"Steve Carroll" <trollkiller@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> stated in post
trollkiller-122601.10415017052008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
on 5/17/08 9:41
AM:
> In article <C45454CF.BA0C2%usenet@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> Snit <usenet@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> 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.
Note: Steve Carroll completely and utterly failed to be able to refute the
argument.
>> 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).
Note: Steve Carroll completely and utterly failed to be able to sup****t
his
contrary position.
>> 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.
>
> ... in response to you going on and on and on? Yes, I do... I'm trying
> to show you how silly you're being... have been for years now (as a stay
> at home dad I have lots of patience;) Notice who started this thread?
> It's the same OCD victim that starts all threads like this. Let me know
> when you're ready to stop denying your illness... it's the first step to
> your recovery... and I'll be there to help you every step of the way;)
Score:
Bush Argument: Steve is not able to refute it
UPS Argument: Steve Carroll is not able to sup****t his view
Steve Carroll's reaction: snip dishonestly and openly lie about Snit.
That is the best you can do, Steve: snip, run, and lie. I do hope you are
proud.
--
The answer to the water shortage is to dilute it.
|
