make a rock so big he
can't move it?" theorem. g

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article .com, Gus says...

I can go along with much of what you said but I think you take it a
little too far. I don't understand the fear of even mentioning a
different theory from Darwinism. Wouldn't that make science class a lot
more interesting?

In other words, why not teach about why life came to exist in the
universe? That is an excellent topic for a religion class because
religion classes deal with 'why' questions. In fact the university
of kansas recently began offering a class to teach about just
such issues. It's given by the theology department.

I don't believe that these ID boogymen want to totally replace
Darwinism in the class. From what I can see, all they are doing is
trying to mention an alternative.

That's not what the judge said. Given their record in that
case, it was clear they were trying to eliminate the teaching
of evolution, and replace it with fundamentalism creation.
They had to lie to cover up their true motives, which is
what they did. Hence the stiff penalties.

I believe that the ID folks believe that evolution works up to a point
but doesn't answer all the questions. I don't see any evidence that
they want to throw it all out.

Look harder my friend. This is exactly what they want to do.
Evolution disagrees with their biblical story so it has to
die.

I agree that schools need to teach what's necessary to pass the
required exams, etc., but I don't believe that it's necessary to treat
Darwinism has the Holy Script and have a judge rule that it's illegal
to point out it's weaknesses.

That's not what was illegal. Anyone who wants a discussion about
what's interesting and topical about evolutionary biology should
simply *take* such a course - and all the unanswered questions
are discussed in great detail.

When the voters threw out the school board, that's great. That's how it
should work, not some theology judge making it all up.

Excuse me, but that judge was just doing what bush asked him to do:
namely, do his job. There's no theology in a courtroom. Just
lawbooks.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message ...
"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 04:08:34 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


That's one for the federal courts to decide, not the executive branch.


So much for that case.

John

John R. Carroll wrote:
Gus wrote:
jim rozen wrote:
In article .com,
Gus says...


I don't believe that these ID boogymen want to totally replace
Darwinism in the class. From what I can see, all they are doing is
trying to mention an alternative. Why all the fear?
I believe that the ID folks believe that evolution works up to a point
but doesn't answer all the questions. I don't see any evidence that
they want to throw it all out.

Gus, I have first hand experience with this and I can tell you that you are
just plain wrong.
Perhaps you don't see any evidence because you aren't in a loop that would
expose you but the plain fact is that those who interpret the Bible
literally do exactly that.
Given half a chance they'd eliminate evolution from schools except to point
out the folly of man questioning the acts of God.
They really believe our world began 6,000 years ago and that is that.
Discussions and teachings to the contrary are blasphemy.
You wouldn't have a free exchange of ideas and viewpoints in the end.
This is one camel whos nose should never be allowed under the tent flap even
an inch.


I think that the numbers of people who believe what you said are small
and the numbers of people who want to eliminate evolution from the
schools are extremely small. There is no worry of that as long as we
still operate on majority rules. If, however, judges rule and we get
some extremist making new laws, then we're in trouble.

I think that the bible means what it says. Nowhere does it say the
world began 6000 years ago. There are various views of what the 6
"days" of creation mean. Some people take it to mean 24 hour days a
long, long time ago and many others take it to mean 6 long periods of
time. It's an in-house debate. Who cares?

Evolution is a process that works but it has a hard time explaining
everything. If Darwinism is true then it should have no problem
standing up to a little debate. Isn't that open-mindedness?

On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 13:23:07 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 04:08:34 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

They didnt reveal themselves..someone else did. Thats why they call it
a secret operation. Governments do that. Most of them are quite legal.

Legitimate ogvernments do that under the law. This administration -- not
the
government, but one branch that has become a loose cannon -- just
violated
the law, flatly, and admittedly.

Got cites?

Oh, cripes, Gunner, they're all over the newswires and the Internet:

==============================

By JENNIFER LOVEN
Associated Press Writer
Dec 17 10:40 AM US/Eastern

WASHINGTON - President Bush said Saturday he personally has authorized a
secret eavesdropping program in the U.S. more than 30 times since the Sept.
11 attacks

===============================

The administration has admitted that they did not seek court warrants as
required under the law. I doubt if there is anyone in North America who does
not know this now.

