Tuesday: Guilty until proven innocent, huh?

(V): I am surprised by your excellent understanding of what is and what is not constitutional and what makes unconstitutional actions constitutional. Maybe you can provide me with some insight into the matter as well. Am I correct in thinking that when I do something that is prohibited by law or other standards, the government authorities will be authorized to act contrary to law or even constitution in order to take a remedial measure?

(V): Another great post of yours. Every time I think you cannot surprise me any more, you prove me wrong.

Tuesday: Please do google and check. It is OK with me indeed.

I have no idea where you got the info that I hate you (whatever “us” is) or that am giving Clinton credit ot blaming him for making that decision (whatever “this decision” is). My posts on this subject have been, so far, the following:

1. Clinton was as much a peacemaker as he was a warmaker.

2. To add some info on “the man”, the 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia was in clear violation of the United Nations Charter.

Tuesday: Care to elaborate on that? Are you saying that Clinton had no responsibility as the US leader and the commander of US forces? Or do you intend to convey something else? Or anything at all? Have you ever thought about taking a communications class?

SL-Mark: To add some info on “the man”, the 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia was in clear violation of the United Nations Charter.

Tuesday: That doesn't make sense.
A better way to put it would be “I don't understand that”, as that is not surprising at all and makes great sense.

Tuesday: Clinton was as much a peacemaker as he was a warmaker.

SL-Mark: It seems you like talking to a brick wall…

(V): Good!

Has there been any update on the investigation into the murder of that guy who was walking home and was attacked by the police for no reason?

Vikings: I'll make sure not to ever go to Guam now that I know it might tip over and capsize.

I love this one…
http://patdollard.com/wp-content/uploads/pelosi-clown.jpg

Artful Dodger: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_AJbjLfOMMSQ/SgQ2571IHII/AAAAAAAADF4/RyFeqEFP5g8/s400/untitled.bmp

(V): Yup, do study. You can start with the meaning of the words “socialism” and “dictatorship”.

(V): I hope there is a cure for that… If I were religious, I would post a prayer for you on the Thoughts and Prayers board…

(V): I'm sure the Cuban political prisoners would agree with you… and I'm sure you'd love to live in a country like Cuba, North Korea, or in any pre-1989 communist country. Socialism taken to its best…

Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. “Dictatorship of the proletariat“… ever heard of that? Of course you haven't, how could you…

(V): You have no arguments. If you read the Wikipedia article on Castro, you would find out that both claims regarding his dictatorship I have posted are backed by lots of sources and expert opinions.

(V): So if you like quoting Wikipedia so much, why don't you quote the most important information relating to the subject? I.e. Castro being a socialist dictator?

“In 1965 he became First Secretary of the Communist Party of Cuba, and led the transformation of Cuba into a one-party socialist republic.”
“On May 1, 1961, Castro declared Cuba a socialist state and officially abolished multiparty elections.”

“Many observers refer to Castro as a dictator […].”
“Despite his denouncement of dictatorships, Castro himself has been described as a dictator.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_Castro

(V): So what? He was a socialist dictator, you can't deny that. So instead of dodging, why don't you go back to your original post and correct it, now that you have been thrown some knowledge.

(V): There have been many socialist dictators. Castro, to name one.

Artful Dodger: LOL… I was trying to pronounce “brpught” and then I realized it was mistyped “brought”.

Artful Dodger: But you have to give him credit for having a point there…

Tuesday: Why don't you just bookmark it?

Mousetrap: Where Bush failed, she'll succeed!

The Col: omg

Tuesday: I've never seen Winnie the Pooh, so he didn't exist either, oh but there are books that say it was so.

Bernice:

Bernice: Well if I were God, I would certainly want to let my sheep know I exist. You know, I would be appearing from time to time, sending messages, talking to peeps, and whatnot… I wouldn't want to be hiding somewhere and only inspiring men in some obscure ways. But unfortunately, I'm not God.

It would be easier if God inspired someone to take some pictures and videos of Heaven and send them to Earth so people can finally see for themselves. I'm sure God is capable of doing that.

The only Truth is that truth is in the eye of the beholder.

(V): The post Ferris Bueller replied to was 100% copy and paste. You can't get “better” than 100%, can you? You don't even mention your source, making others believe the words are yours.

Ferris Bueller: I agree with most of what V has to say here.

But (V) doesn't say much here. Copy and paste are his best friends.

