Weirder election than Battlestar Galactica's

On Sat, 01 Apr 2006 09:36:08 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker"
wrote:

What you get from American Moslems, by and large is "yes...but"

How could you possibly know that?


--

"A politician's neck should always have a noose around it.
It keeps him upright."
-Robert Heinlein

On Sat, 01 Apr 2006 09:40:21 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker"
wrote:

Parts of the US operate under what is called "codified common law".
Texas is one of them.

Article IV says the Constitution overrides such law.

Article VI says

+++
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be
made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be
made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme
law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby,
anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary
notwithstanding.
+++

The operative words are "the laws of the United States which shall be
made in pursuance of the US Constitution". If laws are
unconstitutional, the states are not bound by them.

RTFM. Article IV, the Supremacy Clause.

You RTFM.

From Wikipedia:

"Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution is known as
the Supremacy Clause"

Also cite a source of Common Law so we can check out your assertions.

Texas Penal Code.


--

"A politician's neck should always have a noose around it.
It keeps him upright."
-Robert Heinlein

On Sat, 01 Apr 2006 09:41:58 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker"
wrote:

The business of the U.S. should be nation wrecking...

It's doing a fine job of that domestically right now.

A good peaceful Iraq is a dead Iraq which glows blue at night.

There are many people in the world who say the same about Israel.


--

"A politician's neck should always have a noose around it.
It keeps him upright."
-Robert Heinlein

On Sat, 01 Apr 2006 10:40:17 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker"
wrote:

It ought to be. I believe wars should be fought to the utmost
destruction of the enemy. The idea is to permit no sons, grandsons and
greatgrandsons from seeking revenge. While total genocide is impossible,
ninety percent should be acheivable. Enough to cripple the other side
for two to three generations. Then the same thing can be done again and
again and again. So forgiveness, no forgetting.

If the Holocaust proved anything, it was that genocide results in the
strengthening of the gene pool of the oppressed group. The reason is
quite simple - the weak are the ones who get killed off, while the
strong escape being killed. Do the math.

The best way to strengthen the gene pool is to become the target of
genocide.


--

"A politician's neck should always have a noose around it.
It keeps him upright."
-Robert Heinlein

Bob wrote:

On Sat, 01 Apr 2006 09:47:25 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker"
wrote:


Syllogism implies logic. The use of clear and correct logic is foreign
to Bob of Texas. He uses Texas logic: accept my conclusion or I will
shoot you.


That is as strange thing to say, especially from someone who advocates
genocide.

In self defense. Rembember, Rembember the eleventh of september. I saw
the Jihad Meme manifest fully. Time to eliminte it.

The Jihad Meme programs otherwise normal humans to be killers.

Bob Kolker

Atlas Bugged wrote:
War isn't genocide. If a nation aggressively attacks another because the

"Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message
...
It ought to be. I believe wars should be fought to the utmost destruction
of the enemy. The idea is to permit no sons, grandsons and greatgrandsons
from seeking revenge.

You are completely wrong about this, and I can prove it with two words:
Germany.
Japan.

While total genocide is impossible, ninety percent should be acheivable.
Enough to cripple the other side for two to three generations. Then the
same thing can be done again and again and again. So forgiveness, no
forgetting.

No. The entire problem with radical Islam can - and likely will - be solved
with a few very intense strikes, not even nuclear. What's needed to win a
war is that the enemy has to have their will broken.

The "wars" in Iraq and Afghan have actually been enormous welfare programs.
Had they been real wars, the other nations would have sobered up and the
people there would have killed off their own terrorists.

And motivated by the Jihad Meme. They are the Jihad Juggernaught.

Nonsense. They're just people like anyone else. Their culture is
primitive, aggressive, ignorant, and violent, just like...Hey! Just like
Germany and Japan a few decades ago.

Given a choice between living in secular peace or religious war, they'll
give it up sooner or later. The amount of bloodshed will be up to them, but
I think you will see a fast rise of reason to the top of the heap.

Bob wrote:

On Sat, 01 Apr 2006 09:07:56 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker"
wrote:


How about not saying a word and killing our enemies? If we do that often
enough the rest of the world might get the idea. I want the name of our
Republic so -feared- that its mere mention will cause people to bleed
when they ****. I want to see our Republic become the Dread, the Fear
and Boogeyman of civilized life on our planet. Like Rome was in her
prime. You ****ed with Rome, in went the Legions, game over.


Then one day all these people that the Romans ****ed off with their
fascist tactics ganged up and the game was over for Rome.

The Ruination of Rome was Christianity and overextension. In their prime
the Romans were unbeatable. They made a Desolation and they called it
Peace. We might try to do at least as well. We should do to Islam what
Rome did to Carthage.

Delenda Islama Est!


Bob Kolker

Bob wrote:

On Sat, 01 Apr 2006 09:14:12 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker"
wrote:


The Court exists as a branch.
Congress does not create the Supreme Court.


Then it cannot exist as a separate branch.


However congress can ordain, with the approval of the executive, additional lower courts.


Straw man. I never said anything about any lower courts.


Read the Constitution again, this time very carefully. There is an entire article
of the Original Seven Articles which defines the Supreme Court in both
its original jurisdiction and its appelate jurisdiction, so the Supreme
Court is a -creature- of the Constitution, not an act passed by
Congress.


I want you to cite the exact wording that you claim allows the SC to
be a separate branch of govt. I am going to be looking closely for
where its autonomous authority is derived.

Article III

Section 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in
one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from
------------------------------------------------------------------------

RIGHT THERE BOB. The Constitution ordains the Supreme Court and Congress
establishes the inferior courts. In any case Judges serve for life. They
cannot be removed except to blatant misbaviour and moral terpretude. In
short, we have an indepdendent judiciary.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and
inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and
shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation,
which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and
Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States,
and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to
all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to
all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to
which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two
or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between
Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State
claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or
the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls,
and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have
original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the
supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and
Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress
shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by
Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes
shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the
Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have
directed.

Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in
levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them
Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the
Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in
open Court.

Why do I have to the read the U.S. Constitution to you. Can't you read
it yourself?

Bob Kolker

Bob wrote:

The operative words are "the laws of the United States which shall be
made in pursuance of the US Constitution". If laws are
unconstitutional, the states are not bound by them.

And the court (unfortunately) decides that. Not the states.
Nullification is dead and gone, since April of 1865. Your side lost the
Civil War.

Bob Kolker

Bob wrote:

On Sat, 01 Apr 2006 09:41:58 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker"
wrote:


The business of the U.S. should be nation wrecking...


It's doing a fine job of that domestically right now.


A good peaceful Iraq is a dead Iraq which glows blue at night.


There are many people in the world who say the same about Israel.

That they do. But the Israelis have nuclear weapons. As the bible says:
There is a Bomb in Gilead.

Bob Kolker