So, he broke the law. He says the law is overridden by other authorizations
by Congress to use "all appropriate means." Most scholars seem to agree this
does not extend to violating the Constitution, nor did Congress intend that
it should.

But there are further issues. First, the administration may argue that the
law does not apply. It may also claim authority to violate the Constitution
under some theory of executive authority in time of "war."

These are other arguments, however. The primary one is that neither the
president nor Congress is authorized to violate the 4th Amendment.

The administration has admitted to violating the law by not seeking court
warrants. That's step one. Step two is deciding if he had the authority to
do so, laws or no laws. That's one for the federal courts to decide, not the
executive branch.

I already know what he did. Now back up your claim

"just violated the law, flatly, and admittedly."

According to the cite you provided..Bush says it was all quite legal,
and a good many scholars agree with him. And no..the administration
has NOT admitted to violating the law..they did admit to not getting
warrants, which in the cases they submitted, claimed to not need.

Now back up your claim.

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 **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 12:54:56 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
news


Well reasoned and pragmatic. You are doing pretty good on your 12
step program. I glad I recommended "Fallen Conservatives CAN become
Conservatives again" to you.

Keep up the good work.

I was going to say the same to you. I have hope you'll escape the degrading
influence of the neocon brownshirts. g

Still getting a woody everytime you see Hillary or Pelosi on TV?

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 **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

Hawke wrote:

If the judge had come up with 139 pages of the opposite conclusion
would you have thought it was so good?

Webster says that religion is a cause, principle, or system of beliefs
held to with ardor and faith. I think that the way some people hold to
atheism it could qualify as some sort of religion.

Don't atheists claim to "know" what does not exist in every nook and
cranny of the universe? Although they are stuck on this tiny speck of a
planet and they haven't been any place else they still know that God
doesn't exist anywhere in time and space and beyond. Knowing everything
is called being omniscient. So I guess that if they are omniscient,
they must be god. If they don't know everything then they must be
sticking by their beliefs by some kind of faith.

Look at it this way. Say that you are convinced that there are extra
terrestrials and that they visit, and have visited the earth many times over
thousands of years. Say that you and thousands or even millions of other
people believed the same thing. Now I come along and say no, there are no
ETs and there is no evidence there are any. While you and your fellow ET
believers may qualify as a religion but as for me, who simply does not
accept the truth of your belief, not agreeing with your group doesn't make
me and people who also disagree with your group part of a religion. We
simply don't believe in a concept there is no evidence which supports it.
It's the same with Atheism. People saying they don't think there is a God
simply see no evidence proving that belief and reject it's veracity. That
hardly makes one part of an organized religion, does it.

As to the creation case, I would accept any ruling by a judge that was based
on empirical facts and sound reasoning that was not impeded by any kind of
personal bias. In this case the judge was a Bush appointee and I believe a
churchgoer. But after seeing very easily through the phony assertions of the
ID advocates his only choice was to reject their claims. That's why I would
accept his analysis of the case at face value. Don't you?

Hawke

I like the ET example but it is slightly different from what's going
on. ETs should be physical beings that could be proven scientifically.
Many people say they won't believe there is a god unless you can prove
him scientifically then they go on to say that science can only
consider things in the material or natural world. But what if it's true
that god is outside of nature (supernatural)? By definition their
science cannot consider it. To say they won't believe until he is
proven scientifically means it'll never happen. Not very open minded.

The High Priest of the natural world, Carl Sagan, said that the
universe is all there ever was, is, or ever will be. How did he know
that? There's no proof. It must be faith.

Imagine that there was a 2-dimensional world where there was only north
and south, no UP.
People living in that world had developed a science that fit their
2-dimensional existence. A three-dimensional person comes along and
they can't see him, only his footprint. Their 2-dimensional science
will never be able to prove he exists. Does that mean that he doesn't
exist?

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 13:23:07 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 04:08:34 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

They didnt reveal themselves..someone else did. Thats why they call
it
a secret operation. Governments do that. Most of them are quite
legal.

Legitimate ogvernments do that under the law. This administration --
not
the
government, but one branch that has become a loose cannon -- just
violated
the law, flatly, and admittedly.

