I heard the "Stay the Course" resolution passed both the Senate and the House with flying colors.

Since we all follow are 'Demon-Haunted World' by Carl Sagan... I would suggest reading the last two chapters very carefully as they pertain to politics...

Just because something passes in Government does not mean that it represents the majority of the people, nor does it mean that the opposition is in the minority... What It does mean is that there is the possibility that Government has gained too much power over the people... Which is both unpatriotic and unconstitutional... ;)

Come back to the discussion when you learn how a Republic works and how many elections we've had in the last 5 years.

Here's a clue, members of the house and senate ARE elected by majority vote, and the fanatical left-wing minority, like you for instance, are the only ones who have not only lost touch with reality, but with the average American voter as well.

---

Yes, he's one of the four.

He was a Republican...goes to show how much the party has changed over the years. He was also a recepiant of the Congressional Medal of Honor (equiv. to the VC) for bravery...he wasn't in the National Guard when his country was at war.

Yeah, he was in the Calvery fighting Cubans....not much different than fighting the indians, or shooting fish in a barrell for that matter, and he didn't get the medal of honor until nearly 90 years after his death.

I agree that Teddy was a great American, but if you are going to compare him to the current administration, then try doing it with a little less bias

---

>>>...a twisted, shriveled mind; a black heart; and a distorted sense of morality that make me shudder and recoil...

Baby,Baby- Where have you been all my life??..cc

Dude, why even waste your time on a third world piece of crap?

I responded for all those who agree with her, and who think she is such a font of reason and knowlege. And even though I know I will not change their minds (or hers), I want them to know there is another side to her psuedo-rhetoric.

Tom, I thought Enigma was a 'he'...I thought your post was entirely entertaining and made me bust a gut.....I didn't know that Enigma had supposedly made those comments that were defensive of terrorists though. I like him although we disagree on most things...but I'll reread your links to see where he (she?) is coming from....

I have it on ignore.

---

me@rescam.org

I don't think anyone ever accused you of listening to the opinion of others before passing judgment.

That's a trait of humans, not trolls.

---

Dear Enigma:

You continually insult my country:

In this post you said, “Arguably the worst thing that can happen to the world is to have more countries like America or Iraq. Certainly turning Iraq/Afganistan etc into American clones is a recipe for disaster.” Completely ignoring the fact that the brutal dictatorship in Iraq and the murderous theocracy in Afghanistan are becoming democracies.

In this post you said, “But the US just loves war so much, it can't get enough.” Completely ignoring the fact that Saddam started hostilities when he invaded Kuwait, and that Al Qaeda killed more than 2,000 people on 9/11.

You continually lie, misquote and feign personal attacks when you have no argument:

In this post you said, “You love citing documents that you have not actually read and understood.”, and “So now some of you fall back to arguments such as “the war never ended” so it was perfectly legal to invade…..with again no support documents or argument just biased opinions.” When it was you who clearly did not understand what you read; and there were plenty of links to “support” documents.

In this post you said “So now some of you fall back to arguments such as “the war never ended” so it was perfectly legal to invade…..with again no support documents or argument just biased opinions.”, when you have been referred to the documents over and over again by me, Octagon, Misfit and others. Indeed, it seems that you did not read them, because if you did, you never said one word about why they don’t support the position that the war is perfectly legal.

In this post you said “No you just start attacking the person who is making the argument and continue to spout conjecture, rather than building an argument for further discussion. This line of argument is not logical and is a sure sign that you don't know what you are talking about.”, which was neither an attack on you nor conjecture, as evidence had repeatedly been given to you. Then you insult me, saying my argument is “not logical” and that I “ don’t know what I am talking about.” So, what are you saying here? Am I 1) attacking you; 2) spouting conjecture; or 3) making an argument that is not logical? It can’t be all three.

And in that same post you cite to an opinion of Kofi Annan that is not backed up by any “support documents or argument just biased opinions”; this is exactly what you have accused me of doing, so you could claim that my argument was without merit. So, by your logic, the site you linked to has no merit.

In this post you said, “Your response. Personal attack. [sincere mode=on] I am truly sorry as i confused you as someone that is capable of mature, rational, intelligent debate. My mistake, it won't happen again.” So, you complain about what you perceive as a “personal attack” then do the same? Perhaps you are not so morally opposed to personal attacks when they are made by you.

In this post you completely misstated my point. I even tried to be gracious about my post, and you turned that against me in a later post.

