|
OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 19:20:29 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:
Lloyd Sumpter wrote: On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:39:52 +0000, DSK wrote: JohnH wrote: Harry, just what rights have you lost under the Patriot Act. I've asked you this before, but you apparently missed the question. I'm not Harry (not by a long way) but I believe I can answer this. ** from http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut...lofrights.html ** Bill of Rights Interesting Stuff. Somebody wanna tell the "prisoners" at Guantanamo Bay? Lloyd The righties make the argument that the U.S. Constitution only applies to U.S. citizens in the USA or, at best, to some foreigners living in the U.S. Far too rigid. In the court of world opinion, we are judged by how we treat everyone and anyone. It's damned difficult to sell what little remains of our democracy to those in other countries if we don't behave much differently than their leaders we overthrew. For many Muslims, we're not behaving much differently than Saddam. We're mistreating captives, we're shooting civilians and we're profiteering off of misery. Perceptions are damned important. Read it for yourself, Harry. Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, *except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger*[emphasis added]; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. John On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD |
OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
This article, provided by Mark Browne, provides an overview of the Patriot
Act and some of its ramifications. 18 U.S.C. 3121-3127 (Chapter 206). The government no longer need apply to a court for a search warrant before monitoring the use of a US citizen's phone. All that is necessary is for the government to "certify" that the information collected is "likely to be" revelant to the investigation of a crime (of any kind). So much for freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. As far as Jose Padilla's situation and the impact of the Patriot Act, try Googling up "Jose Padilla patriot act." Out of the couple of hundred or so hits, there are some excellent, scholarly, examinations of the case. Most presented far better than I could begin to attempt. http://www.tomorrowsbestseller.com/w...State/book.asp |
OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
"JohnH" wrote in message The rationale behind the Court of Appeals ruling regarding Jose Padilla was that, "The president's inherent constitutional powers do not extend to the detention as an enemy combatant of American citizens without express congressional authorization." (Washington Post, December 19) John..... Point of accuracy, here, ref your quote above. According to the 2nd Circuit ruling the statement should read "...the detention as an enemy combatant of American citizens *seized on US soil*..." , an important distinction that the Court specified. The Court specifically excepted this ruling from applying to cases of US citizens seized on foreign soil as enemy combatants. Frankly, I'm not surprised that the Post would see fit to overlook this detail. JG |
OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
"Harry Krause" wrote in message news:bs04l7$7r3t6 The righties make the argument that the U.S. Constitution only applies to U.S. citizens in the USA or, at best, to some foreigners living in the U.S.....Far too rigid. On what legal basis would you hold that the US Constitution must apply to non-citizens? US citizens in foreign countries are subject to whatever laws apply in the host country, with no regard to whatever protections they may enjoy at home. We owe no benefit or consideration to non-citizens, particularly to non-citizens doing us harm. ....In the court of world opinion, we are judged ..... We are judged only as we allow ourselves to be judged. The term "International Community" is an oxymoron. I have no regard for any nation not similarly situated that would dictate to us the terms upon which we may determine our own security and defense. |
OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 21:22:01 -0500, "John Gaquin"
wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message The rationale behind the Court of Appeals ruling regarding Jose Padilla was that, "The president's inherent constitutional powers do not extend to the detention as an enemy combatant of American citizens without express congressional authorization." (Washington Post, December 19) John..... Point of accuracy, here, ref your quote above. According to the 2nd Circuit ruling the statement should read "...the detention as an enemy combatant of American citizens *seized on US soil*..." , an important distinction that the Court specified. The Court specifically excepted this ruling from applying to cases of US citizens seized on foreign soil as enemy combatants. Frankly, I'm not surprised that the Post would see fit to overlook this detail. JG Thanks for the clarification. I checked the Washington Post again, just to be sure I hadn't misquoted. They did leave that out of what they called the conclusion in the decision. This was on the front page too. John On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD |
OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
John Gaquin wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message news:bs04l7$7r3t6 The righties make the argument that the U.S. Constitution only applies to U.S. citizens in the USA or, at best, to some foreigners living in the U.S.....Far too rigid. On what legal basis would you hold that the US Constitution must apply to non-citizens? US citizens in foreign countries are subject to whatever laws apply in the host country, with no regard to whatever protections they may enjoy at home. We owe no benefit or consideration to non-citizens, particularly to non-citizens doing us harm. ....In the court of world opinion, we are judged ..... We are judged only as we allow ourselves to be judged. The term "International Community" is an oxymoron. I have no regard for any nation not similarly situated that would dictate to us the terms upon which we may determine our own security and defense. Wow...now here is a man who parrots reich-wing radio. -- Email sent to is never read. |
OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
"Harry Krause" wrote in message news:bs0f0c$8b6c1 Wow...now here is a man who parrots reich-wing radio. And this is your only answer? |
OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
John Gaquin wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message news:bs0f0c$8b6c1 Wow...now here is a man who parrots reich-wing radio. And this is your only answer? It doesn't require any more of a response, John. Once again, and probably for the 99th time, it is not desire in life to engage the devotees of the extreme right. If, for example, I put up a post that states and documents that George W. Bush is only semi-literate at best, and one of you righties tries to dispute that with 435 posts that rationalize Bush's apparent lack of reading skills, well, that is your windmill, not mine. I don't even glance at most of the posts you righties put up here, let alone read and comment on them. It is not my purpose in life to engage in "dialogue" with you righties. There's not more than one or two of you here with a political idea or concept that goes beyond reich-wing radio, and that sort of pre-programmed thought simply does not interest me. Sorry, Charlie. (Semi-obscure reference to tuna ad.) -- Email sent to is never read. |
OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
Jack Meholf wrote:
I wonder how he is going to get rid of his lobster boat, maybe it will be sunk by a hurricane. He's already started!! Have you noticed he's been through the google NG archives & deleted most of his lies, especially the "lobster" boat!!!! I mean this sad sack of lying crap is the very lowest of the low, the fact that some loony lefties here still defend him is the real query???; are they just so used to supporting lies no matter what, that they can't help themselves??? Or is it possibly the sellers' syndrome, a lie isn't really a lie if a sale still results:-) Good thing is.................. I've got his lies. Can you imagine the lobster boat lie??? it even surpasses the current Parker lie. I am rather chuffed though I have to admit, the lying coward has surrendered!!! needless to say boat mr 10% Chucky tagged along on the end of his lead:-) He can't even risk answering because when he tried denying he'd posted the lies (lying again!!) I just pasted his own words, which of course his bum buddy supporter Chuck immediately called paragraphs of hate, given they're ALL Harry's own words I might even agree with chuckles on this, were agreeing with him meaning I'd have suffered a severe blow to the head:-) K Here's just a tiny taste (I'll save the really good ones for after his denials); Sure. I'm in the market for a new marine diesel of 420-480 shp. I'm especially interested in Volvo's TAMD74P EDC, because Volvo has had a lot of experience with electronic controls in that size diesel. I've dismissed getting a Cat 3208 TA because the technology is so old and because a couple of commercial fishermen I know who have had 3208's have, basically, burned them out. Thanks. Yes, Cummins is talked about favorably by some of the guys I've been talking to. Most of them have had experience with Cats, especially the 3208, and in recent years some have moved to Volvos. These are commercial fishermen, mostly, running hulls somewhat similar to what we're doing. No, the diesel is for a new boat we're having built. Hmmm. A fishing/day cruising boat with some range, nice speed, a real soft ride, offshore capabilities and sleeping/full head(with standup shower enclosure)/galley accommodations. Fiberglass, although the architect did try to convince me to go with cold-molded wood, which I do like. More specifically, I suppose, a lobsta' boat, sort of, if that brings up a mental image for you. She'll measure 36' sans a bowsprit x a little more than 12' in beam. The hull buttom is built down to the keel. There are no chines. The hull is efficient at displacement and planing speeds. According to the hull builder, if we keep the weight within certain limits, we'll achieve a WOT of about 37-38 mph, and a very easy cruise of 30-32 mph on a single diesel of about 420-450 hp. She'll cruise slow and economically, too. We expect a very smooooooooooth riding boat, able to take on a big headsea at a pretty good clip without beating up the folks inside. Fitting out a boat like this is going to be an interesting and stimulating experience. Basically, we get to spec everything and we end up with a custom boat It's Lou Codega. He's a widely known and respected naval architect. He does Regulator's hulls, too. He's done the Navigator 37. I believe he's also done designs for Carolina Classic. Cummins faxed me a bunch of computer generated data today on engine choices for the new boat. On the 36-footer, 16,000 pounds displacement: QSM11 635 hp, 36.3 mph WOT, 32.1 mph at sustained cruise, marine gear ratio of 1.77, turning a four blade 26x35 prop on a 2.50 inch Aquamet 22 shaft. Too much engine. QSM11 535 hp at 2300 rpm, 33.3 mph WOT, 29.5 mph at sustained cruise of 2100 rpm, same gear ratio, 24x34 prop. Right on the money. 6CTA8.3 450 hp, 30.6 mph WOT, 27.5 mph at sustained cruise, 2.00:1 gear ratio, 24x31 four blade prop on Aquamet 22 2" shaft. Cummins tells me its program is "about 8% too conservative." Looks like the QSM11 535 will be the right engine. Its fuel use is only a little more than the 450's and a lot less than the 635 hp engine. What I want is a 30 mph sustained cruise speed, and 535 hp will do it. Cummins also figured the boat at 1000 pounds heavier than our target, which is probably the smart thing to do. Besides, the QSM is a new, all computerized design. The hull form is what got to me. The boat has a substantial keel and it is a built-down keel, right to its bottom, not just "tacked" on. It backs down beautifully. And it seems to roll one heck of a lot less in a beam sea than the semi-vee 36 footers I've been on, and especially some large deep vee fishing boats of about the same size its been my pleasure to fish aboard. I believe it is a function of the keel and the really low center of gravity. Amazing, for a boat that is round bilged and fairly flat under the transom. No chines. Just splash rails forward and aft. A soft, soft ride...which is what I wanted. "WaIIy" wrote in message ... On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 01:34:03 GMT, "NOYB" wrote: Harry doesn't like to answer direct questions...'cause honesty makes him uncomfortable. What rights have *you* lost Harry? He lost the right to drive his lobster boat. Oh wait.......... nevermind. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:41 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com