From: Tchiowa on

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Tchiowa writes:
> > Yeah, I have a hard time sleeping at night thinking about these poor
> > people who seem to have lost some of their rights when all they did was
> > to maim, kill, torture thousands of Afghans, participate in terrorist
> > acts, and other minor infractions.
> The people being held did not generally do any of these
> things--although it's true that the definition of "terrorist acts" has
> become very broad.

Those people being held were for the most part either captured on the
battlefield performing terrorist acts or supporting a terrorist
government while fighting out of uniform, or they were taken as members
of terrorist cells.

From: Hatunen on
On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 06:50:41 +0200, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic(a)>

>Hatunen writes:
>> It wasn't the status quo when it was first ruled constitutional.
>Conscription existed before it was tested by the courts, therefore it
>was the status quo.
>> Duh. You reckon that's why it's claled "civil" forfeiture?
>Whatever it is called, it is the seizure of property without due

No it's not.

************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen(a) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
From: Hatunen on
On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 06:54:20 +0200, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic(a)>

>Hatunen writes:
>> Hm. Define what you man by the American "government".
>The executive, judicial, and legislative branches.

So your claim is that the judiciary has no interest in civil

************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen(a) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
From: The Reid on
Following up to Hatunen

>>>instancve, the courts have already ruled that American citizens
>>>do not lose their rights when detained at Guantanamo.
>>pity about everybody else.
>There is a serious question there, of course.

of course.
Mike Reid
I will agree bendybuses are a good idea when they build bungalows on Mayfair
Walk-eat-photos UK "" <-- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-photos Spain ""
From: Jordi on

Tchiowa wrote:
> Jordi wrote:
> >
> > Note the 'some'.
> Exactly right. Each employer can do as he chooses. And if I am looking
> for a job and one employer makes a better offer than another I choose
> him. So the other employer has to "catch up" if he wants to compete.

So? It's irrelevant to what we were talking about here.

> > In terms of Purchasing Power Parity, two EU members are above the US in
> > GDP per capita (Luxembourg and Ireland).
> First, note that PPP is a subjective measure. And particularly when you
> get to things like travel (this is a travel group) those prices are
> fairly constant internationally so the PPP distorts that.

So? What % of the annual budget of the average person goes to travel?
And Europeans do travel abroad more than Americans (just take a look at
how many Americans have a passport).

> Second, when you point out that only 2 individual members have better
> PC GDP than the average of the US you are acknowledging that, taken as
> a whole, Europe is in worse economic shape than the US.

So is Japan, and nobody suggests Japanese don't have money to spend
while on holiday.

> Third, you are taking pieces of the whole in Europe and comparing them
> with the whole in the US. Try comparing pieces against pieces. Take the
> best countries in the EU and compare them with the best states in the
> US. A more accurate comparison. And the same result as I pointed out.
> Europe has a poor economy compared with the US. And this employment
> policy is one (of several) reason.

How do you weigh happier citizens with that?

> > Also, the EU has a more even distribution of income than the US.
> Yes. Evenly low.

There are more average Europeans than average Americans, that means
someone is doing things well.

> > So your point that somehow Europeans are deprived of cash to do what
> > they want is plain false. They have, and they have more time to spend
> > it the way they want.
> Your "so" doesn't follow at all from your data.
> And I didn't say Euros are "deprived of cash" I said that they have
> less than Americans. And they do. You pointing out that only 2
> countries in the EU have a better PC GDP than the average of the US
> proves that.

You're not following the discussion. When told that Europeans enjoy
more vacation than Americans you replied what's the use if they don't
have money to spend on them.

That is absolutely not the case.

> > > 1) You completely ducked the response. First you say pay is the best
> > > way to reward efforts then you won't respond as to the obvious
> > > contradiction when you support a process that reduces pay.
> >
> > There is no process reducing pay. People who want to have the option to
> > renounce to part of their holiday allowance and work instead if both
> > employer and employee agree to.
> ????? The pay is reduced from the outset. You just described how you
> can recover part of that reduction by renouncing vacation. By doing so
> you acknowledge that the pay is lower than it would be it there were
> less vacation. So you proved yet another of my points

Grasping at straws again, you're jumping from one subject to the other.

You first said giving more holiday is a great way to motivate somehow
implying that European business don't reward efforts. Then I replied:
that's false, they get more benefits but especially more pay (the
ultimate reason for which the individual works).

Then, you make a nice leap totally overlooking the question: 'if people
work for money, why do they want more holiday and less money'.

The answer is plain simple, I don't need to tell you again.

> > Again. There are no thresholds, this is social science.
> Your'e the one who claimed that this is some how excessive and causes
> stress. Explain the difference.

It's simple: excessive work causes stress but there is no way to
calculate how much is excessive as it depends on every individual and
work position.

People are happier with more holiday, and there is no way to
demonstrate the optimum working time (be it 2, 4 or 6 hours holiday) so
we'd better go for the point where the maximum people are happy and
it's still economically viable.

> > Playing with numbers is always fun, 1% more hours obviously sounds
> > better than two less weeks vacation but it's still two less weeks
> > vacation.
> And what does that mean? Maybe 2 weeks more vacation causes family
> stress, boredom, loss of skills, etc.

Just if you don't know how to keep a good life/work balance. Work
addiction is quite a problem on developed societies.

You're the one claiming that
> somehow 4 weeks vacation is the magically correct level and 2 weeks of
> vacation is slavery. Justify it.

Last time I was on the US (June), I read on an USA today column that
most Americans would give up some pay in exchange for more free time.

That is also true for many European countries so 4 weeks is not
necessarily correct, but it's still better than 2.

> > You can as well say over 30% of the year is spent sleeping, it still
> > means nothing.
> No, it means that which ever number you use, you spend more time
> sleeping than you do working. So how is that stressful?

Because working makes up for more than half the time you are awake,
conscious and actually doing things, every bit you can shave off it is
more time to do whatever you want (family, friends, reading, etc.).