[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

comp.lang.ruby

Spt 1220 Portable Air Conditioner

Allebach

5/21/2009 12:41:00 PM

Sunpentown F-1220 Replacement Carbon Filter for WA-1220 Air Conditioner
Price:$13.44
Image: http://bestdeallocator.info/image.php?id=...
Best deal: http://bestdeallocator.info/index.php?id=...



Sunpentown Replacement Carbon Filter for WA-1220 Series (WA-1220F)
Price:$24.00
Image: http://bestdeallocator.info/image.php?id=...
Best deal: http://bestdeallocator.info/index.php?id=...
54 Answers

Mitchell Holman

6/16/2008 12:12:00 PM

0

Genaro <genaro@mariners.win> wrote in news:Xns9ABF48B5A856Eqwertyuiop@
130.81.64.196:

> "One Voice Of Dissent" <ovod@woh.rr.com> wrote in
> news:48521311$0$3392$4c368faf@roadrunner.com:
>
>>
>> "Sal Video" <svideo@access.com> wrote in message
>> news:XRe4k.5007$89.989@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>> Scalia said the nation is "at war with radical Islamists"
>>> and that the court's decision "will make the war harder on
>>> us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be
>>> killed."
>>>
>>
>> Scalia should be reminded that America is "the land of the
>> free and the home of the brave."
>>
>> Our liberties are not for ransom or traded out of fear. Just
>> the opposite. The posture this country has assumed under the
>> bush presidency is a disgrace to our National Heritage and
>> everything it was built on. If this was a country of cowards
>> we would still be kneeling in front of the crown. We The
>> People rejected that kind of life for Freedom, Life Liberty
>> and the Pursuit of Happiness. You cant get that by giving
>> away liberty and slashing our constitution and threatening
>> Americans with terror. Scalia is no different than a
>> terrorist himself. He's trying to coerce his way by
>> inflicting fear. That is the definition of terrorism.
>>
> -------
> In response [to the Court?s 2006 ruling in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld],
> Congress, at the President's request, quickly enacted the
> Military Commissions Act, emphatically reasserting that it did
> not want these prisoners filing habeas petitions. It is
> therefore clear that Congress and the Executive?both political
> branches?have determined that limiting the role of civilian
> courts in adjudicating whether prisoners captured abroad are
> properly detained is important to success in the war that some
> 190,000 of our men and women are now fighting?. What competence
> does the Court have to second-guess the judgment of Congress
> and the President on such a point?


Do you recall the oath of office that every legislator
and president takes - to uphold and defend the Constitution
of the US? It doesn't matter what the legislative and
executive branches agree on, if it violates the Constitution
then the Supreme Court has the duty to overturn it.



> None whatever. But the Court blunders in nonetheless.


Good for them. That is their job.


> Henceforth, as today's opinion makes
> unnervingly clear, how to handle enemy prisoners in this war
> will ultimately lie with the branch that knows least about the
> national security concerns that the subject entails.


Waving the red flag of "national security" did not exempt
Nixon from the obeying the requirements of the Constitution
and it will do so for Bush either.



Mitchell Holman

"The legislature's job is to write law. It's
the executive branch's job to interpret law."
George Bush, 11/22/00

Genaro

6/16/2008 12:37:00 PM

0

Mitchell Holman <Noemail@comcast.com> wrote in
news:Xns9ABF493E73299ta2eene@216.196.97.131:

