LawTalkers - All Hank, all the time.

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)

- Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)

- - All Hank, all the time. (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=734)

Quote:

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Huh? You are making less sense than usual today.

Reid could blow up 1 plane, which is bad, but normal for an average year. you need to be able to show US/UK people to blow up 5 or 6 to cause concern.

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
just a thought. after 5 years of having to write this same basic post to a half dozen different people, it might be time to look in the mirror. no offense.

None taken. In fact, I don't even bother with this response when you've posted.

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
None taken. In fact, I don't even bother with this response when you've posted.

good thinking. I don't read more than 2 sentences in your posts.

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I don't think it's much of a definition. I don't think anyone here disagrees with it. What do you think we're arguing about?

I said I supported the idea that airport screeners should be allowed to use ethnic and religious profiling when determining how thorough someone's search should be. You said that you wanted me to define profiling which I assumed that depending on the way I defined it, you would agree or not agree with its use. However, I think profiling has an obvious definition and it was that simple definition that I used.

In the end what is really going on is that even though you agree with ethnic and religious profiling, you don't want to admit it, so you are looking for ways to avoid saying that you do.

More crying from the Social Conservatives.......

More Social Conservatives get angry at Arnold - Cry me a river........

Let the Governor know your thoughts on his signing SB 1441--His Administration and people at the top level of his campaign read my blog anytime his name is mentioned. If you want to get a message to him, about what you think of his signing this intolerant piece of legislation, send this to your friends--both you and they should write a short message to the Governor on the web site at http://www.capoliticalnews.com/discuss.php?id=669

Also, I will send your messages to the Governors staff and Campaign Manager directly--let them know how this bill affects your support of him.

Bottom Line: When government tells churches and private schools what they are allowed to believe, and if they don't they will be punished, that makes government the official religion of the State. That is not allowed under the United States Constitution.

Capitol Resource Institute sent out the message below, Monday night. The question to me is not what the government demands churches and private schools believe, but that government can control what People of Faith are allowed to do, what moral code they may live by, what churches may teach and what moral codes can be enforced in private schools, etc.

In the reverse, what if government had a law that said no one may allow schools or churches to preach that all lifestyles are equal--don't you think the ACLU would sue on 1st Amendment grounds? In this case, the government is blackmailing People of Faith to believe as government WANTS them to believe, otherwise you will be treated as second class citizens.

This is a bill about religious freedom, and the State of California has failed the test of the First Amendment of the Constitution.

While the issue to some is the demand of government to support a specific moral code, it opens the door to, when majorities change, to oppose that lifestyle. It is not up to government to support or oppose lifestyles, it is to allow the freedoms granted by the Constitution.

Write your thoughts directly on the web site at http://www.capoliticalnews.com/discuss.php?id=669

Forward this message to your complete email list, so they may also let the Governor know how they feel about this.

Steve Frank

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
good thinking. I don't read more than 2 sentences in your posts.

Thank you for treating me like everyone else.

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Thank you for treating me like everyone else.

http://www.strangepolitics.com/image...ent/108493.jpg

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
That has got to be the dumbest statements any one has ever made on this board. Did you ever take statistic in college (or hell did you pass fourth grade math)?

Not all Arabs are Muslim. But is it prejudicial (or with out reason) to say that an Arab is more likely to be Muslim than a Frenchman. Or that an Arab is more likely to commence on the Haj than a Frenchman - of course not. That is just a fact.

Of course there are more Arabs that don't blow up planes than do. Otherwise there wouldn't be any planes left. But, like I said, more Arabs blow up planes per capita, than Norwegians. So it is a fact, all other factors being equal, that an Arab is more likely to blow up a plane than a Frenchman. Just like it is a fact that you are I are more likely to be serial killers than an African American women.

You're forgetting two of the most basic rules of statistics. First, in order for statistics to have any meaning, there has to be a correlative relation between the things being measured. Your basic fallacy is that there is a correlation between being Arab and blowing up planes. That is not true. Therefore, any statistical measurement is invalid, proving only that you are a bigoted idiot.

Your second mistake is actually a corrollary of the first. That is the rule that statistics can be manipulated to establish any number of supposed truths, many of which are not true.

All of which leaves us back where we started. You are an asshole for thinking that it is any more proper to search Arabs boarding planes simply because they are Arab, even if they display no other indicator that would rouse suspicion than it is to stop and search Black people in BMWs because everybody knows the colored folks can't afford BMWs unless they're drug dealers, so if they're in the BMW it must be stolen or full of drugs.