Got cites?

Oh, cripes, Gunner, they're all over the newswires and the Internet:

==============================

By JENNIFER LOVEN
Associated Press Writer
Dec 17 10:40 AM US/Eastern

WASHINGTON - President Bush said Saturday he personally has authorized a
secret eavesdropping program in the U.S. more than 30 times since the
Sept.
11 attacks

===============================

The administration has admitted that they did not seek court warrants as
required under the law. I doubt if there is anyone in North America who
does
not know this now.

So, he broke the law. He says the law is overridden by other
authorizations
by Congress to use "all appropriate means." Most scholars seem to agree
this
does not extend to violating the Constitution, nor did Congress intend
that
it should.

But there are further issues. First, the administration may argue that
the
law does not apply. It may also claim authority to violate the
Constitution
under some theory of executive authority in time of "war."

These are other arguments, however. The primary one is that neither the
president nor Congress is authorized to violate the 4th Amendment.

The administration has admitted to violating the law by not seeking court
warrants. That's step one. Step two is deciding if he had the authority
to
do so, laws or no laws. That's one for the federal courts to decide, not
the
executive branch.

I already know what he did. Now back up your claim

"just violated the law, flatly, and admittedly."

I'm going to avoid the obvious question about reading comprehension. g
What part of "secret eavesdropping program" (with admission that court
warrants weren't sought) is not coming through?

Is it the law that's the problem? Should we get it out and reprint it here?
Is it a problem with taking Bush's statement in one hand, and the law in the
other, and seeing what he just admitted to?

Let us know. I'm sure we can accomodate.


According to the cite you provided..Bush says it was all quite legal...

Oh, that's a sure thing, all right. g

and a good many scholars agree with him.

And who would that be, in addition to the usual administration lackeys and
apologists?

And no..the administration
has NOT admitted to violating the law..they did admit to not getting
warrants, which in the cases they submitted, claimed to not need.

That's an admission they broke the law. What they did is say the law doesn't
say what it says. 'Want to see the law?

--
Ed Huntress

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 12:54:56 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
news


Well reasoned and pragmatic. You are doing pretty good on your 12
step program. I glad I recommended "Fallen Conservatives CAN become
Conservatives again" to you.

Keep up the good work.

I was going to say the same to you. I have hope you'll escape the
degrading
influence of the neocon brownshirts. g

Still getting a woody everytime you see Hillary or Pelosi on TV?

Beat-up-looking women appeal more to the red-state crowd. They like 'em
dried out a little, like jerky.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 14:37:12 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


I already know what he did. Now back up your claim

"just violated the law, flatly, and admittedly."

I'm going to avoid the obvious question about reading comprehension. g
What part of "secret eavesdropping program" (with admission that court
warrants weren't sought) is not coming through?

What part of "is not needed in some cases" have you missed?

Is it the law that's the problem? Should we get it out and reprint it here?
Is it a problem with taking Bush's statement in one hand, and the law in the
other, and seeing what he just admitted to?

Let us know. I'm sure we can accomodate.


According to the cite you provided..Bush says it was all quite legal...

Oh, that's a sure thing, all right. g

Oh, then its NOT a shure thing?

and a good many scholars agree with him.

And who would that be, in addition to the usual administration lackeys and
apologists?

If I do the research, come up with the names..you are simply going to
accuse them of being apologists..we both know this..so why bother?
Nothing I could bring into the discussion would meet your "standards",
not even Hillary or Bubba agreeing with me.

And no..the administration
has NOT admitted to violating the law..they did admit to not getting
warrants, which in the cases they submitted, claimed to not need.

That's an admission they broke the law. What they did is say the law doesn't
say what it says. 'Want to see the law?

--
Ed Huntress

No its not an admission. They claim that in certain cases..no warrant
was needed. I see you have been dipping into the adult beverages a
bit early.

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 **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 15:37:56 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 12:54:56 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
news

Well reasoned and pragmatic. You are doing pretty good on your 12
step program. I glad I recommended "Fallen Conservatives CAN become
Conservatives again" to you.

Keep up the good work.