In this post you misquoted me saying, “‘Disassembled and export their 'WMD'’. You have to be joking?? Lets apply occams razor here.” Which I never said. I pointed out to you that I never said that, but you never apologized for misquoting me. Then, in that post, you accused me of making a “baseless personally directed accusation[s]”, simply because I labeled you what you are: an apologist (for terrorists) and a self-righteous twit (look it up).

In this post, when I said you shouldn’t “throw up your hands” that means (to any English speaker who is not ignorant) “to give up”, but your response was, “No body is throwing anything anywhere; I think you need to calm down….LOL…”, as if I was raving at you. No rational reading of my post would lead anyone to believe I needed to calm down. (Even this post is meant to be educational, and to point out your errors, but I am not ranting. Oh, maybe a little raving at the end).

When I call you on your lies, you ignore me:

In this post I said “A pattern is emerging here. Enigma will claim anything, whether it happened or not (whether it was said or not) and try to make points. Well, that is an unfair way to argue. When I claimed that Beethoven said something and he had actually said just the opposite, I admitted my mistake and apologized. Let's just see what happens now.”; in this post I said, “Then you completely bypass my comments in your previous post that I never said the things you claim I did. Show me where I said those things! You can't make up a statement out of thin air, say I said it and then claim I was wrong. I know all about using a straw-man argument, and it is invalid.”; and in this post I said, “Dear, dear Enigma, it is perfectly clear that you don't wish to discuss this topic like an adult. And I say this, sweetie, because you have not heard a word I said, and you claim I said things that I did not say.” You did not respond to the merits of my arguments nor to my requests that you admit your errors.

These examples are from only the last 2-3 weeks. I have (mostly) avoided examples that show you do the same with other posters, and where you simply avoid answering direct questions that have been put to you.

You asked me to look in a mirror, well, when I look in a mirror, I see an honest man, or at least one who tries to be. When I look at you I am horrified by your ugliness, perhaps not physical ugliness, but a twisted, shriveled mind; a black heart; and a distorted sense of morality that make me shudder and recoil. I certainly hope you do not look in a mirror.

Lets make one thing perfectly clear. When i entered into this 'slinging match' with you Tom, I had an agenda.

The agenda was this

Use 'TOM's Tactics' when arguing with TOM

[Tom's Tactics - for the uninitiated]
1. Insult the person within 1-2 replies
2. Continue to insult the person
3. Put the person down and disragard their statements and references out right
i.e. do not bother to requote supposedly invalid references
4. Show absolute disrespect for the person you are in discussion with

I have impartially applied these methods when arguing with you Tom, and guess what you can't handle it! I'm giving a dose of the crap you dish out on a daily basis to unsuspecting new comers to SETI@HOME!

If you don't believe me, go back and pull every thread i have participated in, the evidence will be clear. How about i go back and pull all your discussion threads?? HMMMMM

Furthermore I've participated in many 'hot' discussions across many threads on some very controversial topics since joining in March and i have "agreed to disagree" with some posters and agreed with others. It has NEVER resorted to what has been illustrated in this case (with you).

You were the FIRST person i put on ignore - Congratulations!
The second was BrainSmashr and i put you guys on ignore for the SAME reason. You employ the same tactics when arguing, although i think BrainSmasr has more control over his adjectives.

But getting back to your post, was it an attempt and reconcilliation? You start your post with "Dear Enigma" and end it with

"When I look at you I am horrified by your ugliness, perhaps not physical ugliness, but a twisted, shriveled mind; a black heart; and a distorted sense of morality that make me shudder and recoil."

Is this your method of problem resolution, reconcilliation,'patching things up', closure? It is comments and an attitude like this that fill your arguments, and you expect me to respond to such venemous hate....

I think someone (me) has come into your little playground and taken away your "tonka truck" by challenging you and using you own 'methods' against you, and you don't like it.

Perhaps one day, you will be capable of civil balanced discussion however unlikely that may be. I suggest you take a few pages out of octagons book, you could learn a lot. Regardless a 'point by point' response to your post is not only futile and useless (thanks for the suggestion octagon) but simply a waste of time for the above stated reasons.

-Edit formatting

---

Belief gets in the way of learning

I think someone (me) has come into your little playground and taken away your "tonka truck" by challenging you and using you own 'methods' against you, and you don't like it.

Been there... Done that... ;)

Gotta love the gender debate.... it really is telling....

I mean how many people in an electronic discussion (text only) start referring to someones gender when they have a gender-neutral handle.

It's either

1. A masked insult (assuming i am male)
2. An insult to females as he considers only a female would propose my arguments.