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Reid could blow up 1 plane, which is bad, but normal for an average year. you need to be able to show US/UK people to blow up 5 or 6 to cause concern.

I doubt you could show that any group blows up 5 or 6 planes a year in any one year, let alone as a pattern.

And, to use your favorite sort of argument, does that mean it's okay if a plane flies into the White House if it's taken over by a white guy, because it's only likely to happen once?

Quote:

Originally posted by taxwonk
I doubt you could show that any group blows up 5 or 6 planes a year in any one year, let alone as a pattern.

And, to use your favorite sort of argument, does that mean it's okay if a plane flies into the White House if it's taken over by a white guy, because it's only likely to happen once?

a commercial jet will never be hijacked again. everyone will assume it will be crashed anyway and fight to take the plane back. 9/11 ruined it for the normal hijackers:(

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
I said I supported the idea that airport screeners should be allowed to use ethnic and religious profiling when determining how thorough someone's search should be. You said that you wanted me to define profiling which I assumed that depending on the way I defined it, you would agree or not agree with its use. However, I think profiling has an obvious definition and it was that simple definition that I used.

In the end what is really going on is that even though you agree with ethnic and religious profiling, you don't want to admit it, so you are looking for ways to avoid saying that you do.

If all you're talking about is what the current TSA screeners get to look at to decide whether to take people out of the long line and give them a slightly more intensive search, who cares? I have very little confidence that the current procedures make us safer, although they do manage to impose massive costs on all of us by wasting people's time. The TSA people at the security checkpoints have almost no information to work with. If you want more effective screening, you need to hire smarter people, and more of, and have them question travelers about all sorts of things. In the current system, profiling on the basis of a screener's assessment of someone's ethnic background seems unlikely to make security more effective.

At least we can all agree on one thing - the UN is a worthless POS:

Quote:

UN chief Kofi Annan was booed by a crowd chanting pro-Hezbollah slogans today as he toured Beirut's southern suburbs devastated by Israel's war against the Shiite militant group.

Dozens of men, women and children angrily waved pictures of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah and shouted "Allah, Nasrallah and all of the suburbs" as the UN secretary general emerged from his car to survey the destruction in the heart of the Haret Hreik area, a Hezbollah stronghold.

Others booed and shouted "death to Israel" and "long live Syria" as they surrounded Mr Annan's convoy of vehicles which was accompanied by a heavy security detail.

Mr Annan was accompanied by Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Siniora, Foreign Minister Fawzi Sallukh as well as Hezbollah MPs.

His visit lasted barely 10 minutes as nervous security officers whisked him quickly out of the area.

The United Nations and the international community were much criticised during Israel's offensive for failing to stop the bloodshed that claimed almost 1500 lives, most of them Lebanese civilians.

One woman, clad in a black chador, laid a portrait of Nasrallah face down on the tinted glass of one of the moving vehicles.

"To hell with the United Nations and Annan," said Jamil Bashir Al-Abed, 31, a resident of the area whose home was damaged by the Israeli bombardments.

"Let him look at what the UN and the United States have done and at all this destruction," he said, pointing to flattened building and tons of debris. "This is their work."

A group of women carrying posters of Nasrallah angrily denounced the United Nations saying the world body was in collusion with Israel.

"Isn't he (Annan) ashamed of what happened to us?" said one of the women who would only give her name as Ihsan.

"He's as powerless as the rest of them to stop Israel's aggression."

Another woman, however, praised Mr Annan saying that he had demonstrated his solidarity with the Lebanese people by travelling to Beirut.

"I heard what he said earlier on television and I think he is a man of peace," she said.

Prior to Mr Annan's arrival, bulldozers and dump trucks could be seen clearing rubble as patriotic music blasted in the background and street vendors sold key chains emblazoned with Nasrallah's image or CDs of his speeches.

Several also distributed free posters of the Hezbollah leaders to the crowd.

Mr Annan arrived in Beirut today for a two-day visit during which he was to meet with Lebanese leaders to discuss the deployment of UN troops in southern Lebanon and other security issues.

He is due to travel to the southern town of Naqura tomorrow before heading to Israel.

Quote:

Tyrone Slothrop
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v6...akes4/nero.png

"Thank god I'm standing here playing for you today instead of this other guy"

http://www.insidejoke.tv/images/200411/kerryguitar.jpg

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
"Thank god I'm standing here playing for you today instead of this other guy"

What I'm wondering is how he lived in Austin all that time without learning to play a G chord properly.