Quote:
|
Originally Posted by hkbajwa You are right, but i think the common thing with rapists and pedophiles is that they violate another basic right and that is the right to choose what you wish to do with your body. Homosexuality is a consensual act and as such is a choice of the individual what he/she chooses to do with their own body. So the very right the protect people from sexual assault, ALSO affords them the right to call their union a marriage. besides a federal government that does not outlaw pornography ( plenty empirical evidence to show negative effects of porn) has no right to outlaw what is a personal union between two people |
Well I believe that NAMBLA would argue with you that children have just as much choice in the matter. As far as pronography, it has been the Court's and their progressive opinions that have celebrated pornography along with the help of the ACLU. Conservatives have always been the bad guys in this fight because we have tried to outlaw pornography, yet the laws have been struck down as unconstitional.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by hkbajwa i'm sorry. Just because we have a few represetatives of ethnic minorities in the government does not mean that 80 % of wealth in the states isn't concentrated in the hands of a bunch of W.A.S.Ps. ( plenty of empirical evidece on that too) Token representation is all that is. |
Yes they are tokens, tokens of what hard work and individualism will get you. I am sorry but the philosophy of tribalism is what causes the problems, the belief that all in the group must be equal. Equality is an ideal. The only equality we can have is that under God and that under the Law. In everything else there is and always will be inequality. People should be judged on their merit, and merit alone.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by hkbajwa cool i'll give you that one... But FOX has more than just a conservative bent. Its a lying spinning machine. Seriously dude. Just try and compare the ratio of news FACTS and news VALUE JUDGEMENTS on FOX. And then compare that ratio with any other western news network. Fox not only tells you the news. It also tell you how you have to feel about it ( or else you're a lousy american) |
Many of the shows are opinion journalism. That is why views watch shows like O'Reilly, Hannity and Colmes, etc. For the opinion of the hosts. CNN, MSNBC are no different. For that matter people like Rather, Cronkite, Jennings, Rooney, and Brokaw have always given their opinions as well when the report the news.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by hkbajwa dude.. just because the U.S government has been unable to implement a proper welfare programme, does not mean that the concept of a welfare state is defunct. Scandinavia and slowly most of europe is a shining example of how welfare states can function WITHOUT burdening average joe. In fact the tax cuts for the rich that your republican party has implmented puts MORE pressure on average joe than would a properly funded and backed welfare programme. |
And this is why the EU economy is stagnated and they lag so far behind the US. This is why the EU has double digit unemployment, and the tax burden of the citizens is some 40%. Well THAT IS A BURDEN!!! History has shown us that lower taxes have lead to economic growth, Kennedy knew this, as did Reagan and Clinton. Welfare from cradle to grave leads only to dependence. Those that live on their own merits have much better lives and enjoy many of the greater benefits and freedom.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by hkbajwa hahahahaha.. look the vietnam war was a US war in which millions of innocent vietnamese were slaughtered. So excuse them for not returning the POWs .. but can you tell me how the detainees of GITMO are responsible for the US losing the vietnam war? |
I used the example of Vietnam only to show how ridiculous the claim of indefinitive detention seems. GITMO has housed some 2000 detainees, yet today there remains only some 600.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by hkbajwa anyhow i think its crazy that on one hand the US is willing to condemn China for human rights abuses based on Amnesty International reports, but then on the other hand refuses to accept A.Is evaluation of Gitmo. If you wanna stick to your definition of gitmo inmates that's cool. But its hypocritical. |
Yet AMnesty International has not been to GITMO. So if they have not been there how do they know what is occuring? From reports of former detainees, has any considered that perhaps the former detainees have a problem with having been detained??? Hell I have never been to the DNC headquarters, but I have heard that in their back offices they have pictures of African-Americans that were hung in the South, I guess they are remember their good old days......Is my report valid??? Considering that I have not been there no it is not, and the same holds true for Amnesty International.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by hkbajwa No doubt his sons were major assholes and deserve to burn in hell. But in case you forget i was comparing it to Saudi Arabia. so uday and qusay raped 1000 women. How many women in saudi arabia live without the right to travel alone, without the right to vote, without the right to drive, without the right to anything without the permission of men. And how many of them are raped mutilated, stoned and hung for being normal women who refuse to be packed up in a robe and locked in a house. In iraq they officially gave the same rights to women as to men.. and then uday and qusay exploited their father's position.. in saudi arabia women are OFFICIALLY considered less than men. |
You were the one who stated how progressive Iraq was in its treatment of women. I have never claimed that any of the Middle Eastern Countries have a decent record on women's rights. Yet we have been able to reduce the number of incidents of stonings, beatings and honor killings in many of these countries through pressure.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by hkbajwa So if you are using UN resolutions as justification for invasion, then why was the invasion done without the UN?