Either way its certainly suggestive about a certain persons pre-conceived ideas and narrow-mindedness which don't stop at gender....

---

Belief gets in the way of learning

Justices say no-knock evidence is OK in court

NEW YORK TIMES NEWS SERVICE and ASSOCIATED PRESS

June 16, 2006

WASHINGTON – Evidence found by police officers who enter a home to execute a search warrant without first following the requirement to “knock and announce” can be used at trial despite that constitutional violation, the Supreme Court ruled yesterday.

The 5-4 decision left uncertain the value of the “knock-and-announce” rule, which dates to 13th-century England as protection against illegal entry by the police into private homes.

Justice Antonin Scalia, in the majority opinion, said people subject to an improper police entry remained free to go to court and bring a civil rights suit against the police.

But Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the dissenters, said the ruling “weakens, perhaps destroys, much of the practical value of the Constitution's knock-and-announce protection.” He said the majority's reasoning boiled down to: “The requirement is fine, indeed, a serious matter, just don't enforce it.”

The decision followed a reargument less than a month ago, with the newest justice, Samuel Alito, casting the decisive vote. Breyer's dissenting opinion was clearly drafted to speak for a majority that was lost when Justice Sandra Day O'Connor left the court shortly after the first argument in January.

The justices' division in this case, which upheld a Detroit man's conviction for drug possession, may become a familiar one as the court proceeds through its criminal-law docket. In addition to Alito, those who joined the majority opinion by Scalia were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy. Breyer's dissenting opinion was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

The decision answered a question the court had left open in 1995, when it held in a unanimous opinion by Thomas that the traditional expectation that the police should knock and announce their presence was part of what made a search “reasonable” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The amendment bars unreasonable searches.

In that case, Wilson v. Arkansas, the court declined to say what the remedy should be for a violation of the knock-and-announce rule. Ordinarily, evidence that is seized illegally – in the absence of a warrant, for example – may not be used at trial, under what is known as the exclusionary rule.

By a strong majority, most state and federal courts that have considered the issue have applied the exclusionary rule to violations of the knock-and-announce requirement. In its decision yesterday, Hudson v. Michigan, No. 04-1360, the Supreme Court upheld a ruling by the Michigan Court of Appeals, one of the few courts to have rejected the exclusionary rule in this context.

In the case, the Detroit police had a warrant to search for drugs in the home of Booker Hudson. At his unlocked door, they announced their presence, but did not knock and waited three to five seconds before entering, not the 15 to 20 seconds suggested by the Supreme Court's precedents.

Had the police observed a longer wait, they would have executed the search warrant and found the evidence anyway, Scalia said. That made the connection between the improper entry and the discovery of the evidence “too attenuated” to justify the “massive remedy of suppressing evidence of guilt.”

Scalia said the knock-and-announce rule was designed to protect life, property and dignity by giving the homeowner time to respond to the knock and eliminating the need for the police to break down the door. But he said the rule has never protected “one's interest in preventing the government from seeing or taking evidence described in a warrant.”

Throughout his opinion, Scalia made clear his view that the right at issue was a minimal, even trivial one – “the right not to be intruded upon in one's nightclothes,” he said at one point – that could not hold its own when balanced against the “grave adverse consequences that exclusion of relevant incriminating evidence always entails.”

Scalia said the increasing professionalism of police and the threat of civil suits was enough of a deterrent to keep officers from abusing their authority.

Civil liberties advocates called the court's decision a major blow to privacy protections.

“The knock-and-announce rule is dead in the United States,” said David Moran, a Wayne State University professor who represented Hudson. “There are going to be a lot more doors knocked down. There are going to be a lot more people terrified and humiliated.”

The ruling cheered conservatives, including some who were surprised that Alito's first written opinion came last month in a unanimous ruling in favor of a South Carolina death row inmate.

“He seems to be so far somewhat leaning to the prosecution side in the close cases,” said Kent Scheidegger, legal director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation. “It's nice to have your expectation confirmed.”

Radley Balko, a policy analyst at the Cato Institute, said, “If you're concerned about civil liberties it doesn't bode well. I think now a pretty solid majority is going to be reliably coming down on the side of the government.”

---

me@rescam.org

An education about racial violence

LEONARD PITTS JR.
THE MIAMI HERALD

June 16, 2006

Seventy-six years ago, thousands of people came to lynch James Cameron.

In this, he was not unique. An estimated 4,700 Americans – the vast majority of them black men – suffered that fate in the years between the Civil War and the Civil Rights Movement. Here's what makes Cameron different: he survived. The rope was around his neck and the mob howled for his blood, but he survived. He is believed to be the only person ever to do so.

