Yep. BZip2 is listed 10 times, but the reference to each of them reads the same:
A vulnerability has been reported when an archive is extracted into a world or group writeable directory, which could let a malicious user modify file permissions of target files.
And then they list 10 different distributions. Hmmmmm..... it looks like the old "multiple reporting" problem.
So, one problem in BZip2 == 10 counts of "problems".
They're not giving you help to buy a digital TV, they're giving $40 for a converter box so you can watch a crappy old analog TV with a nice digital signal. Would $40 really help your college fund?
Not individually.
But put $1.5 billion more into scholarships and such and I can guarantee that more students will get a college education.
But how about if they REDUCE your health premiums because they see you go jogging every other day?
But more people speed than jog.
And there really isn't any incentive to reduce someone's premiums... unless some other insurance company is trying to get them as a client.
The times when you're the least risk is when you're young... which is also the time when you're most likely to speed and do other stupid things in your car.
Actually, if done properly it may be a bloody good thing to happen to humankind. Yes, you can "spy" on your parents, or girl next door, or your president, or "enemy" millitary command, any time, anywhere, but then so do they...
Which would totally suck for anyone who is at all interesting.
Instead of 100 people "spying" on 100 other people, you'd have 100 basement dwelling losers "spying" on the popular girl in school.
This is far to open to abuse by stalkers and other people willing to invest 99% of their time in abusing it.
Youve gone from saying the president must seek a warrant to that the attorney general must inform in documents not to be disclosed for up to 1 year.
I've gone from saying the president DOES NOT have the authority to order taps on US citizens without court oversight to saying that the president DOES NOT have the authority to order taps on US citizens without court oversight.
You've gone from saying that no court oversight was ever needed to saying that the court oversight that was required doesn't matter.
In the current context information and disclosure were given. If this were a mathematical proof I would end with Q.E.D. at this point.
And you'd be wrong.
Unless you can show that the required documentation was filed with the court.
Bush and Co have said that such was not needed because we are at "war" and he is "Commander in Chief".
So, either show that the correct documents were filed or admit that Bush violated the law.
Once again, I'm not a christian, can we get over this now?
Yeah, sure. Your sig screams teenage male Protestant. Claim whatever you want to. If you weren't Christian, you'd have a better understanding of religious bias because you'd have seen it every day of your life.
Yet you insist upon using a religiously biased site for your "source".
No, it's about secceding from a government.
Whatever you want to call it. It's about splitting from one government to form your own. Just as we did in The Revolutionary War. That's when we split from England. Got it?
They had no intention on fighting the war altho most certainly thought that this was going to happen from the northern federal government. Understand this history. it's very simple and it does not qualify as taking arms against your own nation.
it's very simple and it does not qualify as taking arms against your own nation.
To you it does not. Actually, I think you're lying on that and just trying to cover up your ignorance.
There isn't much difference between the Civil War and the Revolutionary War.
I'm neither worries about christians nor just happenings inside the united state. Stick to the subject and if you can't it proves how wrong you are.
The "subject" was your claim that the religion of Islam supports violence.
I've shown you evidence that is statistical (fewer attacks by Muslims in the US than by Christians) and contextual (Islam forbids harming women and children).
Because you refuse to accept it does not mean that I haven't presented it.
Nothing has been taken out of context. get off your high horse.
Like I said, this concept of "context" kicks your ass every time.
The quotes you cited WERE taken out of context because he didn't include the quotes about not harming women and children.
I simply pointed out a page with some quotes from muslim writings. The single word I said IIRC is "perhaps". How is that taking anything out of context?
Don't even try that bullshit.
Here is how the thread went:
So instead of screwing our civil liberties, and those of our law-abiding immigrants from the rest of the world besides the heavily Muslim areas, why not simply deport all of the Middle Eastern and Pakistan Muslims from our country? Only a pathologically dishonest person can look at the history of Islam and call it a religion of peace.
..then...
You're judging based on history rather than on the actual precepts of the religion. Just because someone claims to be an adherent of a religion or does something in the name of a religion doesn't mean that everything they do adheres to the religion.
..to which you replied with your "perhaps" link...
So, no, you DID post a link with quotes taken out of context.