Secondly liberation from oppression and tyranny is the job of the oppressed and tyrannised. Kuwait is led by a dictator, saudi arabia is led by a dictator, US ally Pakistan is led by a dictator and the US has a fabulous record of supporting dictatorial tyrants in south america (Noriega ring a bell?) So calling saddam a tyrant and dictator makes him the same as a host of US allies. The only difference was that he didn't take orders. But that doesn't really sound like a justification for war does it!? |
So now the US is to blame for the failure of the UN??? Sorry but this country does not need permission from anyone to defend itself and its security. The US has always used pressure to try and change the action of our allies. Unfortunately we can not go to war with everyone, however, we can show the model of what is right, and hope that through diplomacy change our friends.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by hkbajwa What created peace in these countries was marshall aid in europe and japan's own reconstruction efforts locally. Force ended the war ( after the europeans did most of the fighting for several years).. it did not bring peace. Economic prosperity ( with US help ) brought peace. SO instead of bombing iraq continuously why doesn't the US use local companies to rebuild the place? That way Iraq can get richer rather than Halliburton making a buttload for building stuff that US forces bombed.. Seriously dude, doesn't it seem just a LITTLE unfair? |
We have stopped bombing Iraq continuously, our Military in many instances is helping to rebuild schools, hospitals, neighborhoods, and water supplies. We are spending money on the rebuilding of Iraq. Sorry but Halliburton is not making a killing in Iraq, in some instances they are barely making a profit. Most of the work Halliburton is doing in Iraq relates to the military and the military alone. That has been the cost of the reduction in forces that Clinton led and so many applauded. No one minds the outsourcing of the Military, and Halliburtons contract was awarded by Clinton, not Bush.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by hkbajwa My dear friend, you must realize that there is no opposition to stopping criminal behavious. Nobodsy says that. What there is opposition to is eradication of civil liberties in the name of crime fighting. THe patriot Act does not prevent terrorism. It pisses people of MORE so MORE terrorists are created. |
And yet no one, NO ONE, has shown an example of a violation of civil liberties. The speculation that it can occur is akin to Chicken Little. It is possible we could all die tomorrow. So what!!!! It is possible that the Patriot Act could lead to the violation of civil liberties, well any law could. Until a violation occurs it is only assumption, and you know what they say happens when you assume.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by hkbajwa No problem with that. If i was a poor guy making minimum wage, i would not be able to afford medical insurance or college or any of that. If the government told me that i had to pay 40% of my minimum wage and in return i would get free medical treatment, free education and free care when i grew old i would be happy. On the other hand if i was a millionaire, i would freak out. Not because i would become poor.. rather because i wouldn't be as rich. This business of keeping more of the money you earn only really helps those who earn well enough anyways. For a poor person that means a few bucks more a month. Big deal. |
Big Deal???? A few dollars more a week or a month or a year can be a big deal. If an 18 year old saves some $150,000 dollars over the course of time until he/she is age 30, by the time they retire at 65 that $150,000 could grow into $2.5 million. Thats the big deal. Our welfare programs do not allow for people to save, but rather to remain dependent upon government. If that is how you want to live, thats fine with me, however, I would rather have the choice.
dmk