You keep going on and on and on lying about how you have refuted arguments
and made valid points. I just read some of your posts and you are still
doing so and accusing those who call you on it of having "OCD", as though
responding to your lies somehow makes people worse than you for telling
the
lies. Here are the challenges:
1) Can you refute the following argument about Bush?
Bush broke the law by illegally using force against Iraq.
Based on Article VI of the US Constitution, our treaties are
a part of the "supreme law of the land" (this is not the same
as superseding the Constitution, as some have mistakenly
claimed). The US is a signatory of a treaty with member
nations of the UN (the UN Charter). The UN Charter sets
standards for when armed force can be used. Such conditions
were not met (and no part of the Constitution overrides
this).
Therefore the Iraq war is not legal.
Some say that UN Resolution 1441 did grant the US the
authority to use armed force against Iraq. The words used to
describe armed attack in UN Resolutions are "all necessary
means". These words do not appear in 1441 (other than a
reference to resolution 678) and many of the member nations
who signed 1441 made it clear they did not intend 1441 to be
an excuse to use force. Others try to cite different UN
Resolutions, but the only resolution that did permit armed
force against Iraq was UN Resolution 678 and the only action
it authorized was such force as was necessary to restore
Kuwait's sovereignty. It is not up to the US to decide
consequences of Iraq not following UN Resolutions - that
responsibility falls with the UN Security Council.
Therefore the Iraq war is not legal.
Some say that in Resolution HJR114 (the Iraq Resolution)
Congress authorized the President to go to war, which would
override any signed treaty. This is not true: what it did was
give the President authority to follow the War Powers Act
without further approval from Congress... meaning Congress
granted the rights (and responsibilities) declaring war
(etc.) to the President. If clearly stated "Nothing in this
joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers
Resolution." However, Bush never made any finding, decree,
resolution or statement that he was evoking the War Powers
Act. Even if he had not only does the War Powers Act have
similar criteria for armed force as does the UN Charter, it
clearly states: "Nothing in this joint resolution is intended
to alter the constitutional authority of the Congress or of
the President, or the provision of existing treaties".
Clearly nothing in the War Powers Act can be seen as
superseding our existing treaties.
Therefore, again, the Iraq war is not legal.
Just to be clear, the challenge is if you can refute that argument, not
babble on and on about some meta-debate comments you think are relevant.
Hint: they are not.
2) Recently evidence has been discussed that sup****ts the idea that UPSs
and
Battery backups are the same thing, at least in the context of desktop
computing. The evidence included, but was not necessarily limited to such
web sources as:
about.com
amazon.com
apc.com
belkin.com
businessdictionary.com
iggyz.com
wikipedia.org
And, in addition, APC was called by at least two different people and
those
people were told that there was no difference. You claim to disagree...
and
that is fine: but do you have *any* sup****t? The unsup****ted ramblings of
people in CSMA do not count (you tried referencing that in the past).
Clearly you are working hard to get my attention... so in this thread I
shall respond to these issues... but you must stick to the issues.
As if you could! LOL!
The fact is, Steve Carroll, it is 100% predictable that you will run: even
you know you have *no* leg to stand on. None. You are a liar who is
obsessed with me.
--
Look, this is silly. It's not an argument, it's an armor plated walrus
with
walnut paneling and an all leather interior.
|