Again, his religious idealogy does not change the quotes.
Again, the quotes are not the question.
The question is whether he took them out of context. Which he did. Which I've demonstrated. Which I've also shown, statistically, is how 99.99% of Muslims practice their religion.
Because you and he have a bias does not make them wrong and you two right.
Now, if he misquoted the texts you'd have a point, but he didn't and you don't have a point.
And, for the last time, this concept of "context" KEEPS KICKING YOUR ASS. I've explained that already and you are u
I don't regard him as "visionary". I regard him as "A.D.D". Whatever the latest thing that catches his eye has to be assigned... then forgotten. But a new shiney idea has to be assigned.
He's a bad manager because he cannot prioritize the items he is supposed to be managing (time, money and resources) to accomplish the goals he is supposed to be setting.
Example, we recently ordered 4 new servers for one of these projects... but one of our sites had an old server without mirrored hard drives.
To me, procrastination comes down to understanding the big picture and your place in getting there. If you don't agree with the big picture or you don't have a big picture or you don't like you place... you'll procrastinate. You'll get distracted by other tasks that are less important at the moment.
When that is the case, you need to adjust your picture or your place.
(3) The Attorney General shall immediately transmit under seal to the court established under section 1803 (a) of this title a copy of his certification. Such certification shall be maintained under security measures established by the Chief Justice with the concurrence of the Attorney General, in consultation with the Director of Central Intelligence, and shall remain sealed unless-- (A) an application for a court order with respect to the surveillance is made under sections 1801 (h)(4) and 1804 of this title; or (B) the certification is necessary to determine the legality of the surveillance under section 1806 (f) of this title.
So the Attorney General MUST let the Court know what is happening.
So yes the president may intercept communications of US persons without a warant.
But in the situations where he does not need a warrant, the Court MUST still be informed.
Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that-- (A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at-- (i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or (ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and
(C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this title; and if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at least thirty days prior to their effective date, unless the Attorney General determines immediate action is required and notifies the committees immediately of such minimization procedures and the reason for their becoming effective immediately.
===and=== (3) The Attorney General shall immediately transmit under seal to the court established under section 1803 (a) of this title a copy of his certification. Such certification shall be maintained under security measures established by the Chief Justice with the concurrence of the Attorney General, in consultation with the Director of Central Intelligence, and shall remain sealed unless-- (A) an application for a court order with respect to the surveillance is made under sections 1801 (h)(4) and 1804 of this title; or (B) the certification is necessary to determine the legality of the surveillance under section 1806 (f) of this title.
====
So, no, the president is not allowed to tap the phones of US citizens without any warrant or judicial oversight.
If it suits you better then let's look at the global arena where the number of Muslims to the number of Christians is a bit more even. What do you find there?
If you want to play that way, then we also cover the past 2,000 years.
Oops, Christianity loses big time. Ever hear of the "Crusades"?
You're not getting what I'm talking about. I DO NOT CARE if it does.
That is because you are biased and do not want to look at the facts.
Actually, the civil war wasn't about taking arms up against your own country.
Yeah, and if I needed any more evidence that you don't know what you're talking about, you just provided it. Yes, it most certainly was.
The civil war was the fallout from a select geographical area deciding to leave the government.
Geography does not fight.
It was people who believed the government should act a certain way attacking the people who believed the government should act a different way. The people doing the attacking were in certain states... because those states had local laws that those people had voted for and that they were afraid the Federal government would force them to change.
Had the south remained in the union and taken up arms against Washington that would have been a revolutionary move.
You seem to be big on making up criteria to suit yourself. But that doesn't change the facts. The southern states did not like the way the Federal government was going so they declared themselves to be their own nation and started a war.
Just as all the states had done during the Revolutionary War with England.
Oh? How about you tell that to all the suicide bombers we've had to endure over the past few decades.
"All"? "Decades"? Again, there have been MORE "Christian" attacks on abortion clinics than there have been Islamic attacks in the continental US.
Are you going to get that through your head?
Or will you keep denying it because it doesn't suit your bias?
Don't get me wrong, there are extermists who take things out of context because they are delusional, but there are hundres of thousands of muslims involved in a physically violent jihad.
