A True American!

[Schniddy]

What does it matter what the exact reason is? There are many reasons. Does right over wrong and the pursuit of universal moral standard mean anything to you? How is that being fucked up, at all?


We can police ourselves. What if we WERN'T policing ourselves? Then there would be real problems. Of course things could get better though. There are many problems with the current drug war and also in the pharmaceutical world. Can you agree with this? Us facing these issues doesn't mean we have to isolate ourselves from the rest of the world, that would be just stupid.

I think the united states is capable of multitasking.. hopefully it still is...

[Schniddy]

The article is old, but nothing has changed:

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa060702a.htm

If you want to talk about national problems/issues we can, but to mix that with military and international affairs is plain stupidity.

[mikegar]

no a pursuit of a universial moral standard means nothing to me when it is just a cover for a countrys real agenda. and with the diversity in the world a universial moral standard is kinda silly. different groups have different views on moral standards

[mikegar]

The article is old, but nothing has changed:

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa060702a.htm

If you want to talk about national problems/issues we can, but to mix that with military and international affairs is plain stupidity.

its kinda stupid to believe that they arent already mixed up. our international affairs are shaped by nationalistic intrests, weather they are to prevent potential disasters in the us, or to insure our nationalistic superiority

[Schniddy]

no a pursuit of a universial moral standard means nothing to me when it is just a cover for a countrys real agenda. and with the diversity in the world a universial moral standard is kinda silly. different groups have different views on moral standards

Actually you are wrong. In a philosophy class you would learn that looking at all cultures throughout the world, there are standards that can be seen for every group.

This link looks to be useful: http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

If you want to discuss this further, let me know and I will provide information from my text book.

Now as far as agendas are conserned, you are probably right! There are mistakes in war, but I bet oil had to do with some of the decision making as far as invading iraq. there is no question about that.

Also, one could argue due to the mis information and current tyranny in the US, the administration had to act fast in order to gain approval. Hopefully that isn't the case, it looks like sticking to afganistan would of been a wiser choice, dealing with Iraq later.

Then again, none of us have all the variables the pentagon had to look at.

[Schniddy]

its kinda stupid to believe that they arent already mixed up. our international affairs are shaped by nationalistic intrests, weather they are to prevent potential disasters in the us, or to insure our nationalistic superiority

True
The best defense is a good offense
Good point

[mikegar]

Actually you are wrong. In a philosophy class you would learn that looking at all cultures throughout the world, there are standards that can be seen for every group.

This link looks to be useful: http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

If you want to discuss this further, let me know and I will provide information from my text book.

Now as far as agendas are conserned, you are probably right! There are mistakes in war, but I bet oil had to do with some of the decision making as far as invading iraq. there is no question about that.

Also, one could argue due to the mis information and current tyranny in the US, the administration had to act fast in order to gain approval. Hopefully that isn't the case, it looks like sticking to afganistan would of been a wiser choice, dealing with Iraq later.

Then again, none of us have all the variables the pentagon had to look at.

i agree sticking in afganistan would have been the wiser choice. but we have already crossed that bridge. now we are in iraq, and we need to finish what we started. and now it looks like we are gonna be pulling out of iraq weather we are finished or not. to me it looks kinda wishy washy. i agree with the current administration needed to actr fast, they fed off the revengeful and nationalistic feeling of the people, going to war based more off of feelings than reason. i agree with all your points except for the trying to help the world when we can barely even help ourselfs.

[Schniddy]

i agree sticking in afganistan would have been the wiser choice. but we have already crossed that bridge. now we are in iraq, and we need to finish what we started. and now it looks like we are gonna be pulling out of iraq weather we are finished or not. to me it looks kinda wishy washy.

But, we are not pulling out of Iraq. I mentioned earlier the date is set for 2012, that isn't pulling out of Iraq. It is finishing the job!

Our objective is close to being done, this statement has been in affect since the siege (I haven't read anything on this, but I do not think I am wrong here).

Obama used the line that we would pull out immediately during his campaign. It was just a way to get elected, he is not doing this now. He is following what intelligents is telling him, and that is 2012. Conservitives/Rebulicans around the world approve of this decision that Obama is taking. 1+ for that. The date would of been the same under a McCain admin.

i agree with the current administration needed to actr fast, they fed off the revengeful and nationalistic feeling of the people, going to war based more off of feelings than reason.

Again, we dont have all the variables to look at like the pentegon did.

i agree with all your points except for the trying to help the world when we can barely even help ourselfs

-Decisions to keep interests rates at an all time low, alowing people to borrow more than they can.
-Banning of off sour oil
-Not building any nuclear power plants in over 8 years
-increasing the minimume wage

Anyone please feel free to add to this list!!!

If this is what you are talking about, you are correct. Now we need to look at who made these decisions that has cause us to barely being able to help ourselves.

[mikegar]

look at who made these decisions? its not that hard. america made these decisions. should we really be trying to police other countries when we can barely keep our country financially stable, or when have seperate parties with an almost equal amount of followers who try to fuck eachother over(kinda reminds me of spy vs spy).

[Schniddy]

America didn't make those decisions.
Someone else take my spot in elaborating.
I'm done for now.

[mikegar]

so what your saying is america has nothing to do with their internal affairs? if that is so then where the fuck do we get off trying to police the world if america doesnt determine americas minimum wage, if america has no say in building nuclear plants in america, if america cant control their own intrest rates? if america doesnt decide america's internal affairs who does?

[napabavarian]

America didn't make those decisions.
Someone else take my spot in elaborating.
I'm done for now.

[Ferdinand]

I would just encourage all of you to refrain from using ad hominem attacks in your arguments. They might feel good, but they ultimately degrade the level of the discussion...

Careful now, all the homophobes on this forum will think you're talking about them.

Since we seem to be straying way off topic here anyway, and speaking of homophobes, I have some more questions for you experts concerning your Constitutional rights in America.

Your Declaration of Independence, whereby you freed yourself from the tyranny of British rule, says,

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

Furthermore, the XIVth Amendment to your United States Constitution says,

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The Declaration of Independence, which you are all supposed to be so proud of, stems from way back in 1776, 232 years ago. The XIVth Amendment to the Constitution is a little more recent, 1868, a mere 140 years ago.

The Rosa Parks incident happened practically only yesterday in 1955, giving rise to the Civil Rights Movement, Martin Luther King Jr., etc. Yet, even until today, it is still considered a major landmark achievement that America has elected a black President.

I suppose it's an encouraging sign that Americans have finally started to believe that all persons are equal under your laws, and that all persons are entitled to the same rights under your Constitution, even if they're black.

Why then is it that so many Americans continue to believe that gays and lesbians are some sort of sub-class of American citizen, and thereby not entitled to enjoy the same rights as other Americans, such as being permitted to marry?

Blacks have finally managed to earn enough respect that they no longer have to sit at the back of the bus. Why, when every second American carries a machine gun to the office and keeps a handgun in their bedside table and a shotgun under the bed, why are gays and lesbians still considered to be such a threat?

Some of you good upstanding Americans, worried about Obama potentially messing with your Constitutional rights, may not remember this, but...

When George W Bush was running for re-election, one of his campaign platforms was a promise to amend the United States Constitution, to clarify that little phrase where the Constitution guarantees equal rights for all persons, so that everyone would better understand that this obviously was never meant to include gays or lesbians. The reason is simple. His Bible told him so, which is enough proof for him that his god never intended gays or lesbians to marry, which not surprisingly is exactly the same excuse used by the Taliban to justify the persecution of its citizens.

Any sensible human being might wonder about such a religious crackpot threatening to amend the Constitution in order to have it better reflect his peculiar religious beliefs. But, not only did most Americans not worry about it, apparently they shared his enthusiasm for this project because they actually elected him to a second term of office.

Okay, that's all still cool. You can elect anyone you want. That's how the system works. And you fully deserve the consequences of that folly. But the Constitution is there to protect all Americans from exactly this type of thing. You can elect a President who shares your belief that blacks should be forced once again to the back of the bus. But, the Constitution stands as the shining instrument by which your minorities are protected.

Okay, the bit I'm curious about is this. In California, based on their constitutional rights to equality, a same-gender couple challenged the laws preventing them from marrying. That case went as far the California Supreme Court who in May 2008 ruled that, yes, it is an obvious Constitutional rights violation to deny any two US citizens the right to marry, and an obviously discriminatory act if that right is denied solely on the basis of gender.

In exactly the same way that it is discriminatory to deny a women the right to vote, simply because she is the "wrong" gender, it is an equally obvious discrimination to deny a couple the right to marry simply because either of them is the "wrong" gender.

Phew, so that looked settled. The world looked on and said, alright, so maybe the USA isn't populated entirely by homophobic rednecks. They're about to elect their first black President, and they finally agreed that gays and lesbians are also considered as equals under their Constitution. There is still hope that Americans might be better than the Taliban.

However, in the same election which brought Obama to power, Californians voted to strike down the rights to same-sex marriage!

How is that even possible? Please explain.

If she hadn't died only three years ago, could California also vote to return Rosa Parks to riding at the rear of the bus?