> Genaro <genaro@mariners.win> wrote in
> news:Xns9ABF48B5A856Eqwertyuiop@ 130.81.64.196:
>
>> "One Voice Of Dissent" <ovod@woh.rr.com> wrote in
>> news:48521311$0$3392$4c368faf@roadrunner.com:
>>
>>>
>>> "Sal Video" <svideo@access.com> wrote in message
>>> news:XRe4k.5007$89.989@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>>> Scalia said the nation is "at war with radical Islamists"
>>>> and that the court's decision "will make the war harder
>>>> on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to
>>>> be killed."
>>>>
>>>
>>> Scalia should be reminded that America is "the land of the
>>> free and the home of the brave."
>>>
>>> Our liberties are not for ransom or traded out of fear.
>>> Just the opposite. The posture this country has assumed
>>> under the bush presidency is a disgrace to our National
>>> Heritage and everything it was built on. If this was a
>>> country of cowards we would still be kneeling in front of
>>> the crown. We The People rejected that kind of life for
>>> Freedom, Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. You
>>> cant get that by giving away liberty and slashing our
>>> constitution and threatening Americans with terror. Scalia
>>> is no different than a terrorist himself. He's trying to
>>> coerce his way by inflicting fear. That is the definition
>>> of terrorism.
>>>
>> -------
>> In response [to the Court?s 2006 ruling in Hamdan v.
>> Rumsfeld], Congress, at the President's request, quickly
>> enacted the Military Commissions Act, emphatically
>> reasserting that it did not want these prisoners filing
>> habeas petitions. It is therefore clear that Congress and
>> the Executive?both political branches?have determined that
>> limiting the role of civilian courts in adjudicating
>> whether prisoners captured abroad are properly detained is
>> important to success in the war that some 190,000 of our
>> men and women are now fighting?. What competence does the
>> Court have to second-guess the judgment of Congress and the
>> President on such a point?
>
>
> Do you recall the oath of office that every legislator
> and president takes - to uphold and defend the Constitution
> of the US? It doesn't matter what the legislative and
> executive branches agree on, if it violates the Constitution
> then the Supreme Court has the duty to overturn it.
>
-------
"If it violates the Constitution" is the operative phrase.
-------
>
>
>> None whatever. But the Court blunders in nonetheless.
>
>
> Good for them. That is their job.
>
-------
It is not the Court's job to blunder, but that's what it did
and you say "good for them." (Are you drunk or did you just
wake up?)
-------
>
>> Henceforth, as today's opinion makes
>> unnervingly clear, how to handle enemy prisoners in this
>> war will ultimately lie with the branch that knows least
>> about the national security concerns that the subject
>> entails.
>
>
> Waving the red flag of "national security" did not
> exempt
> Nixon from the obeying the requirements of the Constitution
> and it will do so for Bush either.
>
-------
You want to try that one again? I'd rather not presume you know
what you're talking about.
-------
>
>
> Mitchell Holman
>
> "The legislature's job is to write law. It's
> the executive branch's job to interpret law."
> George Bush, 11/22/00

Mitchell Holman

6/16/2008 1:05:00 PM

0

Genaro <genaro@mariners.win> wrote in news:Xns9ABF57B316B50qwertyuiop@
130.81.64.196:

> Mitchell Holman <Noemail@comcast.com> wrote in
> news:Xns9ABF493E73299ta2eene@216.196.97.131:
>
>> Genaro <genaro@mariners.win> wrote in
>> news:Xns9ABF48B5A856Eqwertyuiop@ 130.81.64.196:
>>
>>> "One Voice Of Dissent" <ovod@woh.rr.com> wrote in
>>> news:48521311$0$3392$4c368faf@roadrunner.com:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Sal Video" <svideo@access.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:XRe4k.5007$89.989@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>>>> Scalia said the nation is "at war with radical Islamists"
>>>>> and that the court's decision "will make the war harder
>>>>> on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to
>>>>> be killed."
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Scalia should be reminded that America is "the land of the
>>>> free and the home of the brave."
>>>>
>>>> Our liberties are not for ransom or traded out of fear.
>>>> Just the opposite. The posture this country has assumed
>>>> under the bush presidency is a disgrace to our National
>>>> Heritage and everything it was built on. If this was a
>>>> country of cowards we would still be kneeling in front of
>>>> the crown. We The People rejected that kind of life for
>>>> Freedom, Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. You
>>>> cant get that by giving away liberty and slashing our
>>>> constitution and threatening Americans with terror. Scalia
>>>> is no different than a terrorist himself. He's trying to
>>>> coerce his way by inflicting fear. That is the definition
>>>> of terrorism.
>>>>
>>> -------
>>> In response [to the Court?s 2006 ruling in Hamdan v.
>>> Rumsfeld], Congress, at the President's request, quickly
>>> enacted the Military Commissions Act, emphatically
>>> reasserting that it did not want these prisoners filing
>>> habeas petitions. It is therefore clear that Congress and
>>> the Executive?both political branches?have determined that
>>> limiting the role of civilian courts in adjudicating
>>> whether prisoners captured abroad are properly detained is
>>> important to success in the war that some 190,000 of our
>>> men and women are now fighting?. What competence does the
>>> Court have to second-guess the judgment of Congress and the
>>> President on such a point?
>>
>>
>> Do you recall the oath of office that every legislator
>> and president takes - to uphold and defend the Constitution
>> of the US? It doesn't matter what the legislative and
>> executive branches agree on, if it violates the Constitution
>> then the Supreme Court has the duty to overturn it.
>>
> -------
> "If it violates the Constitution" is the operative phrase.


No, "second-guess the judgment of Congress and the
President" is the operative phrase. It is the DUTY of
the courts to do that.

What is the point of even having a Constitution if
the other branches can dictate whatever laws they want to?



> -------
>>
>>
>>> None whatever. But the Court blunders in nonetheless.
>>
>>
>> Good for them. That is their job.
>>
> -------
> It is not the Court's job to blunder, but that's what it did
> and you say "good for them." (Are you drunk or did you just
> wake up?)


Oh, pul-leeze. Every ruling that conservatives don't
like is passed off as a "blunder". What's next - the tired
old refrain of "jucicial activism"?



> -------
>>
>>> Henceforth, as today's opinion makes
>>> unnervingly clear, how to handle enemy prisoners in this
>>> war will ultimately lie with the branch that knows least
>>> about the national security concerns that the subject
>>> entails.
>>
>>
>> Waving the red flag of "national security" did not
>> exempt
>> Nixon from the obeying the requirements of the Constitution
>> and it will do so for Bush either.
>>
> -------
> You want to try that one again? I'd rather not presume you know
> what you're talking about.


Obviously you weren't around when Nixon's use of "national
security" got slapped down by a GOP-dominated Supreme Court.



Mitchell Holman

"The legislature's job is to write law. It's
the executive branch's job to interpret law."
George Bush, 11/22/00

Kevin Cunningham

6/16/2008 1:17:00 PM

0

On Jun 16, 7:08 am, Genaro <gen...@mariners.win> wrote:
> "One Voice Of Dissent" <o...@woh.rr.com> wrote innews:48521311$0$3392$4c368faf@roadrunner.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Sal Video" <svi...@access.com> wrote in message
> >news:XRe4k.5007$89.989@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
> >> Scalia said the nation is "at war with radical Islamists"
> >> and that the court's decision "will make the war harder on
> >> us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be
> >> killed."
>
> > Scalia should be reminded that America is "the land of the
> > free and the home of the brave."
>
> > Our liberties are not for ransom or traded out of fear. Just
> > the opposite. The posture this country has assumed under the
> > bush presidency is a disgrace to our National Heritage and
> > everything it was built on. If this was a country of cowards
> > we would still be kneeling in front of the crown. We The
> > People rejected that kind of life for Freedom, Life Liberty
> > and the Pursuit of Happiness. You cant get that by giving
> > away liberty and slashing our constitution and threatening
> > Americans with terror. Scalia is no different than a
> > terrorist himself. He's trying to coerce his way by
> > inflicting fear. That is the definition of terrorism.
>
> -------
> In response [to the Court’s 2006 ruling in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld],
> Congress, at the President's request, quickly enacted the
> Military Commissions Act, emphatically reasserting that it did
> not want these prisoners filing habeas petitions. It is
> therefore clear that Congress and the Executive—both political
> branches—have determined that limiting the role of civilian
> courts in adjudicating whether prisoners captured abroad are
> properly detained is important to success in the war that some
> 190,000 of our men and women are now fighting…. What competence
> does the Court have to second-guess the judgment of Congress
> and the President on such a point? None whatever. But the Court
> blunders in nonetheless. Henceforth, as today's opinion makes
> unnervingly clear, how to handle enemy prisoners in this war
> will ultimately lie with the branch that knows least about the
> national security concerns that the subject entails. -A. Scalia
> -------