Where?
Who "colour"ed all of the muslims?
You did.
I even said there were entire sects of muslims who aren't like this.
No you did not. The closest you came was suggesting that maybe the Muslims in the US followed a different type of Islam.
Ah ha! Now you're changing your tune!
Nope.
So now it's just that islam doesnt' comdone suicide bombers from killing civilian women and children.
This concept of "context" just kicks you ass every time, doesn't it?
Before it was violence all together. Heh. Move along.
No. It was never about "violence all together".
It was about the quotes on that page being taken out of context to portray Islam as violent.
That's what this "context" thing is about. Taking a quote where it says that dying in battle against the enemy is holy WITHOUT the quotes where killing women and children is a sin is called taking the quotes out of context.
There are Islamic texts that do indeed condone violence.
Yes there are. But they also forbid violence against innocent women and children. Which makes it kind of difficult to be a suicide bomber and still follow Islam.
I've seen it and you've done nothing to disprove it, you keep skirting the issue and frankly I'm not interested what christians do.
Just wondering why you claim that no warrant is needed for the cops/FBI to listen in on cell phone conversations... then claim that nothing heard on them can be used in court without a warrant.
Then you try to imply that the law enforcement agencies of the United States of America would use the information gained to counter terrorism in a non-legal fashion.
Rather, it sounds like you don't know what you're talking about and are flailing around for any "explanation" to "justify" your previous claims.
Or is this about the quotes he uses? I'm not arguing that those quotes may be authenitic. I'm saying that by using them out of context, given his bias, they do not show anything other than his ability to find a thread.
To which you replied:
Oh, but you are. Maybe they are taken out of context. PROVE IT.
That that seems to show is that the phrase he used on his site is far more popular in his book than in any Islamic sites.
This is not about christianity and frankly i don't give a damn either way. How many people have been killed in the last 10 years in the name of Jesus?
You might want to look into the history of abortion clinic bombings. In the continental US, there have been more abortion clinic attacks by "Christians" than there have been attacks by Islamics.
And without the WTO attack, the "Christians" would have killed more people.
It's more than you've done. You keep going on about having some kind of quote from what I'm guessing is the bible about how christianity condones rape or some such thing but so far you haven't produced anything relating to islam let alone an actual quote.
As for Islam, yes I have. I've shown millions of Muslims who live in the US and who do NOT subscribe to jihad against it.
Aside from the actions of Timothy McVeigh I can't recall the last time someone actually took arms up against the government. Does that mean the nation is made out of 300+ million non-patriots?
Maybe you missed something called "The Civil War"?
Since then, most people do not seem to have felt that the situation required armed resistance. Although there are several militias out there preparing for it.
Police NSA/CIA/DIA/ETC 1934 communications act covers law enforcement and use of information in a court of law. FISA covers intelligence gathering for non law enforcement purposes.
Soooooo...... anything found under FISA could not be used to prosecute anyone as a terrorist?
But, isn't that what they're trying to do? Find and stop the terrorists?
Unless they intend to "stop" the terrorist without resorting to any of our "legal" measures?
I've already shown that he considers "Hell" to be a location the same as Moscow is. You want more evidence of his bias?
Or is this about the quotes he uses? I'm not arguing that those quotes may be authenitic. I'm saying that by using them out of context, given his bias, they do not show anything other than his ability to find a thread.
Again, I can show how, using selective quotes, the Bible supports rape and slavery. What "proof" is that?
For the time being this is as close as I've got to proof.
Yeah, that's pretty sad, isn't it? Given what appears to be your bias, that's the best you can do.
that's more than you've provided.
How about "statistics"?
15 suicide bombers attacked the US in 2001. And they came in from another country.
http://www.islam101.com/history/population2_usa.ht ml In 1992, there were at least 5 million Muslims in the US. Now, either those 5 million aren't "real" Muslims and don't follow the "real" Islamic religion... or the quotes you've taken aren't reflective of the religion of Islam.
Now, because I know that statistics will never sway someone's religious bias, we'll see how you accept these numbers.
If you were shouting across the street about your plans and a cop overhears it, its fair game. The same goes for Cellphones or any kind of transmission over radio. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy.