James Cameron died Sunday at the age of 92 after years of failing health.

I met him in 1994 when I went to Milwaukee to do a story on his book, “A Time of Terror,” and he told me about that awful night in August 1930. How police arrested him for a crime he had not committed: the murder of a white man. How they literally stomped him into signing a confession he was not allowed to read. How the dead man's bloody shirt was hoisted to a flagpole outside the jailhouse and all day long, a mob gathered beneath. How a false rumor spread that Cameron and two others had raped the dead man's girlfriend. How the mob attacked the jail after dark, taking sledgehammers to the door until their hands were dripping blood. How they beat one man, Thomas Shipp, to death. How they rammed a crowbar through another, Abram Smith. How they wrapped Shipp's body in a Klan robe and strung both corpses up in a tree. How they came for Cameron, beat him senseless and snugged a rope around his neck.

How he was delivered by a miracle.

Cameron says a voice – it has never been independently identified, but he always said it was God – told the crowd he had committed no crime. And just like that, they let him go.

After the interview, I drove down to Marion, the tiny north-central Indiana town where it happened. At that point, the lynching was 64 years past. Yet people changed when you brought it up. Eyes turned inward. Hands trembled. Old people snapped at you. The crime haunted that place like ghosts, hung over it like smoke. As 93-year-old Jack Edwards, who was mayor in 1930, told me, “We're ashamed of it. It'll never be erased.”

In 1988, Cameron founded what he called America's Black Holocaust Museum – a Milwaukee institution dedicated to commemorating the years of racial violence. An obituary this week in The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel says the museum has never attracted the number of visitors Cameron had hoped. Small wonder. Black or white, these are passages we find too raw and painful and “close” for remembering. Easier to turn away, spare our delicate sensibilities.

As it happens, I had intended to use today's column to respond to remarks from some of my readers about a different hate crime. Recently, I wrote about the case of a white man in New York City who had beaten a black man with a baseball bat while yelling racial slurs. Because of the slurs, prosecutors argued the white man should face enhanced penalties under hate crime statutes.

Some of you had a problem with that and, indeed, with the entire concept of hate crimes. You argued that a beating is a beating is a beating, and the penalties ought not differ based on who is beaten or why.

I can appreciate why that reasoning seems to make sense. But it's built upon a fallacy: that a hate crime is just like any other crime except for motivation. James Cameron's life and near death tell us differently. Your typical crime victimizes only the victim and his or her family and friends. A hate crime terrorizes an entire people. An entire place.

So you can't tell me that what happened to Shipp and Smith was only murder. Or that what happened to Cameron was only assault. Or that the person who burns a cross on a lawn is guilty only of trespass or the one who spray-paints swastikas on a synagogue wall has committed only vandalism.

For 76 years, James Cameron told us otherwise. The ghosts of Marion still do.

---

me@rescam.org

Lets make one thing perfectly clear. When i entered into this 'slinging match' with you Tom, I had an agenda.

The agenda was this

Use 'TOM's Tactics' when arguing with TOM

[Tom's Tactics - for the uninitiated]
1. Insult the person within 1-2 replies
2. Continue to insult the person
3. Put the person down and disragard their statements and references out right
i.e. do not bother to requote supposedly invalid references
4. Show absolute disrespect for the person you are in discussion with

I have impartially applied these methods when arguing with you Tom, and guess what you can't handle it! I'm giving a dose of the crap you dish out on a daily basis to unsuspecting new comers to SETI@HOME!

If you don't believe me, go back and pull every thread i have participated in, the evidence will be clear. How about i go back and pull all your discussion threads?? HMMMMM

Furthermore I've participated in many 'hot' discussions across many threads on some very controversial topics since joining in March and i have "agreed to disagree" with some posters and agreed with others. It has NEVER resorted to what has been illustrated in this case (with you).

You were the FIRST person i put on ignore - Congratulations!
The second was BrainSmashr and i put you guys on ignore for the SAME reason. You employ the same tactics when arguing, although i think BrainSmasr has more control over his adjectives.

But getting back to your post, was it an attempt and reconcilliation? You start your post with "Dear Enigma" and end it with

"When I look at you I am horrified by your ugliness, perhaps not physical ugliness, but a twisted, shriveled mind; a black heart; and a distorted sense of morality that make me shudder and recoil."

Is this your method of problem resolution, reconcilliation,'patching things up', closure? It is comments and an attitude like this that fill your arguments, and you expect me to respond to such venemous hate....