I was going to say the same to you. I have hope you'll escape the
degrading
influence of the neocon brownshirts. g

Still getting a woody everytime you see Hillary or Pelosi on TV?

Beat-up-looking women appeal more to the red-state crowd. They like 'em
dried out a little, like jerky.

So you no longer get a woody from Hillary or Pelosi? Blood pressure
med side effect?

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 **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 18:16:10 GMT, (Marvin
W. Klotz) wrote:

Not that it's likely to be taught in high school, but I can't wait until
someone explains Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle to the fundie rednecks.

Fundi rednecks? Marv..so no liberal is a believer?

Btw..Ive got some prime ocean front property just west of Phoenix for
you, really cheap.

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 **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 13:23:07 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 04:08:34 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

They didnt reveal themselves..someone else did. Thats why they call it
a secret operation. Governments do that. Most of them are quite legal.

Legitimate ogvernments do that under the law. This administration -- not
the
government, but one branch that has become a loose cannon -- just
violated
the law, flatly, and admittedly.

Got cites?

Oh, cripes, Gunner, they're all over the newswires and the Internet:

==============================

By JENNIFER LOVEN
Associated Press Writer
Dec 17 10:40 AM US/Eastern

WASHINGTON - President Bush said Saturday he personally has authorized a
secret eavesdropping program in the U.S. more than 30 times since the Sept.
11 attacks

===============================

The administration has admitted that they did not seek court warrants as
required under the law. I doubt if there is anyone in North America who does
not know this now.

But "Better Bunkers & Outhouses" is a quarterly rag IIRC.
--
Cliff

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 14:37:12 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


I already know what he did. Now back up your claim

"just violated the law, flatly, and admittedly."

I'm going to avoid the obvious question about reading comprehension. g
What part of "secret eavesdropping program" (with admission that court
warrants weren't sought) is not coming through?

What part of "is not needed in some cases" have you missed?

There is no such part that I know of. Under the law, the executive has 72
hours after the fact to request a court warrant. In fact, they have not
applied for those warrants. That's a flat violation.


Is it the law that's the problem? Should we get it out and reprint it
here?
Is it a problem with taking Bush's statement in one hand, and the law in
the
other, and seeing what he just admitted to?

Let us know. I'm sure we can accomodate.


According to the cite you provided..Bush says it was all quite legal...

Oh, that's a sure thing, all right. g

Oh, then its NOT a shure thing?

The executive branch doesn't get to decide what is legal. That's the
judicial branch. They tell the executive what is legal, if there's a
challenge. And they tell the executive branch what is constitutional.

So far we have the opinion of the legal advocates of the executive branch.
That's all.


and a good many scholars agree with him.

And who would that be, in addition to the usual administration lackeys
and
apologists?

If I do the research, come up with the names..you are simply going to
accuse them of being apologists..we both know this..so why bother?
Nothing I could bring into the discussion would meet your "standards",
not even Hillary or Bubba agreeing with me.

I know how that feels. I've been on the other end many times. g

Ok, this is all just dancing around, and it's the courts, if they get
involved, that will decide it. Not legal scholars who have no judicial
authority.

I'd love to know what kind of antics the administration lawyers are going
through right now to avoid a court fight. They must be running at full
throttle, supercharged, burning up the phone lines and writing legal briefs
until their word processors are smoking.


And no..the administration
has NOT admitted to violating the law..they did admit to not getting
warrants, which in the cases they submitted, claimed to not need.

That's an admission they broke the law. What they did is say the law
doesn't
say what it says. 'Want to see the law?

--
Ed Huntress

No its not an admission. They claim that in certain cases..no warrant
was needed. I see you have been dipping into the adult beverages a
bit early.

As far as I know, they said they're protected from one law by another law,
only the "other" law doesn't give them specific authority to violate the
first law, nor the Constitution.

That's a constitutional battle for the courts. Meantime, we'll have to wait
for the wheels in DC to stop churning long enough to get an update.

--
Ed Huntress

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...

Still getting a woody everytime you see Hillary or Pelosi on TV?

Beat-up-looking women appeal more to the red-state crowd. They like 'em
dried out a little, like jerky.