But... if tapping a phone is the same as listening to someone shouting something across the street... why do the cops need warrants for phone taps at all?
Why was a secret court setup to approve those warrants specifically for the government?
I'm not questioning the guy who put it together and what he believes... What this guy thinks personally has nothing to do with quotes from Islamic religious writings.
Yes, it does. Because you are relying upon his interpretation of the quote, out of context and without any contradictory material.
By that same practice, I can show you where the Bible condones rape and slavery, as long as you're not the right religion.
For all I care the guy can believe in the Easter Bunny. It doesn't make his quotes any less valid.
I take it you have no concept of "context" then.
Again, I can show, in the Bible, where God condones rape and slavery. Yet you won't find many Christians or Christian churches that condone such now, will you?
Yep. Terrorists flew airplanes into buildings killing 3,000+ US civilians. What do you remember?
Yeah, there has been a lot of "unauthorized" spying, but it looks to be pretty specific (e.g., Mosques... where large Muslim populations ostensibly would have privacy to worship).
So... unauthorized spying is okay with you... as long as you aren't the one being spied upon?
First they came for the... You know the rest.
The United States was attacked and continues to be targeted for major future terror attacks.
More people die on the highways than have ever been killed by terrorists in ANY year in the US.
And, like it or not, the community most likely to cultivate, plan, and escalate this activity is Muslim.
No. You're confusing the part for the whole.
Because the terrorists were Muslims... Does not make Muslims terrorists.
Many people have cats as pets... But not everyone who has a pet has a cat.
And, a country so viciously attacked would be naive, maybe even stupid to allow unfettered large gatherings where this planning could go on with no observation.
You are taking your previous logical fallacy and extending it to contradict one of our basic rights in our Constitution.
I cringe to think spying may go on, and may be necessary, but it isn't the same world as five years ago.
Actually, it is exactly the same as it was 5 years ago. The only difference is that YOU have had certain items forcibly displayed to YOU.
Israel has had to deal with suicide bombers for years longer.
As for those complaining about the abridgement of their rights and rampant government interference I would ask you, have you or anyone you know observed or experienced serious interference in your life (lives)?
Yes. I know Muslims who have been threatened by overzealous "patriots" here.
I haven't, and I don't know anyone who has.
That's great. You might want to re-read the bit I wrote about how it is YOU who hasn't seen things that have existed for others for years.
I may not be happy the world is a bit more wrapped around the axle these days, but I am happy to live in a country that has enough freedom that you can print the president's face on toilet paper.
That's great. Meaningless, but great.
When members of Congress cannot even discuss the meetings the President calls with their lawyers... that's okay as long as I can buy toilet paper.
I think you're a little bit confused about "freedom".
If Bush used it against political opponents then that would be a problem, and he would be held accountable
The problem is, without the other branches of government watching, how will you even know if he abuses it?
After all, isn't it better for the president, during a war, to have information on what the Democrats will be pushing as "talking points" so he can spend less time preparing on stuff that won't be brought up and more time "fighting the terrorists"?
Isn't it better for the President, during a war, to have as much information about who is financing what with the Democrats? That way, he can have his responses ready instead of wasting his time and efforts that would be better put to "fighting the terrorists"?
And so on. Once you start surrending ANY freedomes for ANY cause, then that cause can be used to "justify" the removal of any other freedom or restriction.
No matter what they do, the "terrorists" can never defeat the US. Only we the citizens of the US can do that. And we do that by abandoning our Constitution.
Most Wiccans do not believe in Hell nor Satan... but it is the usual deception of Satan, who is the source of most Wiccans "experiences"... yes, Hell and Satan do exist... like Paris and Moscow exist, it is a fact!
Great. Hell is a "fact" just as Moscow is a "fact".
Either: a. You support Bush in whatever he wants to do...or... b. You are supporting the terrorists!
At Bush's inauguration, he swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. The Constitution says NOTHING about suspending ANY rights or portions of the Constitution just because the President says to.
Slashdot Mirror
I counted the lines and there are 2,329 lines.