A. Scalia should have been a traffic court judge at best. The three
parts of government are co-equals. The point of having a third
branch is to "second-guess" the executive and the legislative.

What a moronic quote. Not you for picking it, Scalia for making it.

David Hartung

6/16/2008 1:38:00 PM

0

Kevin Cunningham wrote:

> A. Scalia should have been a traffic court judge at best. The three
> parts of government are co-equals. The point of having a third
> branch is to "second-guess" the executive and the legislative.

Just who is to "second guess" the judiciary?

Ragnarok

6/16/2008 3:59:00 PM

0

In article <7K-dnf7_ZLA08cvVnZ2dnUVZ_hCdnZ2d@comcast.com>
David Hartung <d_hartung@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Kevin Cunningham wrote:
>
> > A. Scalia should have been a traffic court judge at best. The three
> > parts of government are co-equals. The point of having a third
> > branch is to "second-guess" the executive and the legislative.
>
> Just who is to "second guess" the judiciary?

Nobody, certainly not you.

See _Marbury vs. Madison_, a case you should have learned about in 5th grade.

The beauty of this is that this decision was arrived at by the most right-wing court in decades; it's going to be the law forever.

And you can thank George W. Bush for forcing the Court to make this ruling.

David Hartung

6/16/2008 4:06:00 PM

0

Ragnarok@remailer.metacolo.com wrote:
> In article <7K-dnf7_ZLA08cvVnZ2dnUVZ_hCdnZ2d@comcast.com>
> David Hartung <d_hartung@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Kevin Cunningham wrote:
>>
>>> A. Scalia should have been a traffic court judge at best. The three
>>> parts of government are co-equals. The point of having a third
>>> branch is to "second-guess" the executive and the legislative.
>> Just who is to "second guess" the judiciary?
>
> Nobody, certainly not you.
>
> See _Marbury vs. Madison_, a case you should have learned about in 5th grade.

So we have a situation in which 9 justices, who have lifetime
appointments, have the final say in all law in this nation?

Am I the only one who sees a problem here?
>
> The beauty of this is that this decision was arrived at by the most right-wing court in decades; it's going to be the law forever.

The problem with your theory is that the Court conservatives all voted
in opposition.

One more conservative justice, and this decision could be overturned.

Should McCain win, the court could see that conservative.

Ragnarok

6/16/2008 6:25:00 PM

0

In article <_7mdnUefl6X-EsvVnZ2dnUVZ_s_inZ2d@comcast.com>
David Hartung <d_hartung@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Ragnarok@remailer.metacolo.com wrote:
> > In article <7K-dnf7_ZLA08cvVnZ2dnUVZ_hCdnZ2d@comcast.com>
> > David Hartung <d_hartung@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> Kevin Cunningham wrote:
> >>
> >>> A. Scalia should have been a traffic court judge at best. The three
> >>> parts of government are co-equals. The point of having a third
> >>> branch is to "second-guess" the executive and the legislative.
> >> Just who is to "second guess" the judiciary?
> >
> > Nobody, certainly not you.
> >
> > See _Marbury vs. Madison_, a case you should have learned about in 5th grade.
>
> So we have a situation in which 9 justices, who have lifetime
> appointments, have the final say in all law in this nation?