So you no longer get a woody from Hillary or Pelosi? Blood pressure
med side effect?

They're way too old for me. However, I'll bet they're pretty wild. Did you
read about Barbara Boxer's novel? Hot stuff. Maureen Dowd has an editorial
about it today.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 13:23:07 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 04:08:34 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

They didnt reveal themselves..someone else did. Thats why they call it
a secret operation. Governments do that. Most of them are quite legal.

Legitimate ogvernments do that under the law. This administration -- not
the
government, but one branch that has become a loose cannon -- just
violated
the law, flatly, and admittedly.

Got cites?

Oh, cripes, Gunner, they're all over the newswires and the Internet:

==============================

By JENNIFER LOVEN
Associated Press Writer
Dec 17 10:40 AM US/Eastern

WASHINGTON - President Bush said Saturday he personally has authorized a
secret eavesdropping program in the U.S. more than 30 times since the Sept.
11 attacks

===============================

The administration has admitted that they did not seek court warrants as
required under the law. I doubt if there is anyone in North America who does
not know this now.

So, he broke the law. He says the law is overridden by other authorizations
by Congress to use "all appropriate means." Most scholars seem to agree this
does not extend to violating the Constitution, nor did Congress intend that
it should.

But there are further issues. First, the administration may argue that the
law does not apply. It may also claim authority to violate the Constitution
under some theory of executive authority in time of "war."

These are other arguments, however. The primary one is that neither the
president nor Congress is authorized to violate the 4th Amendment.

The administration has admitted to violating the law by not seeking court
warrants. That's step one. Step two is deciding if he had the authority to
do so, laws or no laws. That's one for the federal courts to decide, not the
executive branch.

It's so bad that even a judge in the illegal secret court &
jail/torture/disappeared system has resigned over it.

Not even Faux "news" can keep that a secret:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,179344,00.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...122000685.html
--
Cliff

On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 14:37:12 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

According to the cite you provided..Bush says it was all quite legal...

Oh, that's a sure thing, all right. g

Yep. Just look at the shrubbie's law degree glued to his
bathroom wall (wallpaper paste is so very handy).
--
Cliff

On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 18:35:26 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


If I do the research, come up with the names..you are simply going to
accuse them of being apologists..we both know this..so why bother?
Nothing I could bring into the discussion would meet your "standards",
not even Hillary or Bubba agreeing with me.

I know how that feels. I've been on the other end many times. g

Ok, this is all just dancing around, and it's the courts, if they get
involved, that will decide it. Not legal scholars who have no judicial
authority.

I'd love to know what kind of antics the administration lawyers are going
through right now to avoid a court fight. They must be running at full
throttle, supercharged, burning up the phone lines and writing legal briefs
until their word processors are smoking.

Probably the same antics the Bush Haters are using.

The best lawyers will win. Too bad we dont have 971 FBI files on tap
to help "convince" the anti bu****es. Or the IRS...


Think the Barrett Report will be released anytime soon? Or are they
saving it for Hillaries run for office?

Chuckle

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 **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

"Gus" wrote in message
oups.com...

I like the ET example but it is slightly different from what's going
on. ETs should be physical beings that could be proven scientifically.
Many people say they won't believe there is a god unless you can prove
him scientifically then they go on to say that science can only
consider things in the material or natural world. But what if it's true
that god is outside of nature (supernatural)? By definition their
science cannot consider it. To say they won't believe until he is
proven scientifically means it'll never happen. Not very open minded.

I think you're mixing up two different ideas, Gus, and generalizing about
people. It's true that science is about natural explanations to natural
phenomena, and doesn't consider supernatural explanations. But that doesn't
mean that a scientist can't be a believer. Lots of scientists have been and
still are. They do tend more toward deistic, rather than theistic beliefs
(basically, typical deists believe that God wound the world up at the time
of creation and then let it run on its own). But they can be devout
believers.

As scientists, though, they're dealing with a system of thought that is all
about natural explanations. That's how science has developed and it's on
that basis that it produces all of the discoveries we have from science.
Often it's confronted supernatural beliefs and proven them wrong. It doesn't
stop pushing in that direction: it is not anti-theistic, but a-theistic, in
the sense that it ignores the question. The question is not relevant to its
internally consistent system.

