Reverend Blair said:
Ok, prove your evidence. In other words present your evidence to me as if we were opposing parties in a court of law.
Canada's position in the Security Council, UN
- Thread starter Andem
- Start date
Ok, prove your evidence. In other words present your evidence to me as if we were opposing parties in a court of law.
I'm not a lawyer, little buddy. Neither, I suspect, are you. Besides I asked first, prove your statement about abortion.
I already pointed out several things that Bush has done...those don't need to be proven, things like backing out of Kyoto, invading Iraq against the wishes of the international community, the unilateral cancellation of nuclear treaties, US advisors and funding in Colombia for on the war on drugs going to protect oil pipelines.
Those aren't things that need to be proven, they are a matter of public record.
I already pointed out several things that Bush has done...those don't need to be proven, things like backing out of Kyoto, invading Iraq against the wishes of the international community, the unilateral cancellation of nuclear treaties, US advisors and funding in Colombia for on the war on drugs going to protect oil pipelines.
Those aren't things that need to be proven, they are a matter of public record.
Researchok, remember the column we were talking about? I think we may have an example shaping up. 
Reverend Blair said:
In other words you have no material evidence to prove your alegations. So unless you can prove your unfounded allegations keep to only what you know
By the way I am a paralegal.
Good, if you ever make it to Winnipeg we can sit down on the patio of the Kingshead and you can buy me a parabeers.
I've been down this path before, Lee. Hell, I've been stalked by people who were so pissed off at my evidence that they changed links I put up. I learned to stay away from web-sites run by Reform/Alliance/Conservative members. I'm also reluctant to get into a pissing match with somebody who shows up claiming that the UN is pushing abortion and yet doesn't even provide a link, however vague, to support their position.
Your opening posts have the reak of the troll about them.
The evidence is out there, some of it has stood up to some pretty rigorous legal debate by those who make a living in international law too. Even former members of the Bush administration have said that what they did was "probably illegal."
I'm kind of busy right now (anybody know anything about the Central African Republic?), and I just know that you've already made up your keen legal mind and are past your self-appointed judge and jury roles and well into the part of executioner. That's pretty damned clear by your words and your attitude.
You have Google though, it comes free with your fancy new interweb connection. Why not try to find out for yourself the various crimes that George Bush and his pals have committed? Pay particular attention to the UN's words and actions before the war and the panel that convened in Japan to find Bush guilty of war crimes in Afghanistan. Check into the goings on at Guantanamo Bay and at US camps in Afghanistan and Iraq. Think about the torture scandal and wonder how far up the chain it goes, especially considering that Georgie had to be fully aware that his office had commissioned a report on giving the president the power to okay torture.
While you are at it you might as well have a look into PNAC, the small arms trade, trade deals (watch Bobby Zoellick, he's a slippery bastard), genetically modified crops, the drug war, and a plethora of other things that Bush is using to ensure the dominance of the US at the expense of others, including Americans.
So now that you have some kind of indication of what I and a lot of other people know, even without special paralegal status, perhaps you could explain your remark about the UN and abortion. Better yet, you might want to explain why your special beliefs on abortion should take precedence over the actions of the Canadian political and legal establishment, the wants of the majority of the Canadian population, the rights of women, and the actions of an international agency that operates in countries that do not share your views.
Reverend Blair said:
I have found through experience that when someone starts name calling when called to the mat to produce their so-called evidence, they have NO evidence.
I also find it hard to believe that you have no knowledge of the UN's position in regards to their support of pro-choice..er...pro-death organizations.
And since you refuse to disclose your so-called evidence when asked, why should I?
Maybe you should do some googling of your own.
By the way I don't drink. Nor do I hob nob with anyone in the anti-Bush crowd.
Nor do I see myself (any time in the foreseable future) travelling from BC to Manatoba.
When did I call you a name?
He shoots and he scores...I do in fact have some knowledge about it...gleaned from the UN website, as a matter of fact. I might have some real time between Wednesday and Friday to show it to you.
I didn't refuse to disclose anything, just said that I was busy and pointed you in the direction to go look for yourself. This might surprise you, but my stops at this board are short breaks that allow me to think about something other than what I'm writing about and I don't have time to go searching for long-lost links.
I actually have a dozen windows open right now because of that very thing. Do you know anything about the Central African Republic?
Why did I suspect that?
