sexual_chocolate

North Korea never attacked us. Anyway, Illegal War is a bullshit PC liberal term. Legal according to whose laws? An attacked country will never say the war is "legal", now will they? The war in Iraq is just as "legal" as any other war the US has started, or any other country for that matter. Sounds like at least one legal eagle on this forum needs a little refresher on basic U.S. law. Per the U.S. Constitution, treaties ratified by Congress become U.S. law, enforceable in U.S. courts. The U.S. is signatory to the Geneva Conventions, which it also ratified, so that is part of U.S. law. Treaties can be non-self executing (they require further, more specific legislation to be passed to enact them) or non-self executing (they do not; the law is explicitly spelled out in the treaty). The Geneva Conventions (there are 4) are of the latter kind. In a recent example of treaty law in practice, the Supreme Court found the military commissions system at Guantanamo invalid and in violation of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions regarding the treatment of detainees just last year(Hamdan v. Rumsfeld). Specifically, the court found that the military commissions system violated the following prohibitions: (1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including...those placed hors de combat by…detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely. To this end the following acts are…prohibited at any time and in any place: (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; © outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment; (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. The Geneva Conventions also prohibit the targeting of and indescriminate killing of civilians, another area of 'controversy' lately. Next time, do your homework, sport. What is reality 'in your mind' doesn't really matter much in the real world. Not that he'd read this even if the "ignore" (or "I can't take being made an ass of all day") feature wasn't in use, but just in case....

There is a lack of plasticity in wealth movement in the very top tier, and there is ample evidence to prove this. Of course, Republicans want to do away with the inheritance tax, which would further solidify this situation. Here's an interesting link.

Sure, but both are still classified as wasps, yes? BTW, I have stood 2 feet away from a ground nest near the cascade crest in the season you speak of and interacted with the wasps quite nicely. Try meditating.

The top 10% of the population owns 71% of the wealth, and the top 1% owns 38% of the wealth in the US. The bottom 40% owns less than 1% of the total wealth. This actually represents the federal tax take pretty evenly, and one could argue that this means the tax system is working fairly well (I tend to favor a progressive tax system that then uses resources to addresses the sources of this highly inequitable distribution of wealth, since it's fairly self-evident that the wealthy can afford a higher tax, and many broad social ills can then be addressed).

Yellow Jackets are wasps, but: I have spent countless days in the hills, and haven't been stung since I was 10. I think it's just the way one conducts oneself.

I have the Cinch, Fader, and a GriGri. The Cinch catches quickly and securely, feeds out line like you were casting for fish, and is super light, but absolutely sucks for lowering someone who is heavy. Pretty much ditto for the Fader, but I think is even harder for lowering fatsos. The GriGri makes me nervous with thin ropes (its only drawback). It lowers easily, feeds and catches smoothly, but is fear-inducing with skinny cords (a friend fell about 50 feet on a new 9.1 before the thing luckily caught). I have heard that the new Edelrid device is the best of the bunch for cragging, and also the one I'll be buying soon enough.

do you yell at your tv too? whoa, check out the winds!

More of Mukasey's testimony that you didn't include in your post: ...Mr. Mukasey noted that a 2002 memorandum by Jay Bybee, an assistant attorney general at the time, stating that the president had the power to circumvent the Geneva Conventions as well as laws banning torture, was later disavowed and superseded. “Would it be a safe characterization of what you’ve just said that you repudiate this memo as not only being contrary to law, but also contrary to the values America stands for?” Mr. Leahy asked. “I do,” the nominee replied. “Thank you,” Mr. Leahy said. “Is there such a thing as a commander-in-chief override that would allow the immunization of acts of torture that violate the law?” “Not that I’m aware of,” Mr. Mukasey sa That's fine, fairweather, but it doesn't do away with the following: "...the president’s authority as commander in chief might allow him to supersede laws written by Congress." Do you agree with his assessment?