Here's an example of 10 of them:
# BZip2 File Permission Modification
# BZip2 File Permission Modification (Updated)
# BZip2 File Permission Modification (Updated)
# BZip2 File Permission Modification (Updated)
# BZip2 File Permission Modification (Updated)
# BZip2 File Permission Modification (Updated)
# BZip2 File Permission Modification (Updated)
# BZip2 File Permission Modification (Updated)
# BZip2 File Permission Modification (Updated)
# BZip2 File Permission Modification (Updated)
Yep. BZip2 is listed 10 times, but the reference to each of them reads the same:
And then they list 10 different distributions. Hmmmmm
So, one problem in BZip2 == 10 counts of "problems".
But put $1.5 billion more into scholarships and such and I can guarantee that more students will get a college education.
Nice example!
The only way to question science is via the scientific method.
Cross index the sale of new plasma screen TV's from local shops with the monitors showing people leaving those addresses.
... and you have the list of homes for a quick crime spree.
Now, you know every house that has a new, valuable TV that also doesn't have anyone at home right now.
Cross index that with any sales of dog food to account for canine issues
The same with jewelry.
Grand theft auto? Even easier.
And there really isn't any incentive to reduce someone's premiums
The times when you're the least risk is when you're young
Instead of 100 people "spying" on 100 other people, you'd have 100 basement dwelling losers "spying" on the popular girl in school.
This is far to open to abuse by stalkers and other people willing to invest 99% of their time in abusing it.
Seriously, it seems that we go through this discussion every few months.
At least read the court decision. Microsoft was ruled to have a monopoly in the x86 desktop market.
Not in game consoles.
Not in the server market.
Not in the ISP market.
I've gone from saying the president DOES NOT have the authority to order taps on US citizens without court oversight to saying that the president DOES NOT have the authority to order taps on US citizens without court oversight.
You've gone from saying that no court oversight was ever needed to saying that the court oversight that was required doesn't matter.
And you'd be wrong.
Unless you can show that the required documentation was filed with the court.
Bush and Co have said that such was not needed because we are at "war" and he is "Commander in Chief".
So, either show that the correct documents were filed or admit that Bush violated the law.
Yeah, sure. Your sig screams teenage male Protestant. Claim whatever you want to. If you weren't Christian, you'd have a better understanding of religious bias because you'd have seen it every day of your life.
Yet you insist upon using a religiously biased site for your "source".
Whatever you want to call it. It's about splitting from one government to form your own. Just as we did in The Revolutionary War. That's when we split from England. Got it?
Maybe you might want to look into history a bit there.
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/cwphtml/tl1861.html
It seems that they initiated the hostilities.
To you it does not. Actually, I think you're lying on that and just trying to cover up your ignorance.
There isn't much difference between the Civil War and the Revolutionary War.
The "subject" was your claim that the religion of Islam supports violence.
I've shown you evidence that is statistical (fewer attacks by Muslims in the US than by Christians) and contextual (Islam forbids harming women and children).
Because you refuse to accept it does not mean that I haven't presented it.
Like I said, this concept of "context" kicks your ass every time.
The quotes you cited WERE taken out of context because he didn't include the quotes about not harming women and children.
Don't even try that bullshit.
Here is how the thread went:
So, no, you DID post a link with quotes taken out of context.
Again, the quotes are not the question.
The question is whether he took them out of context. Which he did. Which I've demonstrated. Which I've also shown, statistically, is how 99.99% of Muslims practice their religion.
Because you and he have a bias does not make them wrong and you two right.
And, for the last time, this concept of "context" KEEPS KICKING YOUR ASS. I've explained that already and you are u
I don't regard him as "visionary". I regard him as "A.D.D". Whatever the latest thing that catches his eye has to be assigned ... then forgotten. But a new shiney idea has to be assigned.
... but one of our sites had an old server without mirrored hard drives.
... you'll procrastinate. You'll get distracted by other tasks that are less important at the moment.
He's a bad manager because he cannot prioritize the items he is supposed to be managing (time, money and resources) to accomplish the goals he is supposed to be setting.
Example, we recently ordered 4 new servers for one of these projects
To me, procrastination comes down to understanding the big picture and your place in getting there. If you don't agree with the big picture or you don't have a big picture or you don't like you place
When that is the case, you need to adjust your picture or your place.
