By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - Do you approve your president/prime minister?

 

Do you approve your president/prime minister?

Yes 36 23.08%
 
No 103 66.03%
 
Not sure 14 8.97%
 
Total:153
huaxiong90 on 02 August 2011
fordy said:
osamanobama said:
...

 to people that not only lay down their lives to protect my freedom buut yours too.


Yeah, remember that day that Iraq was attacking our freedom, because I sure as hell don't. And before you blabber your Fox News rhetoric here, consider the following:

- Iraq had nothing to do with al-quaeda or 9/11

- There was no evidence of WMDs

I'm not bashing the soldiers. The soldiers are only doing what they're told. What I do despise, however, are people who stand up in favor of Bush/Cheney's big plan to turn the troops into glorified oil collectors, while pumping the costs of war into Halliburton, which Bush/Cheney had financial interests in. It was a way to rob the American people blind, and people like you feel for it, hook line and sinker.

Funny thing is, Iran benefited the most out of the Iraq war as a country. They played their cards right.



Rockstar: Announce Bully 2 already and make gamers proud!

Kojima: Come out with Project S already!

Around the Network
osamanobama on 02 August 2011
fordy said:
osamanobama said:
...

 to people that not only lay down their lives to protect my freedom buut yours too.


Yeah, remember that day that Iraq was attacking our freedom, because I sure as hell don't. And before you blabber your Fox News rhetoric here, consider the following:

- Iraq had nothing to do with al-quaeda or 9/11

- There was no evidence of WMDs

I'm not bashing the soldiers. The soldiers are only doing what they're told. What I do despise, however, are people who stand up in favor of Bush/Cheney's big plan to turn the troops into glorified oil collectors, while pumping the costs of war into Halliburton, which Bush/Cheney had financial interests in. It was a way to rob the American people blind, and people like you feel for it, hook line and sinker.

they sure had clinton, pelosi, Reed, and everyone else in congress and in our inteligence groups fooled.



fordy on 02 August 2011
osamanobama said:
fordy said:
osamanobama said:
...

 to people that not only lay down their lives to protect my freedom buut yours too.


Yeah, remember that day that Iraq was attacking our freedom, because I sure as hell don't. And before you blabber your Fox News rhetoric here, consider the following:

- Iraq had nothing to do with al-quaeda or 9/11

- There was no evidence of WMDs

I'm not bashing the soldiers. The soldiers are only doing what they're told. What I do despise, however, are people who stand up in favor of Bush/Cheney's big plan to turn the troops into glorified oil collectors, while pumping the costs of war into Halliburton, which Bush/Cheney had financial interests in. It was a way to rob the American people blind, and people like you feel for it, hook line and sinker.

they sure had clinton, pelosi, Reed, and everyone else in congress and in our inteligence groups fooled.

Yes, and it should go down in history as the biggest scam to the American people in history.



fordy on 02 August 2011
huaxiong90 said:
fordy said:
osamanobama said:
...

 to people that not only lay down their lives to protect my freedom buut yours too.


Yeah, remember that day that Iraq was attacking our freedom, because I sure as hell don't. And before you blabber your Fox News rhetoric here, consider the following:

- Iraq had nothing to do with al-quaeda or 9/11

- There was no evidence of WMDs

I'm not bashing the soldiers. The soldiers are only doing what they're told. What I do despise, however, are people who stand up in favor of Bush/Cheney's big plan to turn the troops into glorified oil collectors, while pumping the costs of war into Halliburton, which Bush/Cheney had financial interests in. It was a way to rob the American people blind, and people like you feel for it, hook line and sinker.

Funny thing is, Iran benefited the most out of the Iraq war as a country. They played their cards right.


Two enemies blowing each other to bits? How could they NOT be for that?



osamanobama on 02 August 2011
fordy said:
osamanobama said:
fordy said:
osamanobama said:
...

 to people that not only lay down their lives to protect my freedom buut yours too.


Yeah, remember that day that Iraq was attacking our freedom, because I sure as hell don't. And before you blabber your Fox News rhetoric here, consider the following:

- Iraq had nothing to do with al-quaeda or 9/11

- There was no evidence of WMDs

I'm not bashing the soldiers. The soldiers are only doing what they're told. What I do despise, however, are people who stand up in favor of Bush/Cheney's big plan to turn the troops into glorified oil collectors, while pumping the costs of war into Halliburton, which Bush/Cheney had financial interests in. It was a way to rob the American people blind, and people like you feel for it, hook line and sinker.

they sure had clinton, pelosi, Reed, and everyone else in congress and in our inteligence groups fooled.

Yes, and it should go down in history as the biggest scam to the American people in history.


yeah, one done by saddam.

and we actually did find WMD's, just not ones as MASSive of originally thought.

anyway we still eliminated terrorist run government, threats to our national security, etc



Around the Network
fordy on 02 August 2011
osamanobama said:
fordy said:
osamanobama said:
fordy said:
osamanobama said:
...

 to people that not only lay down their lives to protect my freedom buut yours too.


Yeah, remember that day that Iraq was attacking our freedom, because I sure as hell don't. And before you blabber your Fox News rhetoric here, consider the following:

- Iraq had nothing to do with al-quaeda or 9/11

- There was no evidence of WMDs

I'm not bashing the soldiers. The soldiers are only doing what they're told. What I do despise, however, are people who stand up in favor of Bush/Cheney's big plan to turn the troops into glorified oil collectors, while pumping the costs of war into Halliburton, which Bush/Cheney had financial interests in. It was a way to rob the American people blind, and people like you feel for it, hook line and sinker.

they sure had clinton, pelosi, Reed, and everyone else in congress and in our inteligence groups fooled.

Yes, and it should go down in history as the biggest scam to the American people in history.


yeah, one done by saddam.

and we actually did find WMD's, just not ones as MASSive of originally thought.

anyway we still eliminated terrorist run government, threats to our national security, etc


Words are words unless you have evidence to back it up.

Come back when you have evidence of any WMDs or proof that a SCUD missile can travel halfway across the globe.



huaxiong90 on 02 August 2011
fordy said:

Two enemies blowing each other to bits? How could they NOT be for that?

Not just that: They now have a prime minister that answers to them, and they have southern Iraq as part of their Shia Islam network, the other parts of this network being the Syrian Alawi regime, Hezbollah, Houthis and the Shia residents within the GCC countries.

Now before anyone thinks I'm hating: I actually respect the fact that they're working to unite the Shia of every country, even though it's caused problems and high levels of violence at times. I mean, at the very least, they work for their own benefits first and foremost.



Rockstar: Announce Bully 2 already and make gamers proud!

Kojima: Come out with Project S already!

Joelcool7 on 02 August 2011
fordy said:
Joelcool7 said:
fordy said:
Joelcool7 said:

Bill of rights as in the American Bill of Rights? I have no clue whats in the American bill of rights. But Marriage to my knowledge in not in the Declaration of rights in the Canadian Constitution. Since I am Canadian I see things through my countries perspective and to be honest just because the US has a specific law doesn't mean Canada should stick to it, I mean heck we fought America in war as an enemy in the past why should we follow all of America's laws.

Where in the Canadian Constitution or Declaration of Rights does it say that Marriage is a right to all citizens? Who said Marriage is a right? I don't recall it ever being listed as one, here in Canada health care is a right that all citizens have, but the US doesn't so does that mean the US should change its health care system because its a Canadian right?

(The "Constitution of Canada" is claimed to be the "supreme law of Canada" and states that "...Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law...". God is the ultimate legislative authority on the lawful definition of marriage in the Dominion of Canada.  The laws of God are supreme in the Dominion of Canada.)

The Laws of God are supreme in the dominion of Canada.

Now you are obviously uneducated in the Canadian Constitution or our Declaration of rights, because nowhere does it say that Marriage is a right. Now through seperation of church and state and recent court rulings it has been decided that the Canadian Government has authority over marriage and it is no longer a religious practice. But that in itself is unconstitutional.

Here's my stance, two consenting adults living together under one roof regardless of sexual orientation should be allowed to have a union. That union should be treated the same as a marriage by Government. A pastor has every right to deny service to a gay couple and all civil servents should have the right to practice their religious beliefs, their are plenty of civil servents who do not share those beliefs.

As for your whole Government is taking it too easy on religious beliefs. I'm sorry but like the gay marriage thing, Athiests and such make up such a small segment of the population, why do they deserve the right to rule the country and lord their beliefs over those who don't agree with their theories?

Fact is Marriage is not a right, if it was I'd be married by now I mean if its my right to get married then I deserve to get married but nobody loves me like that, so maybe I should force a lady into an arranged marriage I mean it is my right isn't it? Marriage is not a right its a privelage. Infact marriage isn't considered a right in the US constitution either, you calling me on not knowing my constitution, I just realized Marriage is not a right in the US constitution either nor in your Australian Constitution infact marriage was first mentioned in yours in 1961.

Marriage is not a right in any of our three constitutions or declaration of rights or Bill of rights etc..etc.. If I'm wrong I would love to see evidence that Marriage is actually called a right in my country your country or the United States of America?

