Peter F

I don't think he had anything to do with target selection. His job with LeMay's group was analysis of the results of bombing not choosing targets

So it's the Losing that makes them pariahs. If they had of won back in '48 or '56 or '67 or '72, then all would be well. Israel gets your thumbs up because they are no different then stalinist Poland or North Vietnam.

The Palestinian did that?

opposing the effective annexation west bank is supporting the Nazi cause? Who'dathunk?

Whats to be outraged about? She didn't fill out her census so got charged (a good thing) and the judge let her off the charge because he had reasonable doubt about her intent. (also a good thing). Nothing to see here folks

Pakistan was under military occupation by Al Queda?

I believe he's saying that the proposed law should be changed so that it only applies to those state-actors with "coercive powers" (judges, prison guards, police, prosecutors etc) since the face of the state should adhere to the concept of ' la laïcité' - where the state does not interfere with religious affairs and religion does not interfere with state affairs. He believes that restriction of the proposed rule should not apply to all government employees but only to those noted above. He believes that the National Assembly will unanimously approve such a compromise and the compromise will avoid serious divisions amongst Quebecers themselves.

A bit of explanation of how a magnet can extend a spring and keep it extended without work being perpetually done, please see: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/30477/if-gravity-is-a-bend-in-space-time-then-what-is-magnetism I believe the contention here is that the presence of a magnetic field will effect the space near the field, The spring isn't actually pulled to the magnet but falls to the magnet and then rests in the low energy state that Kimmy was talking about earlier in regards to fridge magnets and bricks. Once the magnetic field is removed space returns to its normal state and the spring retracts. Sorta, kinda, but the physics involved appears quite complex for me as I have never learned the Calculus; all the terms and symbols are beyond my ken. Bottom line I am taking the word of Physicists as gospel. Not any one physicist, mind, but the general consensus from the folks that brought us CERN and hand-held calculators and such.

Its agreed then that Palestinians can also seek thier own independent state...say the west bank for example. Would also be reasonable for the state of Isreal to support the setting up of jewish settlements in that state?

What she said! Scorn never changed anyones mind. Heaps of it changes nothing. The scorner feels better about themselves though.

Hmmmm....Has Harper ruled out compensation?

From the Sunnews link: What an awful thing to say! Trudeau supports the use of airbrakes in residential areas!

If Trudeau wants to be a Muslim he can go ahead and be a muslim. If that is in fact his intent I see nothing earth-shattering or Newsworthy about him becoming a muslim. If he did/does in fact introduce some sort of bill in parliament regarding the implementation of Sharia law in some form or other then that would be something to discuss....but he hasn't so, sorry, nothing newsworthy here.

Pliny: If McCutcheon actually had a viable theory where's the damn Nobel Prize? There isn't one becuase his theory has never been submitted for review. Hell, even Einstien submitted his theory for review and actual criticism. But McCutcheon has avoided that for some reason. Some reason being that his theory cannot stand up to knowledgable criticism. This is obvious from his webpage promoting his book, wherein he claims a vast plot of mathematicians, scientists and theoriticians keeping his final theory repressed because they are all wedded to General relativity and Quantum physics. He even claims "obvious" errors in Einsteins math - which the rest of the mathematicians in the world have ignored/overlooked/ignored...not just once either but since 1915! The mans full of shit Pliny.

Magnetic field.The permanent magnet has one and the temporary magnet has one. They are both the same. Of course you know that magnets have magnetic fields and magnets attract things. and because you know all that you are really asking what is the source of power of a permanent magnet that could hold a spring open for eternity. How can the gravitational pull of the earth hold the moon in orbit for millions of years with out any source to keep gravity powered? I beleive the answer is that gravity requires no power source at all. Nor magnetism. Gravity does not need recharging since its a curvature of space thing and not a power supply thing.

