100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
|
Edited by
jrbogie
on
Mon 09/26/11 05:43 AM
|
|
ooooooh, i like these easy ones. the un authorized military force against the lybian government with res 1973. you claimed that the un charter forbade such. and the un itself decides what is consistent and what is inconsistent as regards it's charter, what is and is not peaceful purpose, etc. you don't get to make those judgements. that is precisely why such authorities as the un, or own government, etc., exist in the first place. becaus you and i and others do not necessarily agree on what is and what is not a peaceful purpose. if everybody in the world were in agreement on every issue we'd not need laws, charters, world organizations such as the un or even governments would we? we'd all live contented lives in our boring, like minded way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
that worked. yes, runway renumbering does seem to be more frequent in the last few years. the faa issued a notam [notice to airmen] a few years ago for pilots to stay abreast of the situation. nothing new. but you asked if our compasses have been changing and the answer is no they haven't changed in the least. they always point to magnetic north. wherever that may be today. lol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
On belief...
|
|
Your all or nothing mentality is lacking in it's ability to account for how we think/believe. . have you ever participated in a discussion where you addressed only what people post without attacking their mentality or thinking abilities? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANY ACCOUNTANTS ON HERE?,,I am wondering WHY,,our United States Government could not adopt a NEW way of doing some of their functions with the Gov.,,,LIKE,,,why can't they have a non-profit entity to their paying out to ALL TH GOV. EMPLOYEES AND DEPARTMENTS THEY OPERATE? and THEN,,however they sit that into motion,,,ALSO have each STATE GOVERNMENT act in that SAME for all of its workers and employees,,,,,BY DOING THAT,,,,ALL COULD BE AS MORE,,,ONE ORGANIZATION AS THEY ALL WOULD OPERATE THAT SAME...Then,,the rest to the funds coming in and going out,,could all have this shelter as a relief for them to be within,,a umbrilla per say to conduct their structure of Gov. within...THAT would allow them then,,to increase their over-sight as to where it goes out and in..ALSO this would or should allow them to more manage their other departments of Gov..without THAT part of them,,,having to justify alocated funding and Social Securitymonies,,all seperate of their employeee monies payrolls? We have grown so large as a nation as to when our Constitution was drawn out,,,THIS is a legal system already adopted within the USA,,why then can't the GOV. use this for PART of all it does? don't have to be much of an accountant to realize that continued deficit spending is the issue. and what's the constitution have to do with it anyway? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, my dad went to the male private school.....of the same that Goldie Hawn went to the female school......he said she was he slut of thr school and slept her way to the top......which isnt unusual for back then for women to get ahead that way or to be pressured that way.......And I dont really think Kate Hudson looks just like her mother......I think Goldie Hawn is way prettier than her daughter actually so your dad and goldie went to SEPARATE schools TOGETHER and HE says she was a slut so obviously she was a slut??? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jrbogie, I maintian that the UN has no right to carry out an act of aggression against a sovereign nation as authorized by res1973. See Article 33 UN Charter: "The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice."  maintain what you will. you're still dead wrong but maintain your position by all means if it makes you comfortable. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
On belief...
|
|
This notion of "absolute certainty" has already been discussed. seems it's still being discussed, huh? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
jrbogie
on
Sun 09/25/11 06:08 AM
|
|
the link doesn't work for me but "magnetic north", quite different than the axis north pole or "true north" has been shifting since the earth came into existance, jeannie. magnetic variation is an error that must be corrected in order to navigate with a compass. this deviation error is more or less pronounced depending on where on the planet you are when you look at a compass. one could stand on the actual north pole and his compass would indicate that to reach the "magnetic north pole" you would head south. your compass would read north but magnetic north is south of the north pole. weird or what? lol. even weirder is that from the true north pole, every direction is south. but that doesn't address the issue. just interesting to think about.
anyway, isogonic lines are drawn on maps used for navigating to indicate this compass deviation and only when positioned on the agonic line, or line of zero variation, will a compass point directly to true north, again assuming you are not positioned between magnetic north and true north at the north pole. air navigation charts are updated regularly partly because magnetic north is constantly shifting in relation to true north. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
well, somebody wrote a book so it must be factual, huh? and this is what we call current news and events? sheesh.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
On belief...
|
|
i do see your responses as personal attacks and i'll decide what threads are right for me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jrbogie, as you must have noticed the first part of that statement was not meant for you.Am not able to make too many quotes because I have to make do with a small writing window. What I tried to point out to you is that the res1973 did not authorise killing of innocents and that it is biased and unfair if another res is not passed in respect of Syria or if Obama is not asked to step down as a result of protests on wall street or Cameron as a result of UK riots. In which case that res1973 would be illegal. but your statement that i replied to mentioned nothing about killing innocent civilians. your statement simply stated that under un charter no nation may interfere in the affairs of another nation. you're statement is simply dead wrong. the un has authorized the use of military force to intervene in the affairs of several nations. of course res 1973 did not authorize targeting innocent civilians. no resolution ever has. under what jurisdiction could res 1973 or any other un resolution be found to be illegal? and what wording in the resolution do you find to be legally suspect? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
On belief...