Artful Dodger: The idea is not bad, no doubt about it, but this would mean a significant breakthrough in the international law as we know it. The entire conflict-of-law area would have to be revised. Say, for example, that a child born in a particular country would become a national of that country only if its mother was not an illegal alien. But then – what nationality would the child have? The one of its mother? The one of the country from which the mother came to the country where the child was born? I am not against reconsidering the current system, but it would cause lots of problems.

(V): Forget about names. It doesn't matter what the Arabic word for “God” is. Take bread as an analogy. Go to a store in the UK and ask for a loaf of bread. Then do the same thing in the Czech Republic (using the Czech word for bread) and see what you get. Two different things.

Artful Dodger: There are a lot of Christian teachings that say that Jesus was a son of God, aren't there? These non-trinitarian beliefs don't view Jesus as the God himself. So this makes your argument a bit weaker. But I personally do agree that the Christian God and the Islamic God are two different entities. Wikipedia says that Islam teaches that God as referenced in the Qur'an is the only god and the same God worshipped by members of other Abrahamic religions such as Christianity and Judaism. and backs this claim by the following quote from the Qur'an (in three different translations):

“YUSUFALI: And dispute ye not with the People of the Book, except with means better (than mere disputation), unless it be with those of them who inflict wrong (and injury): but say, "We believe in the revelation which has come down to us and in that which came down to you; Our Allah and your Allah is one; and it is to Him we bow (in Islam)."
PICKTHAL: And argue not with the People of the Scripture unless it be in (a way) that is better, save with such of them as do wrong; and say: We believe in that which hath been revealed unto us and revealed unto you; our Allah and your Allah is One, and unto Him we surrender.
SHAKIR: And do not dispute with the followers of the Book except by what is best, except those of them who act unjustly, and say: We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you, and our Allah and your Allah is One, and to Him do we submit.”

However, I don't think it can be inferred from the above that the God is Allah and Allah is God.

In simple words, the two religions are too different to believe that they worship the same superpowerful being.

Artful Dodger: I have always found it interesting that North American liberals are actually not liberals, and on the contrary, they are socialists.

Bernice: Really? For the first time in such a long time? Interesting… hung Parliament is quite common here. As far I can see, the predictions say that Liberals should take the PM seat though… so it seems you're going to have your favorite politician there…

LOL, I like this conversation. Libs vs. Libs.

Bernice: I hear what you're saying, but you'd have to torture me to make me vote for the left… We also have a moronic leader of the strongest right-wing party here, but getting them elected was still better than the other option… :)

Bernice: Liberals…

AD: In my view, an all knowing all powerful First Cause created. In your view, it created itself.
PM: I also fail to imagine how anything can create itself.

Oops, I misunderstood you there. Got it now. 2:30 a.m. here, time to go to bed, I guess. :)

Artful Dodger: And by the way, by saying that an infinite temporal regress is not possible, you say that the original uncaused action “just happened“.

Artful Dodger: An infinite temporal regress of causes cannot exist.

But that's a philosophical premise. Based only on our extremely limited experience. I believe in the matter of creation of universe, it's not right to rule out a possibility just because it looks impossible to us. :)

Artful Dodger: I can live with the fact that I don't know how come that time and space and everything in it exists and that I will never know it either. It doesn't bother me. I do agree that the Big Bang theory is the most reasonable of all the theories out there, but there still are too many grey areas.

The problem with our view of the time as finite or unfinite is this: we cannot imagine either of these possibilities. Can you imagine the creation of time? To me, it seems exactly as impossible as infinity of time.

I also fail to imagine how anything can create itself. :)

Tuesday: Do believe that. You will never figure out that the Bible, as well as any other “holy book“, is a hoax and you will find comfort in the belief that God exists and will take you to his kingdom after you die.

Pedro Martínez: And, in addition to that, if I admitted for a moment that God indeed was the cause we're talking about, there would still remain a question to be answered: what was the cause of God's creation and existence?

Artful Dodger: I meant that we clearly agree that proving existence is easier than proving non-existence.

As for cosmological arguments, I'm not a big fan of them. First of all, even though I view the Big Bang theory as the most likely scenario, it still is only a theory. And there is a vast unexplained area in the theory, too. I have already found out that I will never fully understand what made the universe look the way it looks and how it actually looks. And nobody will ever understand that – it's simply beyond our limited thinking. Secondly and (maybe) more importantly, my problem with cosmological arguments is that I don't think there had to be a cause. I know that our experience tells us that every action brings reaction and that effect must have a cause, but how do we know this was also the case under as exteme conditions as at the time of the creation of time and space?

Artful Dodger: Well, sometimes it is possible, but I don't want to be a nitpicker. The important thing is we agree on the essence.

Tuesday: