Two Things

[Guest MikeSC]

1) I wonder why this has gotten so little play, but an AWFUL lot of missiles used against the U.S in Iraq, including half of the ones used in the attack on the Hotel Rachid, were French made --- and made AFTER the arms embargo following the First Gulf War. Were the French ignoring INTERNATIONAL law and arming Hussein? (source: merdeinfrance.blogspot.com)

 

2) "Justice Sandra Day O'Connor predicts that the U.S. Supreme Court will increasingly base its decisions on international law rather than the U.S. Constitution, according to an article in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

By doing so, the court will make a good impression among people from other countries, she said.

"The impressions we create in this world are important and they can leave their mark," Justice O'Connor said.

On the whole, the U.S. judicial system leaves a favorable impression around the world, she said "but when it comes to the impression created by the treatment of foreign and international law and the United States court, the jury is still out."

The 73-year-old justice made her remarks at a dinner in Atlanta sponsored by the Southern Center for International Studies.

The first cited case was decided in 2002 when the Supreme Court found it unconstitutional to execute the mentally retarded, she said. In arriving at that decision, Justice O'Connor said, the high court noted that the world community overwhelmingly disapproved of the practice.

Also influential was a court brief filed by American diplomats who discussed the difficulties confronted in their foreign missions due to U.S. death-penalty practices, she said.

The second ruling cited by Justice O'Connor was the striking down of the Texas antisodomy law, relying partly on a series of decisions by European courts on the same issue.

"I suspect," Justice O'Connor said, "that over time we will rely increasingly — or take notice, at least — increasingly on international and foreign courts in examining domestic issues." (source: washingtontimes.com)

 

Umm, does this worry anybody else but me? Int'l law should have NO bearing on Supreme Court decisions.

-=Mike

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

WTF?

 

Ummm.... isn't the Supreme Court around to make decisions on you know the Constitution? I thought that was their sole purpose in U.S. society.

[dutchse.cx 0]

You're using a BLOG as a news source? Are you kidding me?

[Guest MikeSC]

You're using a BLOG as a news source? Are you kidding me?

Can you disprove it?

 

Thought not.

-=Mike

[dutchse.cx 0]

Words cannot express my despair right now. The human race is fucking doomed.

 

A blog is a credible news source because it can't be disproven ...

 

I just ...

 

Wow.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

You're using a BLOG as a news source?  Are you kidding me?

Can you disprove it?

 

Thought not.

-=Mike

Hey, the Robstone defense.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

You're using a BLOG as a news source?  Are you kidding me?

Can you disprove it?

 

Thought not.

-=Mike

Hey, the Robstone defense.

Dear God!!! He's possessed Mike!!!

[Guest MikeSC]

Words cannot express my despair right now. The human race is fucking doomed.

 

A blog is a credible news source because it can't be disproven ...

 

I just ...

 

Wow.

Of course, I MENTIONED the blog since it had THE LINK to the STORY from an actual NEWSPAPER --- but apparently, being a smarmy prick is more your speed than actually disproving something. The story is legit and all you have to do is actually read it.

 

The link is there at the blog. Spend five seconds and check it out yourself. It really is quite easy to do. I'm not going to paste the link here simply because I want to see how you respond to this.

 

I love watching smarmy pricks embarrass themselves.

-=Mike

[dutchse.cx 0]

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-20034...3492786,00.html

 

It links to ...

 

The Sun.

 

I'm underwhelmed.

[Guest MikeSC]

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-20034...3492786,00.html

 

It links to ...

 

The Sun.

 

I'm underwhelmed.

Once again---

 

Can you disprove it?

 

Again, I thought not.

-=Mike

[dutchse.cx 0]

Again, I thought not.

 

Yeah, you seem to be pretty good at that.

[LaParkaYourCar 0]

The Sun?? It links to a tabloid and you're taking it seriously??

 

But the second story says Washington Times....how good is that paper?

