ScottSA

Those must be the progressive creationists. Neither evolution not creationism is as simple as the article makes them out to be. Some variants of creationism go hand in hand with evolutionism.

Some people say Harper eats kittens.

Luxembourg has a unilateral right to enforce the resolutions if the resolutions call for resumed hostilities and if Luxembourg thinks it's up to the task. The resolutions certainly do not authorize unilateral invasion, overthrow of government, and occupation. You have been challenged to provide material in support of your claims in this regard, but instead you have simply provided a more longwinded recitation of your assertions. The reason for that is that your claim is specious. Hooey. Bush sought Security Council authorization and did not obtain it. Sweal sweal sweal...why do you always wander into firefights unarmed? Please show me some codification that outlines degrees of war and to what extent this or that event can trigger this or that degree of war. You can't. Neither the UN Charter nor the Geneva Convention nor any other widely recognized convention makes distinctions between degrees of war. International law treats war as war; it either is or it ain't. As far as international law is concerned, total war and limited war share exactly the same characteristics. If you don't think that's true, then show me why. The burden of proof lies with the positive claimant, and you're it. Bush went to war with 16 resolutions in hand refering to and affirming violated ceasefire resolution. Just to help out your understanding, a ceasefire, when broken, is no longer a ceasefire. It means a resumption of hostilities. You're wrong.

We don't have any Red Lobsters in BC as far as I know. Certainly none in my neck of the woods. They have the best KC legs I've ever had...

There, there, ScottSA. Of course you do. And you know more about plumbing than I do, and more about fishing, and more about Marx, and more about road construction, and more about publishing, and more about geology, and more about Britney Spears, and more about the Manitoba Liquor Control Commission, and more about Thai food, and more about chemicals, and more about all sorts of things you imagine you are brilliant at. There is, in truth, no field in which you are not a genius and an expert. If only you were less selfish, you would have saved the world by now. Oh well. Most of that, but not Britney Speares. I neither know nor want to know much about her. It is a 'her', right? Don't know much about chemicals or road construction or plumbing either, and iffy on geology, but publishing I have down pretty well, and I love fishing But Marx and philosophy? Yup, I gotcha beat there alright.

Are you secretly Conrad Black? I ask because a similar PSEUDO-intellectual quality pervades both your styles. I don't give a rat's ass about this sort of comment, so spare yourself the effort (or don't -- w/e). Sorry if my point was too succinct and acute for brontosaurian posters to follow. My comment is a correction to Geoffrey's comment, modifying his use of "merit" to my "comparative merit", with the implication that this change means the original argument Geofrey was criticising is actually sound. His unsupported assertion was simply wrong, so I pointed that out. Actually, of course, you are not. You are vapidly critiquing my posting style, and totally ignoring the arguments I made, as well as the whole topic of the thread. How long do you think it will be before you are banned again, on grounds of utter worthlessness? Hey, I'm not the one who is supposed to be banned, sweal...you are. Remember? And tsk tsk with the pottymouth. Anyway, I'm merely suggesting an improvement for your own good, certainly not attacking you or calling you names. I of course didn't have time to read whatever line item attack you perpetrating on innocent lil' me for my helpful critique, but I gather that the gist of it is that I am a poopypants and that you'll continue to spam the internet with line item drudgery ranging from the torpidly turgid to the incredibly inane. That's fine with me...just trying to help out.

You really have a thing for that particular event, doncha? One imagines you have this as your screen saver. Too cool. I'm going to plaster my walls with copies. Thanks.

We boiled two giant lobsters the other day. They were happy to go into the pot. I could feel the joy.

Given that there is evidence that sibling marriage and polygamous marriage have been permitted for thousands of years in various places around the globe, and it is only relatively recently that we have banned such practices, how does this evidence support the fundamental tenet of this thread discussion: that God created marriage? If God created marriage, why have humans banned sibling marriage and polygamous marriages? Did God change his/her mind? I don't and never have argued against homosexual marriage by appealing to religion. How's your reading of Marx coming along?

Ummm...of course China approved it. It doesn't call for China to reduce emmissions. And none of this makes Kyoto into "international law." I was responding to your "meanwhile China puffs along" comment As for Kyoto being International law, it did so on February 15, 2005 and Stephane Dion had a big part in making that happen at the Montreal conference. It was largely due to his effort that an agreement was reached and he was called a "hero" by environmentalists. A point that Steve's Torys took and twisted in one of their attack ads. China is puffing along. It is allowed to increase its emmissions substantially under Kyoto. I think you'd better read up on what constitutes "international law". Kyoto is a multilateral treaty, like the landmine treaty that everyone, except the countries who actually use landmines, signed. It, like the Kyoto Treaty, is not international law. In order for it to become international law, the UNSC would have to pass a resolution requiring it, in which case most of the world would simply pull out of the UN, or everyone would have to sign it. Even then, it would only be binding for those countries which actually stay party to it.

Ummm...of course China approved it. It doesn't call for China to reduce emmissions. And none of this makes Kyoto into "international law."

Luxembourg has a unilateral right to enforce the resolutions if the resolutions call for resumed hostilities and if Luxembourg thinks it's up to the task. International law is not the same as domestic law...its enforcement works on the posse system. The UNSC resolution, as distinct from a UNGA resolution, that calls for a resumption of hostilities, is res 687. It is a ceasefire resolution that has certain guidelines Iraq must follow in order to maintain a ceasefire. It is the violation 687 that Clinton used to justify bombing Iraq during one of the episodes of inspectorphobia that saddam was prone to. Clinton could have just as "legally" invaded Iraq then too. Bush merely went many many steps further in getting even stronger resolutions...15 more of them in fact, each "recalling" the ones before. Each one up to and including the last one, 1441, explicitly recalls and endorses all preceeding resolutions, and sets out for particular note res 687. There is absolutely no question that the invasion of Iraq was legal. Kosovo was not legal. As to kofi Annan's mumbled backtracking about "illegality," most folks don't understand that he is a figurehead, and he only made that specious claim when he was on the way out the door. If there were any question at all from serious people about the legality of the invasion, France and/or Germany would have flogged it to death long before.

Ummmm....no. It became the same treaty it was before, with one more signature. Despite what the bumper sticker hemp sandal crowd thinks, treaties are not "international law" to non-signatories. Kyoto is a multilateral treaty that applies to those countries which sign it. The ones who don't sign it largely ignore it, and the ones who do sign it ignore it while making pious announcements about how well they're going to do next year. Meanwhile, China puffs along filling the skies with enough pollution that it reaches North America...

Making the cost high would be paddling. That should be brought back as a deterent...by all accounts it worked.

http://www.aftenposten.no/english/lo...cle1836612.eceThis must be what happens when societies become so soft that they start to go crazy...meanwhile, in other news, Islamic "youths" continue to burn cars, rape women, and terrorize Norwegians...

Very well put.

Yep. So you agree the Iraq war was illegal. That's not what he said at all. There were 16 UNSC resolutions, all reaffirming the original ceasefire resolution and reaffirming the fact that saddam had broken it, not just once, but in an ongoing campaign ranging from firing into the no-fly zone to foiling the weapons inspection regime. 14 of the later resolutions were merely icing on the cake and totally unnecessary in order for Saddam to be attacked. There was absolutely no question that the invasion was perfectly legal under what passes for intl law, which explains why no other country tried to claim it was. The baffled ex-figurehead of the UN once tried to almost claim it was, but that's about as meaningful as a bumper sticker. There were no UNSC resolutions allowing military action in Kosovo or against Serbia. Russia made sure of that.

Lol...CBC would never, in its current makeup, support pro choice. Really, I thought they would support pro-choice, if they do not support pro-choice does that make them socially conservative LOL Oops, I meant pro-life. Or anti-death, or whatever the proper description is these days.

Indeed, such as your penchant for disrupting threads with juvenile idiocies. I would urge you to review the forum Rules and note particularly that posts are supposed to contribute to discussion. If you have a substantive rebuttal to make, please do so, if not, you are invited (and urged, and Ruled and Guided) to keep out of the way. Archtypical swealian pseudo-legal threat. I would urge you to understand that the reason no one replies to your line item rebuttals is that no one reads them. Not, as you seem wont to think, because they are clever in any way. Lets look at a couple instances, for example: someone says: "The other proposal has to have merit in of itself. " Your line item comment: "Comparative merit." So what? What's your point? Buried as it is in a series of largely irrelevant nitpicks, who cares? The only one who read that far is me, and I'm only doing it to teach you the error of your ways. Here's another: Someone says: "You cannot slice down climate change as a random possibility then claim that doing something is right just because not doing something would be terrible." Your response: "Sure you can." Very deep sweal. Did it require a whole seperate section to make that unsupported throwaway comment? You'll note of course that I am addressing the topic at hand, so step away from the "report this post" button.

Well, you're obviously the fellow to fill us all in on Hitler's admirable qualities, sharing so many of them as you do. Well I know more about the various philosophies involved in WW II than you do, if that's what you mean.

Lol...CBC would never, in its current makeup, support pro choice.

If sweal (Figleaf) doesn't like him, he must be good!

It's double the pro-choice vote.

Please explain. The outcomes are not arbitrary. I don't see why its incorrect. Please explain. You don't appear to understand his argument. He is not saying Y is good. He is saying Y is troublesome, and X is catastrophic (and includes all the troube of Y plus more misery). Please explain. !!!! Of course it is!!!! Its the exact justification of another proposal. Comparative merit. Sure you can.

Engrish preeze?