So the Attorney General MUST let the Court know what is happening.
But in the situations where he does not need a warrant, the Court MUST still be informed.
http://www.thecre.com/fedlaw/legal22q/uscode50-180 1.htm
s c_sec_50_00001802----000-.html
Yep. The parts you are quoting are from "Sec. 1801. - Definitions".
You might want to read the ENTIRE section.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/u
Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that--
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at--
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and
(C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this title; and
if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at least thirty days prior to their effective date, unless the Attorney General determines immediate action is required and notifies the committees immediately of such minimization procedures and the reason for their becoming effective immediately.
===and===
(3) The Attorney General shall immediately transmit under seal to the court established under section 1803 (a) of this title a copy of his certification. Such certification shall be maintained under security measures established by the Chief Justice with the concurrence of the Attorney General, in consultation with the Director of Central Intelligence, and shall remain sealed unless--
(A) an application for a court order with respect to the surveillance is made under sections 1801 (h)(4) and 1804 of this title; or
(B) the certification is necessary to determine the legality of the surveillance under section 1806 (f) of this title.
====
So, no, the president is not allowed to tap the phones of US citizens without any warrant or judicial oversight.
If you want to play that way, then we also cover the past 2,000 years.
Oops, Christianity loses big time. Ever hear of the "Crusades"?
That is because you are biased and do not want to look at the facts.
Yeah, and if I needed any more evidence that you don't know what you're talking about, you just provided it. Yes, it most certainly was.
Geography does not fight.
... because those states had local laws that those people had voted for and that they were afraid the Federal government would force them to change.
It was people who believed the government should act a certain way attacking the people who believed the government should act a different way. The people doing the attacking were in certain states
You seem to be big on making up criteria to suit yourself. But that doesn't change the facts. The southern states did not like the way the Federal government was going so they declared themselves to be their own nation and started a war.
Just as all the states had done during the Revolutionary War with England.
"All"? "Decades"? Again, there have been MORE "Christian" attacks on abortion clinics than there have been Islamic attacks in the continental US.
Are you going to get that through your head?
Or will you keep denying it because it doesn't suit your bias?
Where?
You did.
No you did not. The closest you came was suggesting that maybe the Muslims in the US followed a different type of Islam.
Nope.
This concept of "context" just kicks you ass every time, doesn't it?
No. It was never about "violence all together".
It was about the quotes on that page being taken out of context to portray Islam as violent.
That's what this "context" thing is about. Taking a quote where it says that dying in battle against the enemy is holy WITHOUT the quotes where killing women and children is a sin is called taking the quotes out of context.
Yes there are. But they also forbid violence against innocent women and children. Which makes it kind of difficult to be a suicide bomber and still follow Islam.
Yes you have. And you
Just wondering why you claim that no warrant is needed for the cops/FBI to listen in on cell phone conversations ... then claim that nothing heard on them can be used in court without a warrant.
Then you try to imply that the law enforcement agencies of the United States of America would use the information gained to counter terrorism in a non-legal fashion.
Rather, it sounds like you don't know what you're talking about and are flailing around for any "explanation" to "justify" your previous claims.
To which you replied:
You don't understand what "context" is, do you?
Here, this is a quick google search for the first quote he uses. You will notice that the sites listed do not point to any Islamic texts, but to sites where you can purchase his book or refutations of his book.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q= %22believers%2C+fight+the+unbelievers+who+are+near +to+you%2C+and+let+them+find+in+you+a+harshness%3B +and+know+that+Allah+is+with+the+godfearing%22&btn G=Search
And now for comparision, a quote from the Bible, searched via Google.
Phrase: "For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22For+to+us+ a+child+is+born%2C+to+us+a+son+is+given%2C+and+the +government+will+be+on+his+shoulders.+And+he+will+ be+called+Wonderful+Counselor%2C+Mighty+God%2C+Eve rlasting+Father%2C+Prince+of+Peace.%22&btnG=Google +Search
There. The links it shows are all church related sites and you find a link to a Bible search site on the 2nd page.
That that seems to show is that the phrase he used on his site is far more popular in his book than in any Islamic sites.