Indeed. Pliny's switch is an example of a permanent magnet and not an electrical switch. Once closed by the presence of the magnet it would never open. Plinys switch is not a switch at all. But he mistakes it for a switch and asks where the energy to keep the spring extended comes from? An electrical switch requires ferro-magnetic material. In the presence of an electric current the material becomes magnetized and will remain magnetized as long as the electricity is present. Once the electricity is gone, then the ferro-magnetic material reverts back to its non magnetized state and there is no longer any magnetic force pulling on the spring. So, in an electrical switch, the energy to keep the spring extended comes from the electrical energy magnetizing the ferro-magnetic material. Or, a permanent magnet could extend the spring (no electrics required) but it would permanently remain extended until the magnet was removed. A story goes that one day Einstien was up on his roof and he fell off. His wife rushed out to see if he was ok and when she got to him all he muttered was "I didn't feel anything pulling me!" Like the gravity that 'pulled' Einstien off the roof, a magnet can pull on a spring. But I think Kimmy made that argument about 5 times now.

Cept for the ones who couldnt care less about netflix...

But your OP question spoke of a choice of killing or not killing dependant upon the best service to society. Now you are saying there is no choice at all. The firearm won't allow choice - open fire in order to disable the target and aim for the biggest target area because god knows where the bullets will actually go. The only viable service to society is stop the killer killing. Avoiding future court soap-boxes being a reason to kill now has no bearing on the issue at all.

Yes, he said women who are unwilling to remain pregnant were stupid to get pregnant and therefore should not be allowed the decision to end thier pregnancy due to thier stupidity. Smart folks - ( all the men I suppose, since they never make stupid pregnancy decisions!) should impose thier smartness on the obviously dumb... and make them raise children! or be surrogates for those who want children but cant have them. Thats intelligent action apparently.

but you'd be ok around this guy...http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Jury-acquits-escort-shooter-4581027.php

A human is no longer disposable once they are born...less'n of course you happen to be standing by a suspected terrorist when a drone is on its way. You're completely disposable then too

Case name Tremblay v. Daigle Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 1989-08-08 Report citation [1989] 2 S.C.R. 530 Case number 21553 Judges Dickson, Robert George Brian; Lamer, Antonio; Wilson, Bertha; La Forest, Gérard V.; L'Heureux-Dubé, Claire; Sopinka, John; Gonthier, Charles Doherty; Cory, Peter deCarteret; McLachlin, Beverley On appeal from Quebec Subjects Civil law Civil procedure Constitutional law http://scc.lexum.org/decisia-scc-csc/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/515/index.do (Wherein the Father - (Tremblay) saught an injunction to stop the mother (Daigle) from procuring an abortion) The injunction must be set aside because the substantive rights which are alleged to support it -- the rights accorded to a foetus or a potential father -- do not exist. (3) "Father's" Rights The argument based upon "father's rights" (more accurately referred to as "potential father's rights") is the third and final basis on which the substantive rights necessary to support the impugned injunction might be founded. This argument would appear to be based on the proposition that the potential father's contribution to the act of conception gives him an equal say in what happens to the foetus. Little emphasis was put on this argument in the appeal. It was alluded to by several of the parties in an indirect fashion, although it does appear to have been accepted by both Viens J. in the Superior Court and LeBel J.A. in the Court of Appeal. There does not appear to be any jurisprudential basis for this argument. No court in Quebec or elsewhere has ever accepted the argument that a father's interest in a foetus which he helped create could support a right to veto a woman's decisions in respect of the foetus she is carrying. A number of cases in various jurisdictions outside of Quebec have considered this argument and explicitly rejected it: Paton v. British Pregnancy Advisory Service Trustees, supra; Medhurst v. Medhurst, supra; Whalley v. Whalley (1981), 122 D.L.R. (3d) 717 (B.C.S.C.); Mock v. Brandanburg (1988), 61 Alta. L.R. (2d) 235 (Q.B.); Doe v. Doe, 314 N.E.2d 128 (Mass. 1974); Jones v. Smith, 278 So.2d 339 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1973). We have been unable to find a single decision in Quebec or elsewhere which would support the allegation of "father's rights" necessary to support this injunction. There is nothing in the Civil Code or any legislation in Quebec which could be used to support the argument. This lack of a legal basis is fatal to the argument about "father's rights".

What the hell, the topic is a supervised visit to the beach. Which has been conflated into permanent release with no supervision at all.

Business never passes rising costs onto consumers? Seriously? And government never tries to reduce costs? Seriously?

Point of order: Iraq did indeed invade Iran see Iran-Iraq war 22 September 1980 to 20 August 1988. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Iraq_War