Edited October 30, 2003 by LaParkaYourCar

[Mystery Eskimo 0]

European countries sold arms to Iraq in the past. This isn't really much of a story.

[Guest MikeSC]

The Sun?? It links to a tabloid and you're taking it seriously??

 

But the second story says Washington Times....how good is that paper?

Until you can find ANYTHING to disprove it --- it is quite reputable. Heck, even National Enquirer gets a story right.

 

Heck, just out of curiosity, what IS a reputable source to you?

 

Your mom?

-=Mike

[Guest JMA]

Hey, the Robstone defense.

Indeed.

[Guest MikeSC]

European countries sold arms to Iraq in the past. This isn't really much of a story.

But AFTER the embargo?

 

Didn't they bitch that we should follow U.N rules (which we DID do), when they did not do so?

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

Hey, the Robstone defense.

Indeed.

I wish I could I say I was shocked that you were too lazy to actually check things out ---

 

But I'm not. It's par for the course with you.

-=Mike

[dutchse.cx 0]

Heck, just out of curiosity, what IS a reputable source to you?

 

Your mom?

 

I can't believe you went after his momma.

[LaParkaYourCar 0]

I'm more inclined to go to a source that doesn't deal in dirt, rumors, and the usual tabloid junk.

 

Like maybe a newspaper that has a good history of not lying.

[Guest MikeSC]

I'm more inclined to go to a source that doesn't deal in dirt, rumors, and the usual tabloid junk.

 

Like maybe a newspaper that has a good history of not lying.

All you have to do is find anything to disprove it.

 

Until then, shut up.

-=Mike

[LaParkaYourCar 0]

I don't care about disproving it or not. I'm just telling you that if you want people to take you seriously then find a better source before quoting. There are other news sites talking about this.

[dutchse.cx 0]

http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=...storyID=3555989

 

Do you see how hard it was to actually find a CREDIBLE news source to go along with your post? Your source reeked of bais, making it less than stellar as far as references go.

[dutchse.cx 0]

At any rate, all that's been found is that French missles are in Iraq. 4 of them. I'd wager there's just as good a possiblity of them having been stolen as there is of France having sold them.

[Guest HoffmanHHH]

A source's credibility is something which it establishes over the years with objective journalism (or the closest one can get these days), deep research, and commitment to facts. Your source, an online tabloid, is known for sensationalism and a willingness to disregard facts. Not only is it sad that you yourself were too lazy to spend five minutes and look for a credible source on the issue, it's also sad that you'd follow something like this so blindly. And no, I can't "disprove" it at all. I don't have to -- that burden doesn't fall on me. As the one making the argument, it's your responsibility to find a source that people will accept as legit.

[Guest JMA]

Hey, the Robstone defense.

Indeed.

I wish I could I say I was shocked that you were too lazy to actually check things out ---

 

But I'm not. It's par for the course with you.

-=Mike

Any reason I should? Most of your posts here seem to be the typical "right is good, left is bad" rhetoric. I'm just a casual observer.

[Guest Cerebus]

Mike a while ago, there was an email circulating that Janet Reno had said in a 94 60 Minutes interview, that a cultist was defined as "A cultist is one who has a strong belief in the Bible and the Second Coming of Christ; who frequently attends Bible's studies."

 

Now say you made this claim based on a link from a less-than-reputable source. It would be a hell of a lot easier to make the lame ass excuse you're making than digging up the actual transcript from 60 Minutes and putting it up here for our enjoyment. Now you say this newsbit came from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution? It's not OUR place to look for a reputable site, its YOURS. Hoffman has the right of it in this case.

 

Luckily for your lazy ass, I found the link here so it does prove your case (though no thanks on your part)

 

You're welcome.

[Guest MikeSC]

Mike a while ago, there was an email circulating that Janet Reno had said in a 94 60 Minutes interview, that a cultist was defined as "A cultist is one who has a strong belief in the Bible and the Second Coming of Christ; who frequently attends Bible's studies."