Yes, that's just exactly what _Marbury vs. Madison_ says.

> Am I the only one who sees a problem here?

You're not required to _like_ US law, but if you're going to live here, you do have to obey it.

> > The beauty of this is that this decision was arrived at by the most right-wing court in decades; it's going to be the law forever.

> The problem with your theory is that the Court conservatives all voted
> in opposition.

Seven of the nine justices were appointed by Republicans.

> One more conservative justice, and this decision could be overturned.

Actually, no.

Stare decisis is honored by most judges most of the time, which is why abortion and flag-burning are still legal.
It's also why most justices would have preferred not to rule on this issue at all.
But George W. Bush forced their hand.

> Should McCain win, the court could see that conservative.

McCain cannot win after eight years of Bush.
Besides, McCain would undoubtedly not appoint any justices who would satisfy George W. Bush. If he did, he wouldn't get them confirmed in the next Congress.

David Hartung

6/16/2008 7:52:00 PM

0

Ragnarok@remailer.metacolo.com wrote:
> In article <_7mdnUefl6X-EsvVnZ2dnUVZ_s_inZ2d@comcast.com>
> David Hartung <d_hartung@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Ragnarok@remailer.metacolo.com wrote:
>>> In article <7K-dnf7_ZLA08cvVnZ2dnUVZ_hCdnZ2d@comcast.com>
>>> David Hartung <d_hartung@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> Kevin Cunningham wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> A. Scalia should have been a traffic court judge at best. The three
>>>>> parts of government are co-equals. The point of having a third
>>>>> branch is to "second-guess" the executive and the legislative.
>>>> Just who is to "second guess" the judiciary?
>>> Nobody, certainly not you.
>>>
>>> See _Marbury vs. Madison_, a case you should have learned about in 5th grade.
>> So we have a situation in which 9 justices, who have lifetime
>> appointments, have the final say in all law in this nation?
>
> Yes, that's just exactly what _Marbury vs. Madison_ says.
>
>> Am I the only one who sees a problem here?
>
> You're not required to _like_ US law, but if you're going to live here, you do have to obey it.

I seriously doubt that you would be as sanguine had the decision gone
the other direction.

>>> The beauty of this is that this decision was arrived at by the most right-wing court in decades; it's going to be the law forever.
>
>> The problem with your theory is that the Court conservatives all voted
>> in opposition.
>
> Seven of the nine justices were appointed by Republicans.

Which is not the same thing as being conservative.

>> One more conservative justice, and this decision could be overturned.
>
> Actually, no.
>
> Stare decisis is honored by most judges most of the time, which is why abortion and flag-burning are still legal.
> It's also why most justices would have preferred not to rule on this issue at all.
> But George W. Bush forced their hand.

Again, had the court had one more conservative justice, the decision
would likely have gone the other way.

>> Should McCain win, the court could see that conservative.
>
> McCain cannot win after eight years of Bush.

You may be correct, but at this point, you cannot be certain.

> Besides, McCain would undoubtedly not appoint any justices who would satisfy George W. Bush.
> If he did, he wouldn't get them confirmed in the next Congress.

Depends on which direction the Congress goes.
The people are very unhappy with Congress, and it is not beyond the
realm of possibility that Conservatives could take both houses.

Kevin Cunningham

6/16/2008 8:39:00 PM

0

On Jun 16, 9:37 am, David Hartung <d_hart...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Kevin Cunningham wrote:
> > A. Scalia should have been a traffic court judge at best. The three
> > parts of government are co-equals. The point of having a third
> > branch is to "second-guess" the executive and the legislative.
>
> Just who is to "second guess" the judiciary?

The executive and the legislative. Just as the executive does a lot
of stuff on its own and the legislative does stuff on its own the
judicial decides what laws are in conflict with the constitution among
other things. If the judiciary wants to get paid they have to look to
the other two branches.

Geez, Davie, thought you were smarter than this.