|
|
Agreed. Here's the useless definition of belief that jrbogie offered... i see belief as taking a position that some comcept is known to be true... Belief begins long before we know what a concept is, or have a worldview replete with taking a position on something's truth or falsehood. The irony is that he's fulfilled his own definition of belief.  i think everyone here understands that you see my views as useless. but i've defined nothing. all i've done is respond to this thread where you asked for our thoughts. you've utilized a strange tactic if encouraging a fair exchange of ideas on the topic was your goal with all the personal innuendo you've tossed at me. these funny smiley faces really aren't all that funny and of course they do nothing that lends to the disscussion. but you just keep it up. i'm here for the entertainment after all and seeing adults personally attacking other's thoughts as 'useless' is indeed entertaining. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
then how do you explain un resolution 1973 authorizing military intervention in lybia??? Msharmony I like your take on this: all our views are based on what we read. Note however that Gaddafi's son and grandchildren killed in those strikes were innocent civillians. Thousands of other innocents have died in this war, and if what is good for the goose is good for the gander, then Syria should be the next target of those jets. And Obama ought to resign because of the wall street protesters i'm not msharmony. yes, our views are based on what we read so reading correctly what we can on a topic is paramount. either you have not read 1973 or you've misread what you call 'the un charter' as my question was in reply to this statement of yours: "Under the UN Charter, no country is allowed to carry out acts of aggression against another sovereign nation or interfere in its domestic affairs." we can agree that a loss of innocent civilians through collateral damage was indeed unfortumate but it does not explain the conflict with your statement and 1973 which authorized military intervention in lybia? that was my question. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
jrbogie
on
Thu 09/22/11 03:29 AM
|
|
i thought repealing datd was a mistake. not because i don't want to see gays equally treated in this country, hell i'm all for gay marriage, but because of the unique situtation that exists in our military which i'm not about to get into again. but the fact is, dadt is gone, history, kaput. time to put it and all talk about gay inequality in the past. anybody who's served in the military, especially as an officer, learned early on that you present your argument until the commander makes his decision at which point the arguing ends and the mission begins as the commander decided. my guess is the troops salute, say 'yes sir' and otherwise will do a better job of this than many folks here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
While this is nice and all as those that serve don't have to be ashamed of who they are anymore, I think it's a smokescreen for the real problem here. That is to say why we're even fighting to start with. THAT is what needs addressing more than any of this other stuff. but you don't get to say what needs to be addressed here more than 'this other stuff.' here dadt gone is being addressed. why would you bother to read the thread much less take the time to post here if 'this other stuff' is what concerns you??????????????///// |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
so folks who want to cut government spending don't care about this country??? I'm sure they care about the country. They just don't seem to care about most of the people who live in the country. and just how can it seem to you that i and others who want to see government spending cuts don't care about most of the people? seems you're using this logic; you care about most of the people. you don't want to see spending cuts. i want to see spending cuts. it must follow that i don't care for most of the people???????????? therein lies the buld of the problem. the average american can only carry on a rational, give and take discussion with folks who agree with him/her. the idea of a fair exchange of differing views is preposterous to most of us. absurd. what might happen in a forum such as this if everybody just assumed that everybody else here was at least as smart as everybody else and cared equally about the wellfare of the people and the country in it. after all, nobody here is a known scam artist out to screw the world for his own benefit. so how can it seem to anybody here that anybody else here cares less about the country or the people who live here than anybody else??? because they disagree with you about what's best for the wellfare of the country and the people?????????????????? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I actually thought that was an airstrike engineered by the UN,,,, Under the UN Charter, no country is allowed to carry out acts of aggression against another sovereign nation or interfere in its domestic affairs. then how do you explain un resolution 1973 authorizing military intervention in lybia??? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
On belief...
|
|
Completely misses the point. We both understand the words we're using. yes, we simply don't agree on the word usage. That proves the point being made which is... That s/he who speaks necessarily presupposes a backdrop of truth. If, and only if, we know what it would take for a claim to be true, do we understand what the claim means. precisely. we PRESUPOSE a backdrop of proof but i don't neccisarily believe what i say is TRUTH when i say something that i haven't experienced. i THINK We necessarily believe that that is a tree, is called "a tree". That object is what we think of when someone says "tree". As we acquire subsequent belief regarding the things that we call "trees", our understanding expands accordingly. That belief can be... substitute the word 'think' or 'presupose' or 'seems feasable', etc., for the word 'believe' and i'd agree. 1. unjustified and false 2. justified and false 3. unjustified and true 4. justified and true It cannot be anything other than belief. sure it can. i can think it's justified to think it's plausible like the big bang or evolution. i can think it's unjustified to presupose that creation is plausible. in both cases i've not stated a belief. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Only the country on a whole profits from some kinds of spending. That kind of spending separates those who care about the nation of people which constitute being this country, and those who don't. so folks who want to cut government spending don't care about this country??? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the government cannot be run as a business. not with our constitution. the goal of a business is profit. the goal of the government is for then general welfare of the governed. no, i don't use the term 'welfare' in it's most known connotation.
|
|
|
|
|
Previous
