100,000 Iraqi civilians dead, says study

quote:

---

The world court is in favor of the interests of a global population whose overall interests are unlike ours.

---

Yes thats right. The people of the world mpeople are intersted in Truth, Justice, Democracy and Freedom.

quote:

---

Capitalism will be tried and found guilty by a world who wants to strip us of our resources and redistribute the wealth.

---

Capitalism IS a system of redistribution of wealth, from those who create to thoise who are merely socially important.

quote:

---

Contra, I know your ideology. Tell the average U.S. middle class guy whose wealth is already being downgraded from $15.00 an hour to $9.00 an hour that the rest of the world wants to dismantle the system around him. The world will get more equitable, but for the American, it will mean giving up what they have. So we are hogs! We won't let go!

---

So basically your argument is to admit that America is bandit state thieving wealth from all across the world and relying on violent coercion to protect its ill-gotten gains. Can't say that I disagree with that analysis, although this only demonstrates why America is a corrupt kleptocracy unfit to be in the company of civilised nations.That said, however, the American worker will undoubtedly benefit from the dismantling of the capitalist system around them - indeed, that downgrading of workers pay is a predictable result of capitalist theft. So predicatble that it has persistently been predicted. If americans wish to persist with the sytupidities of capitalism, they have only themselves to blame for their poverty.

hehexcuse me while I imitate a dog with a hair-lip...barf barf ....

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Phathead? My family voted for Kerry! I DO think that it was mean't that Bush win the election, however. Now he will have to wallow in the mess he caused. America is a nation divided, and the division is between absolutists and humanists. All absolutists are not fascists, and all humanists are not communists. Both groups have rich and poor among them. Look at Senator Kennedy, a humanist on a mission to rewrite the constitution. What is so bad about politically conservative judges? Are people scared of a little authority and backbone?

Yes, phathead. Regardless of who your family voted for or anything else you might say, I have every right to ridicule your previous post and imply a sort of thick-headedness on your part.You claimed the world court would be able to be used to punish the US for its capitalism... which is so patently ridiculous you ought to be ashamed for saying it.You also implied that people's salaries have taken a dive because the world is out to get us, which a world court would help them further (?), when it is the economy run into the ground by Bush as well as his specifically cutting measures to help people's salaries remain high. Remember he is against overtime pay!And then you sort of high-fived our national gluttony at the expense of other nations.Yahoo. I think you mean to say something other than "absolutist", that would pretty much describe a fascist.You probably meant a moralist, or a religious conservative. In that case I would agree with the above statement. What on earth are you talking about? The only person I know of desiring to change the constitution (and in a position to do so) is Bush. I don't think anyone is worried about a politically conservative judge. Indeed a political conservative more often than not tries to keep the government away from moral legislation.What people are worried about is religious activist judges, who are going in with an agenda to take cases that will allow them to overturn previous court rulings.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

since when does a document's "anti-american leanings" have anything to do with it's reliability and/or accuracy? american documents about russian 'communism' are representative of the americans' "anti-russian/anti-communist leanings" but don't change the fact that stalin systematically destroyed thousands of people. why does this change what bush has done?

I said: Holmes replies: American Center for Law and Justice lawyer, Jay Seculow, says Indeed, the battle between moral relativist revisionists and absolute truth law based on Biblical standards is an evolving issue in politics.This message has been edited by Phatboy, 11-17-2004 04:25 AM

but IMHO the A.C.L.J. is absolutely nothing except another way for the Pat Robertsons of this world to con more money from the gullible and to move us closer to being a Taliban like theocracy. They are a far bigger threat to the continued existence of the US than all the terrorists in the world. Roe v Wade doesn't keep me up at night, nor do the terrorists. The A.C.L.J. most certainly does.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Oh my god. Bit of trivia, I actually watched the founding of the ACLJ. Do you have any idea what that is, who runs it, and the stated goals of Jay Seculow and his boss are? I'm sure I don't want Kennedy to be in charge of the Constitution. And here Seculow asserts that Kennedy somehow is and is trying to distort the constitution. Big claim. Not sure how anyone could possibly swallow such a big claim. Well let's see what sugar Seculow slaps on it, or what he dissolves it in... Do you actually believe that the above statement represents Ted Kennedy have the capacity, much less the desire to change the Constitution?It appears to me the the above statement is tantamount to and admission that Seculow and Co are unhappy with the way the Constitution is understood at this point in time and are desiring to place people onto a Judicial body which is capable of altering the Constitution. He reveals the agenda, or bias that he prefers to be on the bench. His problem is that Kennedy may block their efforts to change the Constitution.And of course we all know that Kennedy is such a large man he gets enough votes to do such a thing? Uhhhh, right. Kennedy is one man and is incapable of singly doing anything. This is called a scare tactic.Indeed, what Seculow is trying to do is scare people that there are representatives which will do exactly what they are supposed to do and screen candidates to judicial posts so that they are fair and will not tamper with the Constitution. And see here he begins to change his story doesn't he? It's not Kennedy is it? It's not the big scary liberal guy everyone just "knows is bad". It really takes more than just one person. Of course he now uses the next propagandist device of trying to make it seem like its just a few pesky people that stand between you and the Constitution.Except of course that this is the power that they (and its not just a few) have been given. They have this ability. One might question what is Seculow's insistence on having nominees that are "litmus tested" conservative Xian prolife?If the administration understands that there is a segment of reps that are not happy with justices that appear to have an agenda, can they not find anyone else to nominate for such positions that are equally capable of interpreting law fairly and will not face such opposition?Think about that. Do you really believe the only qualified candidates fill the conservative "litmus test"? And in the end this is what compromise in power is about. This administration, if it wants quickly accepted justices, should be looking for qualified candidated which are not offensive to the reps which will have to accept them. They don't have to choose "litmus left", just acceptable to both groups.Remember the uniter claim? I have absolutely no idea whether his lawsuit is unprecedented, and whether a ruling in his favor would be tantamount to unconstitutional.However it is patently obvious that it is not wrong. We are allowed to do such things in order to define law.If it is unconstitutional a ruling in his favor will be overturned will it not? I mean that is what will be determined in the courts, right? Or is Jay Seculow and the ACLJ now the Supreme Court and arbiter of what the Constitution says?I can't believe how this is not clearly false to you, and offensive to the same degree he claimed Kennedy's actions are offensive.And finally, even if Kennedy won his case can you explain how that would change the Constitution? At best this says that a president will be unable to bypass congress during the nomination process to a federal bench. I'm not even sure that is a bad thing to have in place. If Kerry had been elected, would you want that #1 Liberal placing dozens of proabortion progaymarriage prosodomy antiXian justices onto federal benches without conservative reps getting a say in that placement?This is not to mention that Justices on the federal court is not the same as Supreme Court nominees who actually do the final interpretation of the Constitution.Honestly, I cannot believe you would fall for this piece of blatant propaganda. No, the slaughter of moderates by absolutists is an evolving issue, pushed by the absolutists who desire to change the Constitution and use hypocritical scare tactics as the one above to convince the gullible that moderates keeping the status quo and expecting compromise are militant radicals.This message has been edited by holmes, 11-17-2004 05:07 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Bingo.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)