I think someone (me) has come into your little playground and taken away your "tonka truck" by challenging you and using you own 'methods' against you, and you don't like it.

Perhaps one day, you will be capable of civil balanced discussion however unlikely that may be. I suggest you take a few pages out of octagons book, you could learn a lot. Regardless a 'point by point' response to your post is not only futile and useless (thanks for the suggestion octagon) but simply a waste of time for the above stated reasons.

-Edit formatting

Now that you have side-stepped the point of my post and blamed me (typical), I invite you to link to the posts where I insult you and everyone else I disagree with--but you can't, because you are wrong. I did not expect even this response. As I said earlier, my post was to show others what you have done and how you act. I did it with links to your own posts, while you have simply accused me (again) without proof. I am so glad I am on your "ignore list".

OK, you have answered my question. You have given the reason Palistinians (some) hate the US. And thank you for admitting that it is not a logical response on their part. I should have asked for a reasoned basis for their hatred of the US, but I fear there is none. As for giving half of the US back to the original inhabitants, that would certainly make me unhappy, but it would not make me hate Tibetans, even if those pesky Tibetans supported the move.

I think if the Tibetans were supporting and funding and supplying the weapons for an oppressive put down of your people you might feel different...especially after a few of your family members had been killed.

BTW, I meant the response of killing thousands of innocent civilians in America was an illogical response, not the anger. Perhaps they should have stuck to Military targets. However overall I think any violence is an illogical response..it never resolves a situation for the long term and ends up causing more suffering and resentments that in turn end up creating a new generation of aggrieved people to perpetuate the violence further.

Also, Enigma has a point about the way you argue. You are very quick to dish out personal insults, but you are obviously unaware that you do it. You used to do it to me, but I just ignored you thinking it was a tactic to get me to get into a personal argument with you so you could dismiss me as irrational. However I've seen that tactic too many times before to fall for it.

You were the first person to start insulting my mum the first time she got into a discussion with you. I remember it very clearly, you started matchmaking her with Paul Zimmerman. I was quite unpleasant and had nothing to do with the topic you were supposedly discussing.

The term "remove the beam in your own eye.." comes to mind...

---

Reality Internet Personality

You mean like how you conveniently don't see anything wrong with what she says about my country?

Maybe if you spent a little more time trying to be objective instead of just trying to be a troll, you just might accidentally stop comming off as the second most hypocritical user here.

How nice of you to take time out your busy toilet cleaning schedule to share this thought with us. Now run along, haven't got some crosses that need setting fire to?

---

Reality Internet Personality

Hip deep in your work again? Go wash yourself. You stink.

At least I CAN wash the stink off....that's a considerably harder task for someone full of shit like you.

---

You mean like how you conveniently don't see anything wrong with what she says about my country?

Maybe if you spent a little more time trying to be objective instead of just trying to be a troll, you just might accidentally stop comming off as the second most hypocritical user here.

How nice of you to take time out your busy toilet cleaning schedule to share this thought with us. Now run along, haven't got some crosses that need setting fire to?

Well darling, Friday nights for me are like everyday for you.....I'm off the clock.

BTW, nice rebuttal. You think that up by yourself or did you ask the crackhead next door for assistance?

---

You were the FIRST person i put on ignore - Congratulations!
The second was BrainSmashr and i put you guys on ignore for the SAME reason.

Pretty neat how you can respond to people on your ignore list.

Almost like you lack basic human self-control and read/respond anyway. Who would have expected primative behavior/intelligence/thought processes out of a third world piece of trash.....and imagine you having so much in common with ghetto chick too.

---

Well darling, Friday nights for me are like everyday for you.....I'm off the clock.

BTW, nice rebuttal. You think that up by yourself or did you ask the crackhead next door for assistance?

You see that's the advantage of an education Sh*tforbrains, I can work part time and still earn more money than you. Isn't that great?

---

Reality Internet Personality

An education about racial violence

LEONARD PITTS JR.
THE MIAMI HERALD

June 16, 2006

Seventy-six years ago, thousands of people came to lynch James Cameron.

thanks for sharing this story - it's very thought provoking. we often forget that current events are part of an historical context.

---

people demand freedom of speech as a compensation for freedom of thought which they seldom use - soren kierkegaard

You see that's the advantage of an education Sh*tforbrains, I can work part time and still earn more money than you.

Personally, I don't think the 'education' had anything to do with it...

However... I do agree... The world is overwhelmingly full of sh*tforbrains... ;)