If you wish to use precise and technical definitions in a recreational chat room, define them up front...
So sorry !! I took the first line of the Preamble to this site literally and seriously. Political Forum is the premiere political forum here in Google Groups and on the worldwide web! Taking it seriously is why we no longer have the petty bickering and open ranting here. It is why the discussions are just that .... discussions. Your point however is well taken. On Apr 11, 9:19 am, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > The problem Mark is you often demand or use a precision definition > without giving one - as in the case of t"the first to openly ignore > the UN" when you meant something quite different... If you wish to > use precise and technical definitions in a recreational chat room, > define them up front... > > For example, is a ICJ ruling compulsory if enforcement is up to the > whim of another body? Contrast that to SCOTUS which has the power to > REQUIRE enforcement and thereby COMPELL... The ICJ does NOT... > > Or that 2/3 of the nations are not signatories?? Or the any nation > can withdraw on a whim??? It does not seem to meet the common sense > definition of compulsion which requires the power to COMPELL... > Like Clinton's Blow Job, most folks would say the ICJ judgments are > NOT COMPULSORY, in spite of legal definitions (loopholes) that are > exotic and rarified AND contrary the common understanding...... > > On Apr 10, 6:12 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Again... EXACTLY which part is and was at the time Not fact ?? They still > > have not amended the statute... a blow job "IN DC" still is NOT sex. > > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 4:04 PM, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I see, you are totally guiltless in this blatant attempt to > > > deceive... And Clinton never had sex with Monica... > > > > On Apr 10, 5:43 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Just which part is not absolutely accurate ?? Where did I deny ANYTHING > > > ?? > > > > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 3:40 PM, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > De nial I see is still in vogue and a river in Egypt... > > > > > > On Apr 10, 5:24 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > If you read DC statute you will find oral sex is defined quite > > > clearly. > > > > > > Please read it. By Statute where it took place it is NOT sex but > > > SODOMY. > > > > > > Sodomy by statute is NOT sex. > > > > > > > Did slick willy get a Knobber.... hell yes, but then they never > > > > > > asked > > > > > THAT > > > > > > question did they ?? They asked if he had "sex", tried to define it > > > in a > > > > > non > > > > > > statutory way "just for the purpose of this hearing" to quote the > > > > > prosecutor > > > > > > and willy stuck to statute and said no. > > > > > > > Had they asked if he had sodomy and he said no it definitely would > > > have > > > > > been > > > > > > 'under DC statute' a legal lie> > > > > > > > Why did the right choose to sidestep congressionally approved > > > > > > statute > > > and > > > > > > refer to sodomy as sex......... Both sides played word games for the > > > > > press. > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 3:17 PM, jgg1000a <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > I see on topic means here ignore false claims made. To you the > > > topic > > > > > > > is reduced to "arresting" rather than the "jurisdiction, trial, > > > > > > > conviction, and arresting" aspects of the ICJ... And Clinton > > > > > > > did > > > > > > > not have sex with Monica while Monica was having sex with him, > > > > > > > right??? > > > > > > > > On Apr 10, 5:11 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Thank-you for being on subject Zeb. Arrest is certainly > > > > > > > > different > > > > > from > > > > > > > > conviction. > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Zebnick <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Yes, I'm sure a European nation would have the balls to > > > "arrest" > > > > > Bush. > > > > > > > > > LOL! Keep dreaming. > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 9, 7:09 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > The problem is a Spanish conviction is a European > > > > > > > > > > conviction. > > > If > > > > > it > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > found > > > > > > > > > > to be a "delito" it is extrdictable from anywhere with a > > > European > > > > > > > nation > > > > > > > > > > treaty. That would curtail his travel habits. No more pro > > > > > > > > > > oil > > > > > > > speeches in > > > > > > > > > > Calgary. > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 4:57 PM, Zebnick <[email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Evidently, the feckless Hispanoles care what he does. The > > > > > question > > > > > > > is, > > > > > > > > > > > who cares what THEY do? > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 9, 6:51 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Who cares what he does ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 4:49 PM, Zebnick < > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm sure Bush would be shivering in his boots! LOL! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 9, 6:45 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, but if convicted and a warrant issued it can be > > > > > exercised > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > ANY > > > > > > > > > > > > > aduanal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > area. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Zebnick < > > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spain is impotent and irrelevant. They're also > > > > > collossal > > > > > > > > > cowards. > > > > > > > > > > > What > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will these hispanoles do? Send the Nina and Pinta > > > over > > > > > here > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > retrieve Bush and "bring him to justice?" They'd > > > better > > > > > > > bring > > > > > > > > > some > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > kick ass paella and sangria with them or we won't > > > even > > > > > let > > > > > > > them > > > > > > > > > > > dock. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 9, 5:06 pm, jgg1000a <[email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So China did not ignore a UN Resolution in 1951 > > > by > > > > > your > > > > > > > > > facts... > > > > > > > > > > > > > That > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is good to know, now only if it were true... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And > > > > > that is > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > problem > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > here... Not unlike the WH insisting Obama did > > > not > > > > > bow to > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > Saudi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > King... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now I do not know if it is being Gringo is to > > > accept > > > > > > > truth > > > > > > > > > when > > > > > > > > > > > it is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > made apparent, If so you are NOT Gringo... Too > > > bad, > > > > > > > because > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > trait all folks could benefit from, be them > > > > > Europeans, > > > > > > > > > Indians, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chinese, Africans, Arabs, Latinos, and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Gringos... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 9, 4:13 pm, Mark <[email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All told, Reagan did noy ignore a UN > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > resolution > > > but > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > > conviction > > > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fine. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is a great difference. I guess that is > > > lost > > > > > on > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > and it > > > > > > > > > > > up > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > holds my > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > position... I do not make assumptions without > > > > > > > identifying > > > > > > > > > them > > > > > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > > > > > > such. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > would be a Gringo failing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 1:44 PM, jgg1000a < > > > > > > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Simply because I am not. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unless 1959 is prior to 1981 you are in > > > error... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Your need to have things spelled out > > > letter > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > letter > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > obvious > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > lack of insight into a situation as a whole > > > is > > > > > not my > > > > > > > > > > > > > shortcoming. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your refusal to explicitly state > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assumptions, > > > not > > > > > > > > > atypical > > > > > > > > > > > for LW > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > demagoguery, IS your shortcoming in a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > honest, > > > > > civil, > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > transparent > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > debate... That is often done to insure > > > circular > > > > > > > logic > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > ensure > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > your > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > prejudices become the conclusions... It > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > often > > > > > > > also > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > reason > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the LW cna NOT accept the reality of the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > GOOD > > > > > Bush > > > > > > > did in > > > > > > > > > > > Iraq... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> but only one side has held itself up as > > > the > > > > > > > fortress > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > > freedom, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > land of liberty and free thought > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > More BS... A better statement is that those > > > > > opposing > > > > > > > > > America > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Human Rights demand perfection from America > > > while > > > > > > > > > ignoring or > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > excusing > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > away worst conduct in others... Why??? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then > > > > > they do > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > > have to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > insist the really bad abusers do anything > > > about > > > > > human > > > > > > > > > > > rights??? > > > > > > > > > > > > > How > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do you advance Human Rights - by demanding > > > > > perfection > > > > > > > > > from a > > > > > > > > > > > few, > > > > > > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > by getting the worst abusers to change??? > > > > > Frankly > > > > > > > it > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