[Schniddy]

Since we seem to be straying way off topic here anyway, and speaking of homophobes, I have some more questions for you experts concerning your Constitutional rights in America.

Your Declaration of Independence, whereby you freed yourself from the tyranny of British rule, says,

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

Furthermore, the XIVth Amendment to your United States Constitution says,

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The Declaration of Independence, which you are all supposed to be so proud of, stems from way back in 1776, 232 years ago. The XIVth Amendment to the Constitution is a little more recent, 1868, a mere 140 years ago.

The Rosa Parks incident happened practically only yesterday in 1955, giving rise to the Civil Rights Movement, Martin Luther King Jr., etc. Yet, even until today, it is still considered a major landmark achievement that America has elected a black President.

I suppose it's an encouraging sign that Americans have finally started to believe that all persons are equal under your laws, and that all persons are entitled to the same rights under your Constitution, even if they're black.

All of that was a waste of time reading.
No one here needs you to bold your words.

Why then is it that so many Americans continue to believe that gays and lesbians are some sort of sub-class of American citizen, and thereby not entitled to enjoy the same rights as other Americans, such as being permitted to marry?

Because 80% of Americas are Catholic. They do not want them to be "married" in the same way as the traditional marrage.

Blacks have finally managed to earn enough respect that they no longer have to sit at the back of the bus. Why, when every second American carries a machine gun to the office and keeps a handgun in their bedside table and a shotgun under the bed, why are gays and lesbians still considered to be such a threat?

What year are you living in?

People don't carry machine guns to the office, nice try though.
What is wrong with keeping a handgun in the bedroom?
Gays and lesbians are not threats

Again, this was a waste of typing

Some of you good upstanding Americans, worried about Obama potentially messing with your Constitutional rights, may not remember this, but...

When George W Bush was running for re-election, one of his campaign platforms was a promise to amend the United States Constitution, to clarify that little phrase where the Constitution guarantees equal rights for all persons, so that everyone would better understand that this obviously was never meant to include gays or lesbians. The reason is simple. His Bible told him so, which is enough proof for him that his god never intended gays or lesbians to marry, which not surprisingly is exactly the same excuse used by the Taliban to justify the persecution of its citizens.

Why are you comparing the Taliban to Americas views of gays and lesbians?

Wait, so like, we're cutting the heads off of gays?

Any sensible human being might wonder about such a religious crackpot threatening to amend the Constitution in order to have it better reflect his peculiar religious beliefs. But, not only did most Americans not worry about it, apparently they shared his enthusiasm for this project because they actually elected him to a second term of office.

Yup

Okay, that's all still cool. You can elect anyone you want. That's how the system works. And you fully deserve the consequences of that folly. But the Constitution is there to protect all Americans from exactly this type of thing. You can elect a President who shares your belief that blacks should be forced once again to the back of the bus. But, the Constitution stands as the shining instrument by which your minorities are protected.

Not true, there is so much misinformation, lieng, and cheating going on they we really didnt elect Obama under facts. Do you agree with this?

Why do you keep talking about black on the back of the bus? Again, what year is it?

Our consitution is in the shits, this is nothing new. Obama, Bush, Clinton, McCain..it doesn't matter, it is in shangles.

Okay, the bit I'm curious about is this. In California, based on their constitutional rights to equality, a same-gender couple challenged the laws preventing them from marrying. That case went as far the California Supreme Court who in May 2008 ruled that, yes, it is an obvious Constitutional rights violation to deny any two US citizens the right to marry, and an obviously discriminatory act if that right is denied solely on the basis of gender.


In exactly the same way that it is discriminatory to deny a women the right to vote, simply because she is the "wrong" gender, it is an equally obvious discrimination to deny a couple the right to marry simply because either of them is the "wrong" gender.

Phew, so that looked settled. The world looked on and said, alright, so maybe the USA isn't populated entirely by homophobic rednecks. They're about to elect their first black President, and they finally agreed that gays and lesbians are also considered as equals under their Constitution. There is still hope that Americans might be better than the Taliban.

However, in the same election which brought Obama to power, Californians voted to strike down the rights to same-sex marriage!

How is that even possible? Please explain.

If she hadn't died only three years ago, could California also vote to return Rosa Parks to riding at the rear of the bus?

California is off in it's own little world
Gay marrage is a state issue
Califiornians voted to ban gay marriage
Government is looking to over rule the people's desision





How old are you?

[mrsleeve]

Ferd, I have a one word answer for why there is such big deal about Homos getting married. That word is JESUS. My self have no issues with it let em, so what big deal. Not going to hurt any one of us at all if we allow it.