As for a civil servent being paid by peoples taxes that doesn't mean that they do not have religious rights. You can't force someone to do something against their will. Especially since most of these civil servents got the job before gay marriage was passed, they never agreed to marry gay couples and they shouldn't be forced. You can't change someones job description and then fire them for having a belief different to you.

My argument is, if gay marriage is legal which it is. Their are plenty of civil servents and pastor's who would be glad to marry a gay couple. Why force those who have religious beliefs to do so?


I'm going to use the US as an example. The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) lists the following rights allowed by a married couple (I'll post a link rather than pasting an entire page of rights):

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

Note that the Act states "Defense of MARRAIGE", not "Defense of Civil Union". Once you start using seperate turns, it opens the floodgates for whackjob conservatives to declare rights for marriage and not for civil union. And you cannot guarantee "oh no politician would do that". Besides, what is the point of doubling up of laws? And before you can say "Well, we'll just make marriage a type of civil union, too", that's not exactly solving the initial problem stated, is it?

Okay, now let's say we "exempt" civil paid pastors who have a problem about gay marriage. What happens when they all want to be exempt, huh? And don't say it will never happen, because once again, you cannot guarantee that all pastors wont consider it against their religion at some point.


Ummm dude if I recall correctly you said marriage was a right under the Bill of Rights and US Constitution. The defence of marriage act is not in the Constitution or Bill of rights its just a law passed recently. Also this law which you say makes Marriage a right to all American's specifically says marriage is between a man and a women. So the one law you are saying claims marriage is a right also says its between a man and women. You can't have it both ways either its a right? Which it is not, or its a law governing over marriages in the US and nothing to do with rights of gay people.

As for forcing Pastors, come on man do you really believe that the Government has the right to force their religious views on people. This is starting to sound like China where the Government tells the pastors what they can preach on or edit the Bible to line up with the Government's agenda's. Censoring and forcing pastors to marry gay couples is communist and very far from democratic its persecution. I don't care if other pastors see these civil pastors and realize they have religious rights too.

Fact is we don't live in China, I live in Canada other members in US,Australia and Britian and in these countries pastors and all citizens have the freedom of religion. Each and every one of us have the right to practice are beliefs freely and to force us against our beliefs is persecution.

Your argument is dead, Marriage is not a right according to my constitution, your constitution the American constitution or any other constitution I know of. Even the marriage law you bring up specifically says marriage is between a man and women. So no Marriage is not a right and no gay's are not being mistreated or not treated as equals by being denied marriage. A union like that pruposed by my Prime Minister would have seen gays treated as equals without violating people's rights and enraging the population.

That was a mixup. Marriage does however entitle you to rights that "civil unions" have a possibility of not getting. You cannot say it will never happen, either. If there is the distinction between marriage and gay marriage, there will be exploits in the future.

the government is not forcing religious views on people. Which religion are they pushing on people, and where are they forcing them to not practise their religion ANYWHERE in the country? You wouldn't get a job cutting up pigs if your religion forbids it, so would the butchers be discriminating against religion? Tell me, if a muslim butcher worked at a company that does not handle pigs, and suddenly they switched to pork, would you forbid the company from doing so because it's against the employees religion?

In fact, it's more than that. You're denying people TRUE equality. You can't make a parallel distinction and say it's the same. Paradigms will shift, especially with conservative nutjobs in power, and once again, married couples would have more rights than civil unions, and we'd start all over again.

You call my argument dead, yet it sounds like you're scrambling to defend the right to classify, even if the benefits are equal.


Ummm that mix-up was one of the cornerstones of your argument. If Marriage is not a right then how are gays entitled to it, why if its not a right did the definition need to be changed?

Umm the Government forcing pastor's to marry gay couples and civil servents is a view being forced on them. Marrying only straight couples is practicing their religion and forcing them to go against their beliefs and marry gay couples is persecution and forcing the Government's view on the pastors and civil servents. You also make a good point.

"You wouldn't get a job cutting up pigs if your religion forbids it, so would the butchers be discriminating against religion? Tell me, if a muslim butcher worked at a company that does not handle pigs, and suddenly they switched to pork, would you forbid the company from doing so because it's against the employees religion?"

You see when most of these civil servents signed up for marriage liscenses and such gay marriage was not legal, marrying gays was not part of their job description. Would I forbid the company from switching the pigs? No however forcing that Muslim employee to cut up pigs against his religious belief with the threat of being fired if he did not, that is definatly not okay.

