Weirder election than Battlestar Galactica's

Robert J. Kolker wrote:
Andy wrote:


Sometimes I think the best solution is to cordon the whole area
(M.E.) off from trade and any outside influences and see how long it
takes for them to fix things themselves. It'd be a fair solution
except for a lot of the bleedin' hearts.


Will you please THINK!! We can't even guard our border to Mexico which
is a mere 2000 miles long and contigous to our coutnry. How do you
propose we cordon of an area whose total size (including water) is over
twice as large as the U.S. and whose area we do not, nor cannot control.

The cost of a cordon sanitaire is well beyond our means.

Bob Kolker

That's why we need orbital mass weapons.

A ;-)

Robert J. Kolker wrote:

I don't know how old you are or if you lived through the late 50's into
the 60's,

Physically 39. Cynically Indeterminate.

We'll soon see if there's going to be a profit in cheap access to
orbit. If we can't make it work now, we'll likely crash.

A

"Andy" wrote in message
...
Atlas Bugged wrote:
"Andy" wrote in message
...

Sometimes I think the best solution is to cordon the whole area (M.E.)
off from trade and any outside influences and see how long it takes for
them to fix things themselves. It'd be a fair solution except for a lot
of the bleedin' hearts.


They'd collapse in a year.

So?

What part of "The enemy gets finished off without firing a single shot"
eludes you?

Plus, you snipped my follow-on sentence where I explained that embargoes are
almost always impossible to enforce. In this case, such a happy solution is
not in the cards.

"Bob" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 01 Apr 2006 09:05:00 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker"
wrote:


My problem is I can't find the smoking gun. And all the circumstantial
evidence in the world is not sufficient to pass the test of reasonable
doubt. I could never convict someone of any crime, even a parking
ticket, if I had a reasonable doubt.

Of course, you realize, don't you, that circumstantial evidence covers
everything which isn't evidence produced by a direct witness (including,
possibly, the victim or perpetrator)?

On Thu, 6 Apr 2006 14:36:39 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Ami
Silberman" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:


"Bob" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 01 Apr 2006 09:05:00 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker"
wrote:


My problem is I can't find the smoking gun. And all the circumstantial
evidence in the world is not sufficient to pass the test of reasonable
doubt. I could never convict someone of any crime, even a parking
ticket, if I had a reasonable doubt.

Of course, you realize, don't you, that circumstantial evidence covers
everything which isn't evidence produced by a direct witness (including,
possibly, the victim or perpetrator)?

Either he realizes that, and thus would rarely convict anyone, or he
doesn't, in which case he's also incompetent to sit on a jury.

"Bob" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 01 Apr 2006 05:37:48 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker"
wrote:

He was -acquited-, not found innocent. The failure to convict is not
proof of innocence.

There is no "proof of innocence". There is only proof of guilt.

In the absense of proof of guilt, the defendant enjoys the assumption
of innocence.

Your take on this is yet another datum point to be added to my claim
that we live in a fascist dictatorship, where defendants are presumed
guilty until they provide the "proof of their innocence".

So if someone beats someone sufficiently severely as to cause
hospitalization, lost income, and so forth, the fact that the perpetrator is
prosecuted (whether convicted or not) for assault means that the victim has
no way of gaining economic redress from the perpetrator. In another case,
regardless of whether Ken Lay et. al. are convicted of fraud, the
shareholders of Enron have no standing for a civil suit against him, since
it would hinge on the same malfeasance that he is being tried on criminal
grounds for.

On Thu, 6 Apr 2006 15:39:18 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Ami
Silberman" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

Quick question Bob; How does denying access through the Suez Canal to
Israeli traffic prevent them from accessing the High Seas? Sure, it stops
them using the Short Cut, but you do know there is another way around.

The Egyptians also blocked the Straits of Tiran, which is an international
waterway giving access to Israel's southern port Eliat. This was a violation
of international law.
The Syrians shelled Israeli farms from the Golan heights. This was a
violation of international law.

Johnboy's apparently one of those types who think that only Amerikkka
and Israel can violate international law, or commit acts of
aggression.

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 6 Apr 2006 14:36:39 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Ami
Silberman" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:


"Bob" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 01 Apr 2006 09:05:00 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker"
wrote:


My problem is I can't find the smoking gun. And all the circumstantial
evidence in the world is not sufficient to pass the test of reasonable
doubt. I could never convict someone of any crime, even a parking
ticket, if I had a reasonable doubt.

Of course, you realize, don't you, that circumstantial evidence covers
everything which isn't evidence produced by a direct witness (including,
possibly, the victim or perpetrator)?

Either he realizes that, and thus would rarely convict anyone, or he
doesn't, in which case he's also incompetent to sit on a jury.
Aha, maybe he's trying to get out of jury duty, and will be attaching his
posts to his letter of explanation of why he is unfit to serve.

Atlas Bugged wrote:
"Andy" wrote in message
...

Atlas Bugged wrote:

"Andy" wrote in message
...


Sometimes I think the best solution is to cordon the whole area (M.E.)
off from trade and any outside influences and see how long it takes for
them to fix things themselves. It'd be a fair solution except for a lot
of the bleedin' hearts.


They'd collapse in a year.

So?


What part of "The enemy gets finished off without firing a single shot"
eludes you?



So what happens then?

;-)

A

Pat Flannery wrote:


So that's why Arabs don't like us...and those around 130,000 Iraqi dead
from the first Gulf War, and the other 30,000 from the second one might
have something to do with it also

Long before Iraq I, there was a decade and half of airplane hijackings
of American commercial planes.

If you wan't to go back real far, there were Jihadist terror attacks
against the Dutch in Indonesia around the time Krakatoe blew up.

If you want to go back even further around 950 c.e. the Hashishin (from
which we get the word assassin) were terrorizing Persia for decades with
killings (assassinations) and other terror acts. These were Jihadist
Moslems. This predated the Crusades by the way.

Conclusion: Moslem extremists have been bad news since way back when.
Pull a hair out of their asses and they declare a Jihad.

Bob Kolker