Did you know Revelations was written by someone years after Jesus' death, and its inclusion within the new testament was highly controversial? It's akin to believing joseph smith was the latest to bring down the word of god. Seems to me that if one is a literalist christian, one lives in a heap of confusion; who do you choose to believe? You shouldn't get all your info from watching the Divinci Code. By the time of the Council at Nicea in A.D. 325, history shows us that the central faith and belief system of Christianity had long been established. The council came together to affirm what the bishops and church leaders had been teaching for 200 years. They rubber-stamped the gospels by a vote of 218 to 2, which is not “a relatively close vote” as Brown claims. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Revelations was on the agenda of the First Council of Nicaea; the reason for the council was the disagreement over whether Jesus was made of the same stuff as god, or just some stuff that was similar. Dude, this stuff was coming close to ripping up a pretty darn fragile homogeny of sorts within the christian community. Another issue was when passover was to be celebrated. You couldn't just be celebrating whenever, so someone had to come up with a date. Another thing they decided on was that self-castration shouldn't be cool anymore. No more ripping your penis off if you wanted to be a good christian. And here's a good one: The patriarchs of Rome and Alexandria should have a lot more power! But I ask you, who were these folks to decide? What if Paul was right? I haven't seen good reason to think he wasn't. What if Arius was right? Sounds to me like the council was a pretty political set-up, with various factions vying for power. BTW, I've never seen the "DiVinci (sic) Code"; I suppose from your tone, you don't recommend it.

Did you know Revelations was written by someone years after Jesus' death, and its inclusion within the new testament was highly controversial? It's akin to believing joseph smith was the latest to bring down the word of god. Seems to me that if one is a literalist christian, one lives in a heap of confusion; who do you choose to believe?

You can actually afford to post on this site? Oh wait it's free! oh yeah versus all the other forums where i have to pay chuckle chuckle. and if i don't, they are always so garishly decorated with these damn army navy posters, like rockclimbing.com and boldering.com and climbing.com forums etc etc.! No Jon, some people have principles and refuse to accept money from entities engaged in the practice of manipulating kids into literally signing their lives away.

my quess, but I'n not God. I would imagine he doesn't agree with much we do. your guess is Jesus WOULD agree with this thinking? Hmmmm.... According to the teachings, god sent down his son Jesus because he didn't agree with what was going on; the people were to listen to his teachings, right? about peace, and loving your neighbor and all of that. I would think that a christian, especially a fundamentalist christian, would seriously consider the words of god and his prophet when making decisions about how his government should act, ESPECIALLY if he thinks that god doesn't agree with much that "we" are doing. Wouldn't that make sense? Or maybe I misread your religious convictions. I thought I remember you saying you were a christian, and god created the planet and us etc., (have you ever heard the teaching that says that the way to know god's will is to study the word of his son?)

so Jesus would agree with this thinking?

You can actually afford to go skiing? Oh yeah the military ad!

And since this is probably a war, a war on terror, has there ever been a war in all of history fought fair? Your earnest and honest simplicity is actually refreshing in some ways. I am a little puzzled though about how you manage to reconcile your seemingly loyal religious views, christian views I imagine, christian views based on the teachings of Jesus, and your seemingly cavalier take on torture, collateral damage (the death of innocents, god's children), etc. How does a fundamentalist christian deal with these seemingly incongruous views?

Ummm yes that's right, some consider it immoral to fly, intentionally, airplanes into tall human inhabited buildings. Yes, that is correct.

Is this the testing really (reference please)? Or are you making an assumption? follow the link I posted and read: He went on to say that although he hoped everyone was equal, "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true". If you refer above, you'll notice that wasn't the question; the question was about your knowledge of the "testing" he was referring to, not about his generalizations.

Really? What is your science based misgiving about the following: "In the newspaper interview, he said there was no reason to think that races which had grown up in separate geographical locations should have evolved identically." Is this the testing really (reference please)? Or are you making an assumption?

So you are not familiar with the "testing" that he speaks of? And yes, you would have sympathy with the second quote.

What I'd be more interested in seeing is if I'd find any CROWS around at that time of night! Admit it, Gary, there was no Crow.

In the first quote above, are you familiar with the "testing" that he speaks of? And in the second quote, would you have any intellectual sympathy with such a statement? Would you not be inclined to believe that organisms evolving in differing environs might evolve with differing characteristics?

THERE WAS NO CROW.

Obtuse? Please tell me what the problem is that you have with what he said? I would guess it should be pretty simple, considering the emotive response you had to it.

What is the exact problem you have with what he said?

So your problem wasn't with what the "scientist" said, it was with peoples' propensity for being hagiographic towards "scientists"? Am I getting this right?