You seem to be asking a reasonable question that many devout believers ask:
What if science is wrong? What, indeed. Firstly, asking that question is
challenging science itself as a system -- a challenge that will be dismissed
by most scientists because the proofs and evidences of science have gotten
us where we are now. In other words, science works, and a supernatural
explanation would be an assertion that it doesn't work.

However, in an absolute sense, it's legitimate to question whether science
can produce certain answers. But you should do that from *without* science,
because you're questioning fundamental axioms of science itself. You're
proposing a system that asserts itself as an alternative to science.

There's nothing wrong with making the challenge. It can be argued from
outside of science, as a matter of reason and evidence, or on whatever terms
you wish.

What is grating about ID is that it is trying to masquerade as science
itself, undermining the system by pretending to be part of the team. It's
not an honest challenge. It's trying to become a mole.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 18:35:26 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


No its not an admission. They claim that in certain cases..no warrant
was needed. I see you have been dipping into the adult beverages a
bit early.

As far as I know, they said they're protected from one law by another law,
only the "other" law doesn't give them specific authority to violate the
first law, nor the Constitution.

That's a constitutional battle for the courts. Meantime, we'll have to wait
for the wheels in DC to stop churning long enough to get an update.

--
Ed Huntress

Im glad to see you have moderated your stance. Good on ya.

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 **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 18:37:39 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
.. .

Still getting a woody everytime you see Hillary or Pelosi on TV?

Beat-up-looking women appeal more to the red-state crowd. They like 'em
dried out a little, like jerky.

So you no longer get a woody from Hillary or Pelosi? Blood pressure
med side effect?

They're way too old for me. However, I'll bet they're pretty wild. Did you
read about Barbara Boxer's novel? Hot stuff. Maureen Dowd has an editorial
about it today.

Lesbian erotica never appealed to me.

Shrug

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 **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 18:35:26 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


No its not an admission. They claim that in certain cases..no warrant
was needed. I see you have been dipping into the adult beverages a
bit early.

As far as I know, they said they're protected from one law by another
law,
only the "other" law doesn't give them specific authority to violate the
first law, nor the Constitution.

That's a constitutional battle for the courts. Meantime, we'll have to
wait
for the wheels in DC to stop churning long enough to get an update.

--
Ed Huntress

Im glad to see you have moderated your stance. Good on ya.

If you actually read the words I wrote, rather than imagine what I'm getting
at, you'd see that my position on this issue has been absolutely unchanged
from the first message in the thread.

There is no question the law was broken. There is a slight question of
whether the law is superceded by another law. And there is a large question
of whether it's all constitutional -- including the idea that Congress could
ever authorize the president to violate the 4th Amendment. That's where the
majority of legal scholars think the administration would come up short, if
the case ever gets to the Court.

But it probably won't. On all points, that's exacly what I've said from the
beginning.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Gus" wrote in message
oups.com...

I like the ET example but it is slightly different from what's going
on. ETs should be physical beings that could be proven scientifically.
Many people say they won't believe there is a god unless you can prove
him scientifically then they go on to say that science can only
consider things in the material or natural world. But what if it's true
that god is outside of nature (supernatural)? By definition their
science cannot consider it. To say they won't believe until he is
proven scientifically means it'll never happen. Not very open minded.

I think you're mixing up two different ideas, Gus, and generalizing about
people. It's true that science is about natural explanations to natural
phenomena, and doesn't consider supernatural explanations. But that doesn't
mean that a scientist can't be a believer. Lots of scientists have been and
still are. They do tend more toward deistic, rather than theistic beliefs
(basically, typical deists believe that God wound the world up at the time
of creation and then let it run on its own). But they can be devout
believers.

As scientists, though, they're dealing with a system of thought that is all
about natural explanations. That's how science has developed and it's on
that basis that it produces all of the discoveries we have from science.
Often it's confronted supernatural beliefs and proven them wrong. It doesn't
stop pushing in that direction: it is not anti-theistic, but a-theistic, in
the sense that it ignores the question. The question is not relevant to its
internally consistent system.