 

Now say you made this claim based on a link from a less-than-reputable source. It would be a hell of a lot easier to make the lame ass excuse you're making than digging up the actual transcript from 60 Minutes and putting it up here for our enjoyment. Now you say this newsbit came from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution? It's not OUR place to look for a reputable site, its YOURS. Hoffman has the right of it in this case.

 

Luckily for your lazy ass, I found the link here so it does prove your case (though no thanks on your part)

 

You're welcome.

Or, in simple terms, I was correct and the story was accurate.

 

"Provide proof". I provided proof.

 

"It's not good enough". Simply find anything to refute it, then. If it's "just a tabloid", then finding SOMETHING to disprove it shouldn't be TOO hard, should it?

 

"It's too hard to do the work". Waah.

 

"I found it for you." Seeing as how I wasn't questioning it in the first place, I don't see how you did ME any favors. Others said it was false.

 

I simply told them to PROVE it.

 

And they could not.

 

Oh well.

 

Hoffman is in the wrong. I gave evidence. If HE wishes to say it's false because they always lie, then he should FIND proof that it IS a lie. He could not do so. I cannot prove it is not a lie as, well, it was the TRUTH. I love that I was COMPLETELY right yet people like Hoffman and you still wish to paint ME as the one who was less than credible here.

 

"Reputable news sources"? That is VERY much in the eye of the beholder. What is a credible source?

 

The NY Times? Umm, no. The Jayson Blair fiasco hurt their cred.

Wall Street Journal? Just a mouthpiece for the business, right?

The major networks? Puh-leeze.

CNN? Better than most, but definitely have axes to grind?

Fox News?

 

If somebody wishes to claim that something is false, it is THEIR JOB to prove it is false.

 

Jeez, that is basic journalism right there.

 

And the Reno example sounds NOTHING like ANYTHING she ever said --- and I'm HARDLY a Janet supporter --- so I'd seriously doubt it as there is NO way she could have said it and the GOP wouldn't have raised serious heck about it. I don't remember ANY Republicans mentioning it.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

A source's credibility is something which it establishes over the years with objective journalism (or the closest one can get these days), deep research, and commitment to facts. Your source, an online tabloid, is known for sensationalism and a willingness to disregard facts. Not only is it sad that you yourself were too lazy to spend five minutes and look for a credible source on the issue, it's also sad that you'd follow something like this so blindly. And no, I can't "disprove" it at all. I don't have to -- that burden doesn't fall on me. As the one making the argument, it's your responsibility to find a source that people will accept as legit.

Then prove me wrong.

 

It shouldn't be too hard.

 

I'm using a bad source, right? I'm using a source that lies a lot, right? A source with little credibility.

 

Then prove that they are lying here.

 

Oh, you can't?

 

Then what is your point, exactly?

-=Mike

...If YOU are making the accusation that my source was wrong, then PROVE it. Until then, shut up.

[Guest MikeSC]

Any reason I should? Most of your posts here seem to be the typical "right is good, left is bad" rhetoric. I'm just a casual observer.

There is saying that less is more.

 

You disprove that saying with gusto.

-=Mike

...They ALSO say that absence makes the heart grow fonder. Again, you disprove it. Nice of you to make your usual superfluous appearance around here. Well, if that is it from you for this week, good.

[Guest Cerebus]

Damn it mike, no one is accusing you of being wrong, when you link to a tabloid PEOPLE WILL QUESTION THE VERACITY OF WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. WSJ, NYT, news networks etc. are more reliable than the National Enquirer and Star. Period. End of story. You can babble on till the end of time but that is the truth. I used the Reno example as a way to show that a blatant lie coming from a disreputable source can pass as the truth if no one bothers to check if its true. YOU didn't check to make sure it came from a reputable source. Therefore, we have the right to question the reliablity of the source. The more reputable the source the less ammo an opponent has to shoot it down as unproven. The burden on proof is not on the person who is being spoken too but the speaker (or in this case the poster)