Your loss. The patio at the Kingshead is wonderful place to do both drink and hobnob...a lot of British expats who'd make you pee yourself if you'd stoop (not a typo) to talk to them.
Usually we spell it with an "i"..."Manitoba." You should really come out here and have a look, it's a cool place.
I am against abortion because it is the killing of the weakest member of the human race.
I also don't buy the reasoning that the woman's body is her own and therefore she can do as she please.
There is only one exeption that I will accept an abortion. And that is by the decision of a doctor when that doctor has to consider either saving the life of the mother or allowing the mother to die during birth.
Other than that I do not support abortion. I also do not support the UN as they are known to fund pro-choice (death) organizations (i.e UNICEF, Planned ParentHood, etc.)
That is why I started refusing UN duties with the military. And as a reservist I was not obliged to have to accept a UN tour.
I am also against same-sex marriage. And in my opinion homosexuality should and must be re-criminalized.
I support the death penalty and wars that are justified. I also support President Bush.
I am a Canadian Conservative and have strong beliefs in Christianity. I am also part Jewish.
You may not agree with my religious and political views, and that is your right. However, you do NOT have the right to personally attack me.
Having said that, I have no problem sharing my religious or political views until you start twisting what I have said only to attack me on a personal level.
In other words, if you start calling me names just because you disagree with my Christian and political morals, I will NOT respond.
I also don't buy the reasoning that the woman's body is her own and therefore she can do as she please.
There is only one exeption that I will accept an abortion. And that is by the decision of a doctor when that doctor has to consider either saving the life of the mother or allowing the mother to die during birth.
Other than that I do not support abortion. I also do not support the UN as they are known to fund pro-choice (death) organizations (i.e UNICEF, Planned ParentHood, etc.)
That is why I started refusing UN duties with the military. And as a reservist I was not obliged to have to accept a UN tour.
I am also against same-sex marriage. And in my opinion homosexuality should and must be re-criminalized.
I support the death penalty and wars that are justified. I also support President Bush.
I am a Canadian Conservative and have strong beliefs in Christianity. I am also part Jewish.
You may not agree with my religious and political views, and that is your right. However, you do NOT have the right to personally attack me.
Having said that, I have no problem sharing my religious or political views until you start twisting what I have said only to attack me on a personal level.
In other words, if you start calling me names just because you disagree with my Christian and political morals, I will NOT respond.
I find that really tempting at this point, but I won't do it.
We aren't ever going to reach anything close to agreement on this. I do not agree that a fetus is (yet) a member of the human race and I'm pretty damned sure that a woman's body is her own. That's why they slap our hands.
UNICEF and Planned Parenthood are about a hell of a lot more than abortion. The fact is that their educational work has likely done more to prevent women from needing abortions than all of the abstinence programs of the religious right combined.
That is your right, and I will respect it. I would ask that you have a hard look at the good that the UN does outside of religious beliefs you may hold, or get involved in the many church groups that offer aid without requiring that others meet their standards of belief. If I can swing a hammer for Habitat, you can at least consider that.
Why? These people aren't hurting you. If anything they are helping you by reducing competition for a spouse. Your church does not have to to perform same-sex marriages and nobody is requiring you to marry somebody of the same sex. More heterosexual couples commit sodomy (anal sex) than do homosexual couples, and almost everybody has oral sex now, so that argument falls all to hell.
You support state-sanctioned murder? Why? Our justice system is not based on vengeance, so you can't base it on that. Your Bible claims vengeance for your god and only your god. It also says, "Thou shalt not kill." That's pretty damned clear, isn't it? Rumour is your god carved it into a rock and made an old man stumble down a mountain with it. Taking somebody else's life is not your call. There were no mitigating circumstances mentioned in the story.
I think Jim Morrison was a peach, too. I acknowledge each and every one of his weaknesses though, many that he shared with Bush. I support Gerry Garcia, John Lennon, Che Gueverva, Leonid Trotsky, Pierre Trudea's wife Maggie, Karl Marx, Greg Bear, Kurt Vonnegut, Dave Barry, Larry Flynt, Robert Heinlen, the Dalai Lama, the Pope, Ricochet Rabbit and the Road Runner.
I don't want any of them running countries.
I was raised Catholic and rejected it. I'm pretty damned strong NDP (pretty strong family influences there too) but do not hesistate to question them. My mother's aunt married a Jew who had the balls to go and fight against Germany. He was there, front and centre, on D-Day...still limps.
Exactly my point about the way your first two posts went. Some since then too. People here are very adept at speaking to each other in reasonable terms and finding a middle ground. Nobody here, least of all me, is ignorant of the sort of things that go on at other sites. We don't want to play that game here. Others might actually shrink away. I won't though. Neither will several others.
Disagreeing is not attacking. Questioning is not attacking. Arguing other points of view is not attacking. Pointing out fact is not attacking. If you'd like I can launch an attack to show you the difference. Careful though...I made a biker cry once, just by calling him names. He beat me up later, but his heart wasn't in it...
"In other words, if you start calling me names just because you disagree with my Christian and political morals, I will NOT respond."
If you are so demonstrably incapable of engaging in a simple, civil and rational discussion in the dispassionate realm of an internet forum, how are we to credit that you, in the grip of your clearly well-crystallized "Christian" and "conservative" delusions, might regard the unborn child in the womb of a woman a stranger to you with anything other than the same smirking disdain, if not with an outright murderous contempt, as you display here? You are a hypocrite. You are a coward. You are a deluded fool. You are very likely in need of court-ordered psychiatric restraint.
Okay, schmuck, now DON'T RESPOND TO ME.
If you are so demonstrably incapable of engaging in a simple, civil and rational discussion in the dispassionate realm of an internet forum, how are we to credit that you, in the grip of your clearly well-crystallized "Christian" and "conservative" delusions, might regard the unborn child in the womb of a woman a stranger to you with anything other than the same smirking disdain, if not with an outright murderous contempt, as you display here? You are a hypocrite. You are a coward. You are a deluded fool. You are very likely in need of court-ordered psychiatric restraint.
Okay, schmuck, now DON'T RESPOND TO ME.
Reverend Blair said:
For a woman to go through with an abortion is the same as either a terrorist chopping of Nick Berg's head or sentencing an innocent man to death.
A woman's body is not her's do as she pleases when it comes to abortion. A fetus (Latin for 'young one') is life. And there is overwhelming medical evidence to prove that.
In regards to the same-sex marriage topic, it damages society as a whole. Look what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah.
The very nature of homosexualty is unnatural. And just because a number of hetrosexuals do sexual perverted acts doesn't make it ok for same sex marriages to happen. So, your's is a very weak argument.
Arguing one's point is not a personal attack, name calling on the other hand is. I have no problem on arguing one's point.
Regarding the UN. I am sure they have done one or two good things (or however many). But the bad always outweighs the good, especially when the bad consists of either doing nothing to come to the aid of the victims or funding pro-choice groups.
The UN has done nothing to aid victims of human rights violations and yet they have the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. And that makes the UN a bunch of hypocrites.
It also doesn't matter how much good UNICEF and Planned ParentHood has done because they are stong advocates for abortion.
The death penalty is in place for a reason. That convict will never be able to hurt anyone again.
The word 'kill' in "Thou shalt not kill" in Hebrew (the original language of the Old Testament) is the word 'murder'. And as you know (I hope), there is a big difference between killing and murdering. A police officer kills in the line of duty (if there is no other choice), a soldier kills in the line of duty when in combat. Murdering is what Hitler did to the Jews. And what Saddam did to the Kurds. Murdering is what Paul Bernardo and Clifford Olsen did.
Of course we aren't going to agree on a lot of things.
Murdering is what your president Bush has done to hundreds of Iraqi children, women and men in their illegal strikes on Iraqi cities.. which by the way, residential areas, infrastructure and even SCHOOLS were the targets of several bombing raids.
Murder? Oh yes, your "brothers" in the American government in recent pas have also murdered or sponsored the murdering of children, women and men in Vietnam, North Korea, Central America, Afghanistan. You see, they don't just target government operations or military compounds, they also go for civilians!
Your ideas are seriously twisted and tainted.
Onto the next topic: How is homosexuality unnatural? It's quite the opposite. Do you believe that people choose to be gay? Sorry to ask such a stupid question, you must believe that they choose to be gay. Either way, provide proof as you seem to say a lot.
Murder? Oh yes, your "brothers" in the American government in recent pas have also murdered or sponsored the murdering of children, women and men in Vietnam, North Korea, Central America, Afghanistan. You see, they don't just target government operations or military compounds, they also go for civilians!
Your ideas are seriously twisted and tainted.
Onto the next topic: How is homosexuality unnatural? It's quite the opposite. Do you believe that people choose to be gay? Sorry to ask such a stupid question, you must believe that they choose to be gay. Either way, provide proof as you seem to say a lot.
Man, we're so far off topic that I doubt Jaques Cartier himself couldl save us now...
No, actually, it isn't.
No, actually, there isn't.
Prove they ever existed outside of the Bible, and that the story of Lot and his wife is at least plausible (outside of A&E specials) and I'll consider going further with this.
Would you like to explain gay penguins then?
Anal sex isn't my ball of wax either. Maybe I have hang-ups or maybe I'm just prudish. Who the hell cares? The fact is that other people like it and as long as they aren't forcing me to do it, it really is none of my business.
You really do need to do some hard reading. Bringing an end to small-pox isn't nothing.
The UN has actually done a lot to aid the victims of human rights abuses. They continue to work to do more. That they are continually undermined by the Security Coucil os not a failing of the those who would fight for human rights, but a testament to the power of those who would put money and power before the well-being of their fellow humans.
Which could be accomplished, at less cost, by not releasing them.
So you've described the difference between self defense and cold-blooded killing. Somebody sitting on death's row cannot kill, so self defense is not a factor. You are now taking vengeance. Your god said that was his. What you are in fact seeking is for your government to commit a cold-blooded killing the name of vengeance.
Sorry, you do not have that right. Completely regardless of your beliefs is the fact that your government is my government and I object to anybody killing in my name.
No, we're not.
No, actually, it isn't.
Yes, actually, it is.
No, actually, there isn't.
Prove they ever existed outside of the Bible, and that the story of Lot and his wife is at least plausible (outside of A&E specials) and I'll consider going further with this.
Would you like to explain gay penguins then?
Anal sex isn't my ball of wax either. Maybe I have hang-ups or maybe I'm just prudish. Who the hell cares? The fact is that other people like it and as long as they aren't forcing me to do it, it really is none of my business.
You really do need to do some hard reading. Bringing an end to small-pox isn't nothing.
The UN has actually done a lot to aid the victims of human rights abuses. They continue to work to do more. That they are continually undermined by the Security Coucil os not a failing of the those who would fight for human rights, but a testament to the power of those who would put money and power before the well-being of their fellow humans.
Again, I'm going to have to ask you for some corraborrating evidence. They do talk about abortion, I don't quibble about that. They mention it as an option when that option seems appropriate. Strong advocates though? Not in this universe.
Which could be accomplished, at less cost, by not releasing them.
So you've described the difference between self defense and cold-blooded killing. Somebody sitting on death's row cannot kill, so self defense is not a factor. You are now taking vengeance. Your god said that was his. What you are in fact seeking is for your government to commit a cold-blooded killing the name of vengeance.
Sorry, you do not have that right. Completely regardless of your beliefs is the fact that your government is my government and I object to anybody killing in my name.
No, we're not.
Andem said:
So you are blaming President Bush for things that may (or may not) have happened before his time? Man you are the typical liberal aren't ya!
If you think being gay is natural you have some serious issues that you need to deal with. Just how can anyone in their right mind believe that homosexuality is natural.
You want proof that homosexuality is not natural, just read the Holy Bible. The proof is in there!
If homosexuality is so natural why did God make Adam and Eve rather than Adam and Steve (or Ada and Eve)?
God is very clear about how he feels about man lying with man or woman lying with woman.
Iraq sure did happen in his time. For clarification, I'm not a liberal. But ofcourse, if someone doesn't agree with a conservative, they're always called a liberal.
Here we go, right back to the bible. To be clear, I don't believe one word of the bible. So can we have some actual proof? Adam and Eve is a fairy tail... there's more proof that humans evolved from amoebaes.
Andem said:
You wanted the proof and it was given. But that is your choice to reject or accept it.
Lee. Why is it that you use religion to say homosexuality is un-natural. If two people decide to be together then they have the right to do so, be it two males or two females. If you like it or not. If two honosexual people want to live together, I'd rather see them get married and share their vows and be homesexuals than just being homesexuals just living together. As long as they do not force it on you, you have no reason or excuse or even proof that it is un-natural. Live and let live.
Keep your religion and practice it the way you want and do not force it on anyone. What I mean do not force the issue of homesexuality mentioned in your book on anyone that does not agree with it.