You seem to be asking a reasonable question that many devout believers ask:
What if science is wrong? What, indeed. Firstly, asking that question is
challenging science itself as a system -- a challenge that will be dismissed
by most scientists because the proofs and evidences of science have gotten
us where we are now. In other words, science works, and a supernatural
explanation would be an assertion that it doesn't work.

However, in an absolute sense, it's legitimate to question whether science
can produce certain answers. But you should do that from *without* science,
because you're questioning fundamental axioms of science itself. You're
proposing a system that asserts itself as an alternative to science.

There's nothing wrong with making the challenge. It can be argued from
outside of science, as a matter of reason and evidence, or on whatever terms
you wish.

What is grating about ID is that it is trying to masquerade as science
itself, undermining the system by pretending to be part of the team. It's
not an honest challenge. It's trying to become a mole.

--
Ed Huntress.

Well, your explanation is something to think about.

I personally don't think that ID goes into religion at all. According
to the Discovery Institute, "intelligent design is not a
religious-based idea, but instead an evidence-based scientific theory
that holds there are certain features of living systems and the
universe that are best explained by an intelligent cause."

Then, I suppose, its up to you to figure out if the designer is god,
time travelers or spacemen. ID doesn't go into who the intelligent
designer might be. Now maybe some people like those school board folks
in Dover would like to use it to further their own purposes but that's
not basic ID from what I've read.

Evolutionists used to think of themselves as the champions of free
speech and academic freedom against unthinking dogmatism. Now they are
the dogmatists, demanding judicially-imposed censorship of dissent.
What are they afraid of?

GW

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 13:23:07 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 04:08:34 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

They didnt reveal themselves..someone else did. Thats why they call
it
a secret operation. Governments do that. Most of them are quite
legal.

Legitimate ogvernments do that under the law. This administration --
not
the
government, but one branch that has become a loose cannon -- just
violated
the law, flatly, and admittedly.

Got cites?

Oh, cripes, Gunner, they're all over the newswires and the Internet:

==============================

By JENNIFER LOVEN
Associated Press Writer
Dec 17 10:40 AM US/Eastern

WASHINGTON - President Bush said Saturday he personally has authorized a
secret eavesdropping program in the U.S. more than 30 times since the
Sept.
11 attacks

===============================

The administration has admitted that they did not seek court warrants as
required under the law. I doubt if there is anyone in North America who
does
not know this now.

So, he broke the law. He says the law is overridden by other
authorizations
by Congress to use "all appropriate means." Most scholars seem to agree
this
does not extend to violating the Constitution, nor did Congress intend
that
it should.

But there are further issues. First, the administration may argue that
the
law does not apply. It may also claim authority to violate the
Constitution
under some theory of executive authority in time of "war."

These are other arguments, however. The primary one is that neither the
president nor Congress is authorized to violate the 4th Amendment.

The administration has admitted to violating the law by not seeking
court
warrants. That's step one. Step two is deciding if he had the authority
to
do so, laws or no laws. That's one for the federal courts to decide, not
the
executive branch.

I already know what he did. Now back up your claim

"just violated the law, flatly, and admittedly."

I'm going to avoid the obvious question about reading comprehension. g
What part of "secret eavesdropping program" (with admission that court
warrants weren't sought) is not coming through?

Is it the law that's the problem? Should we get it out and reprint it
here?
Is it a problem with taking Bush's statement in one hand, and the law in
the
other, and seeing what he just admitted to?

Let us know. I'm sure we can accomodate.


According to the cite you provided..Bush says it was all quite legal...

Oh, that's a sure thing, all right. g

Probably not his fault if he got bad advice - just like WMD.

There is no question the law was broken. There is a slight question of
whether the law is superceded by another law. And there is a large
question
of whether it's all constitutional -- including the idea that Congress
could
ever authorize the president to violate the 4th Amendment. That's where
the
majority of legal scholars think the administration would come up short,
if
the case ever gets to the Court.

But it probably won't. On all points, that's exacly what I've said from
the
beginning.

IF the SCOTUS resends the redistricting of Texas and a few Dems beat out a
few Republicans caught in Abramof's pocket we may see the second impeachment
proceedings in as many administrations.