Its one thing to legalize gay marriage, but to then force that belief on everyone else in the country is persecution. I don't know how you can think its okay to walk up to a pastor or civil servent and then force them against their will to marry you. Like I said their are plenty of civil servents and pastors who would gladly marry a gay couple so why do the gays have to force other pastors.

It's cruel, its being a bad sport and its just plain wrong. I'm not the one grasping at straws here. I don't need to since my position is in line with the constitution of Canada, USA and Australia. Your the one who is using non-existant laws and making crap up to defend your position. I mean come on you called me uneducated for not knowing the Bill of rights and Declaration of rights for my own country, then turns out you made it all up and Marriage is not a right under any of our constitutions.

Your the one who needs to rethink his policies. The cornerstone of your argument marriage being a right is completely false! I'd say that in light of this your the one desperatly grasping at straws!



-JC7

"In God We Trust - In Games We Play " - Joel Reimer

 

Viper1 on 02 August 2011
fordy said:
Viper1 said:

Let's focus on the bold for a moment.  If their children do not deserve it, who does?   And why does one deserve something when someone else doesn't?   Further, if you take the inheritence and property away, then doesn't that make the child now poor and just as derserving of their share as anyone else?   Lastely, how do you auction off a mansion, a yacht, a business?   Esepecially if no one else is wealthy enough to afford it?   And say a poor family buys a mansion at auction and then sells it off immdiately for several million.  How did that balance things?   That was a tranfer of wealth from rich, to poor, to rich in very short time.

I want to bring something else in now.  Moral hazard.   You saw that the rich create work and then enjoy the fruits of the labor of their employees.  This is a moral hazard that breeds laziness and contempt to you.  But if people are given a balance of wealth, does that not also breed laziness?   Why strive to work hard if A) the government will take care of you anyway or B) your hard work gives very little to show for it?

As I mentioned before, it would not be a full distribution across society more an incentive for people to strive to become entrepreneurs. Ingenuity is stagnant at the moment because the good ideas are being shot down by the semi-good ideas with a lot of money behind them. The current wealthy don't want the best of ingenuity. They want small increments of technology that will promise a higher return, and then introduce the better technology at a later date to slug people again.

I didn't say it was getting evenly distributed. I said the comunity gets the earnings. From them on, what they decide to do with it is another argument altogether. I'd like to see it put up as incentive for ingenuity, promote competition of technologies and let the consumer decide.


Fordy, this thread has long since changed topic but if you'd like to continue, make a new thread starting with what I quoted above and we'll continue.



The rEVOLution is not being televised

fordy on 02 August 2011
Joelcool7 said:


Ummm that mix-up was one of the cornerstones of your argument. If Marriage is not a right then how are gays entitled to it, why if its not a right did the definition need to be changed?


I'll counter that. What gives the government the right to give benefits to a select group of the community? Would you be for government giving, for instance, Asians exclusive tax cuts? Marriage may not be a right, but being treated as equal is. Are you for a government that does one thing for one group and another for another group?

Joelcool7 said:

Umm the Government forcing pastor's to marry gay couples and civil servents is a view being forced on them. Marrying only straight couples is practicing their religion and forcing them to go against their beliefs and marry gay couples is persecution and forcing the Government's view on the pastors and civil servents. You also make a good point.

You'll find that most modern governments take a neutral stance on religion. They're damned either way because religious zealous claim Atheism as a religion, when in fact, atheists don't follow beliefs based on a higher power.

Joelcool7 said:

You see when most of these civil servents signed up for marriage liscenses and such gay marriage was not legal, marrying gays was not part of their job description. Would I forbid the company from switching the pigs? No however forcing that Muslim employee to cut up pigs against his religious belief with the threat of being fired if he did not, that is definatly not okay.

Then what would you do? You cannot switch him to other meats, the religion calls for no touching of surfaces stained with swine blood. A decision must be made...

Joelcool7 said:

Its one thing to legalize gay marriage, but to then force that belief on everyone else in the country is persecution. I don't know how you can think its okay to walk up to a pastor or civil servent and then force them against their will to marry you. Like I said their are plenty of civil servents and pastors who would gladly marry a gay couple so why do the gays have to force other pastors.

You're making it sound like pastors will be hunted down and pelted with rocks if they don't marry gays. Pastors have the freedom to choose their line of work. If the work does not suit them, they're free to leave and practise their religion elsewhere. Nobody is forcing anything onto anyone.

I would be okay with a few Pastors exempt from same-sex marriage, but unless you can guarantee that all Pastors don't turn in that direction (which you can't), then the exemption argument is completely moot.