You might want to look into the history of abortion clinic bombings. In the continental US, there have been more abortion clinic attacks by "Christians" than there have been attacks by Islamics.
And without the WTO attack, the "Christians" would have killed more people.
You're "guessing"? I specifically stated it was in the Bible. Here's a good place to start.
http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresul ts.php?passage1=Judges+21&version1=9
As for Islam, yes I have. I've shown millions of Muslims who live in the US and who do NOT subscribe to jihad against it.
Maybe you missed something called "The Civil War"?
Since then, most people do not seem to have felt that the situation required armed resistance. Although there are several militias out there preparing for it.
Soooooo...... anything found under FISA could not be used to prosecute anyone as a terrorist?
But, isn't that what they're trying to do? Find and stop the terrorists?
Unless they intend to "stop" the terrorist without resorting to any of our "legal" measures?
Again, see above.
Not talking original phones. Talking cell phones. Which you said was the same as shouting it across the street.
Either it is the same as shouting it across the street and there is no need for cops to ever get a warrant for tapping a cell phone
or it is not the same and the cops need to get warrants. The later seems more likely because the cops do need warrants.
I've already shown that he considers "Hell" to be a location the same as Moscow is. You want more evidence of his bias?
Or is this about the quotes he uses? I'm not arguing that those quotes may be authenitic. I'm saying that by using them out of context, given his bias, they do not show anything other than his ability to find a thread.
Again, I can show how, using selective quotes, the Bible supports rape and slavery. What "proof" is that?
Yeah, that's pretty sad, isn't it? Given what appears to be your bias, that's the best you can do.
How about "statistics"?
15 suicide bombers attacked the US in 2001. And they came in from another country.
http://www.islam101.com/history/population2_usa.h
In 1992, there were at least 5 million Muslims in the US. Now, either those 5 million aren't "real" Muslims and don't follow the "real" Islamic religion
Now, because I know that statistics will never sway someone's religious bias, we'll see how you accept these numbers.
But
Why was a secret court setup to approve those warrants specifically for the government?
By that same practice, I can show you where the Bible condones rape and slavery, as long as you're not the right religion.
I take it you have no concept of "context" then.
Again, I can show, in the Bible, where God condones rape and slavery. Yet you won't find many Christians or Christian churches that condone such now, will you?
Check your bias.
So
First they came for the
You know the rest.
More people die on the highways than have ever been killed by terrorists in ANY year in the US.
No. You're confusing the part for the whole.
Because the terrorists were Muslims
Does not make Muslims terrorists.
Many people have cats as pets
But not everyone who has a pet has a cat.
You are taking your previous logical fallacy and extending it to contradict one of our basic rights in our Constitution.
Actually, it is exactly the same as it was 5 years ago. The only difference is that YOU have had certain items forcibly displayed to YOU.
Israel has had to deal with suicide bombers for years longer.
Yes. I know Muslims who have been threatened by overzealous "patriots" here.
That's great. You might want to re-read the bit I wrote about how it is YOU who hasn't seen things that have existed for others for years.
That's great. Meaningless, but great.
When members of Congress cannot even discuss the meetings the President calls with their lawyers
I think you're a little bit confused about "freedom".
The problem is, without the other branches of government watching, how will you even know if he abuses it?
After all, isn't it better for the president, during a war, to have information on what the Democrats will be pushing as "talking points" so he can spend less time preparing on stuff that won't be brought up and more time "fighting the terrorists"?
Isn't it better for the President, during a war, to have as much information about who is financing what with the Democrats? That way, he can have his responses ready instead of wasting his time and efforts that would be better put to "fighting the terrorists"?
And so on. Once you start surrending ANY freedomes for ANY cause, then that cause can be used to "justify" the removal of any other freedom or restriction.
No matter what they do, the "terrorists" can never defeat the US. Only we the citizens of the US can do that. And we do that by abandoning our Constitution.
Great. Hell is a "fact" just as Moscow is a "fact".
Nope. No bias there.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/eitheror.html
...or...
Either:
a. You support Bush in whatever he wants to do
b. You are supporting the terrorists!
At Bush's inauguration, he swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. The Constitution says NOTHING about suspending ANY rights or portions of the Constitution just because the President says to.