--
Glenn Ashmore

I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com

Gus wrote:


Ed Huntress wrote:
"Gus" wrote in message
oups.com...

I like the ET example but it is slightly different from what's going
on. ETs should be physical beings that could be proven scientifically.
Many people say they won't believe there is a god unless you can prove
him scientifically then they go on to say that science can only
consider things in the material or natural world. But what if it's true
that god is outside of nature (supernatural)? By definition their
science cannot consider it. To say they won't believe until he is
proven scientifically means it'll never happen. Not very open minded.

I think you're mixing up two different ideas, Gus, and generalizing about
people. It's true that science is about natural explanations to natural
phenomena, and doesn't consider supernatural explanations. But that
doesn't mean that a scientist can't be a believer. Lots of scientists
have been and still are. They do tend more toward deistic, rather than
theistic beliefs (basically, typical deists believe that God wound the
world up at the time of creation and then let it run on its own). But
they can be devout believers.

As scientists, though, they're dealing with a system of thought that is
all about natural explanations. That's how science has developed and it's
on that basis that it produces all of the discoveries we have from
science. Often it's confronted supernatural beliefs and proven them
wrong. It doesn't stop pushing in that direction: it is not
anti-theistic, but a-theistic, in the sense that it ignores the question.
The question is not relevant to its internally consistent system.

You seem to be asking a reasonable question that many devout believers
ask: What if science is wrong? What, indeed. Firstly, asking that
question is challenging science itself as a system -- a challenge that
will be dismissed by most scientists because the proofs and evidences of
science have gotten us where we are now. In other words, science works,
and a supernatural explanation would be an assertion that it doesn't
work.

However, in an absolute sense, it's legitimate to question whether
science can produce certain answers. But you should do that from
*without* science, because you're questioning fundamental axioms of
science itself. You're proposing a system that asserts itself as an
alternative to science.

There's nothing wrong with making the challenge. It can be argued from
outside of science, as a matter of reason and evidence, or on whatever
terms you wish.

What is grating about ID is that it is trying to masquerade as science
itself, undermining the system by pretending to be part of the team. It's
not an honest challenge. It's trying to become a mole.

--
Ed Huntress.

Well, your explanation is something to think about.

I personally don't think that ID goes into religion at all.

No, ID does not go into religion, religion goes into ID.

According
to the Discovery Institute, "intelligent design is not a
religious-based idea, but instead an evidence-based scientific theory
that holds there are certain features of living systems and the
universe that are best explained by an intelligent cause."

Yes, that is their propaganda. Or are you laboring under the misconception
that the "Discovery Institute" is anything but a front for the
fundamentalists?

Then, I suppose, its up to you to figure out if the designer is god,
time travelers or spacemen. ID doesn't go into who the intelligent
designer might be. Now maybe some people like those school board folks
in Dover would like to use it to further their own purposes but that's
not basic ID from what I've read.

Uh huh. Once they've sold intelligent design then they can go on to sell
the designer. One step at a time.

Evolutionists used to think of themselves as the champions of free
speech and academic freedom against unthinking dogmatism. Now they are
the dogmatists, demanding judicially-imposed censorship of dissent.
What are they afraid of?

What leads you to believe that "evolutionists" are _afraid_ of anything? If
the "intelligent design" people can present real evidence that their
hypothesis explains the observed data better than the evolutionary model
then the scientific community will happily embrace it. But they will be
questioned at ever turn, just as every other researcher proposing a
radically different model from the accepted ones will be questioned, and
just as the proponents of evolution were questioned. That's just the way
science works and if the advocates of intelligent design are not ready to
answer hard questions then they should not try to play the science game.

GW

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"Mike Henry" wrote in message
...

According to the cite you provided..Bush says it was all quite legal...

Oh, that's a sure thing, all right. g

Probably not his fault if he got bad advice - just like WMD.

Part of me wants to say you're probably right, because I think Bush is
pretty vulnerable to the people and forces around him. But the other part of
me says, what the hell are we doing with a president who's so vulnerable to
bad advice?

He's just not up to the job. 'Never was.

--
Ed Huntress