PDA

View Full Version : Jan Brewer veto's AZ "anti-gay" bill


rearnakedchoke
02-27-2014, 07:44 PM
http://us.cnn.com/2014/02/26/politics/religious-freedom-states/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Arizona's anti-gay bill veto unlikely to end 'religious freedom' movement

(CNN) -- To Arizona's governor, a bill that would have allowed businesses to close their doors to gays and lesbians out of religious conviction was wrong for the state. So, she vetoed it.

The buck may have stopped with Gov. Jan Brewer in Arizona on Wednesday, but the fight to pass such laws bannered as religious freedom issues is still on in quite a few other states.

"Right behind it are Missouri and Georgia," said Jay Michaelson, a fellow at Political Research Associates, a progressive political think tank.

Brewer felt Senate Bill 1062 did not address specific dangers to religious freedom.

"It could divide Arizona in ways we cannot even imagine," said Brewer, who said she tuned out public pressure and made the decision she felt was right.

Attention now turns to the following states:

Georgia

The Preservation of Religious Freedom Act has been introduced into Georgia's legislature, and it is similar to the one vetoed in Arizona.

The measure, which is moving through the state House of Representatives, allows a private company to ignore state law that "directly or indirectly constrains, inhibits, curtails or denies" a person's religious beliefs.

An almost identical bill has been introduced in the state Senate.

Much like the Arizona measure, neither Georgia's House nor Senate bills specifically spell out gays or lesbians as the target of the bill.

Idaho

There are two bills being considered. HB 426 would protect people making decisions out of religious convictions -- including denying service to someone. HB 427 gives people protection against legal claims made against them in cases involving religious convictions.

If passed into law, the first bill probably would be vulnerable to constitutional legal challenges. Both bills could cause many disruptions to everyday life in the state, a state attorney general said in an article in the The Spokesman Review.

HB 427 has been sent back to committee.

Mississippi

A bill is being considered to legally protect people against being compelled to take any action against their religion. SB 2681 does not explicitly mention gays, lesbians or same-sex marriage. It has passed the Senate and was referred to House, where it is in a judiciary committee.

Missouri

A bill that requires the government to show a compelling interest in any attempt to restrict a person's right to practice religion was introduced this week by Republican state Sen. Wayne Wallingford.

SB 916 provides for additional civil protections to the state's existing "Religious Freedom Restoration Act," according to the senator.

But critics of the law say it's a way to discriminate against gays.

Ohio

The House introduced HB 376 in December. It also does not single out same-sex relations for discrimination but gives legal protection to individuals acting or making decisions out of religious conviction. It's currently in judiciary committee. Critics say it's aimed at discrimination against same-sex couples, knoxnews.com reported.

Oregon

The conservative Oregon Family Council is sponsoring a ballot measure -- the "Protect Religious Freedoms Initiative" -- that would allow private businesses to deny services that would support same-sex marriage.

The group, which previously supported the effort to ban same-sex marriage in the state, is pushing to get the measure on the November ballot.

South Dakota

Conservative senators introduced one bill that would allow businesses or people to deny "certain wedding services or goods due to the free exercise of religion." But its main sponsor withdrew it.

But there's a second one protecting "speech pertaining to views on sexual orientation." It has been deferred to a late legislative day.

There are also states where proposed bills have already hit a legislative wall:

Colorado

A bill that would have allowed people to defend against discrimination allegations on the basis of religious convictions was killed in committee, The Denver Post reported.

Kansas

State representatives introduced a bill in January that would have explicitly permitted religious business people and government workers to refuse serving same-sex couples. It passed the House, with a vote of 72 to 49, but failed in the Republican-dominated Senate.

Maine

A conservative senator introduced a religious freedom bill that would have protected people making decisions out of religious convictions that other legislators felt interfered with other people's civil rights. The state Senate and House both voted it down, the Bangor Daily News reported.

Tennessee

Tennessee legislators introduced a bill in early February that proponents said would protect businesses if they refused services to gays and lesbians. Critics called it the "Turn the Gays Away" bill.

The measure has been withdrawn from committee, CNN affiliate WSMV reported.

Utah

Conservative state Sen. Stuart Reid introduced a bill similar to the Arizona bill that was vetoed, but it has since been shelved, The Salt Lake Tribune reported.

Bonnie
02-28-2014, 11:46 PM
No big surprise that a lot of news outlets used "anti-gay" to describe the bill instead of "exercise of religion". The bill seems to stipulate that the person(s) claiming "exercise of religion" would have to prove themselves before a court so what's the problem? Once again, the very ones always decrying intolerance are the ones most guilty of it.

http://www.azcentral.com/ic/pdf/SB-1062-bill.pdf

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SB 1062 / HB 2153
exercise of religion; state action.
Sponsors: Senators Yarbrough: Barto, Worsley

W/D Committee on Judiciary

DPA Committee on Government

DPA Caucus and COW

X As Transmitted to Governor

OVERVIEW
HB 2153 revises the definition of exercise of religion and person and extends the prohibition on substantially burdening a person’s exercise of religion to applications of the law by nongovernmental persons.

HISTORY
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The latter portion of the provision is known as the Free Exercise Clause. In 1990, Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which instructed courts to apply strict scrutiny when government substantially burdens a person’s exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a law of general applicability. However, the United States Supreme Court has since held that the federal RFRA may not be extended to the states and local governments (City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997)).

In response to City of Boerne v. Flores, Arizona enacted state-level protection from the government substantially burdening the free exercise of religion using the strict scrutiny compelling interest test (Laws 1999, Chapter 332). Accordingly, government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person is both in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest (A.R.S. § 41-1493.01). Exercise of religion is defined as the ability to act or refusal to act in a manner substantially motivated by a religious belief, whether or not the exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief (A.R.S. § 41-1493).

PROVISIONS
• Expands the definition of exercise of religion by including the practice and observance of religion.

• Expands the definition of person to include any individual, association, partnership, corporation, church, or other business entity.

• Modifies, from government to state action, the prohibition on burdening a person’s exercise of religion, except under certain circumstances.

• Clarifies that the government or a nongovernmental person enforcing state action must demonstrate that the application of the burden to the person’s exercise of religion is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling governmental interest.

• Maintains that a person whose religious exercise is burdened in violation of this Act may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and specifies that this applies regardless of whether the government is a party to the proceeding.

• Stipulates that a person that asserts a violation of this Act must establish the following:
 The person’s action or refusal to act is motivated by a religious belief;
 The person’s religious belief is sincerely held; and
 The state action substantially burdens the exercise of the person’s religious beliefs.

• Allows a person asserting a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding, whose religious exercise is burdened, to receive injunctive and declaratory relief.

• Prescribes the definition of state action to include government action and the application of any law by a nongovernmental person and specifies that the requirements in statute relating to professional or occupational licenses and appointments to government offices are not included in the definition of state action.

• Makes technical and conforming changes.

Fifty-first Legislature
Second Regular Session 2
February 24, 2014

NateR
03-01-2014, 03:37 PM
Owners of private businesses should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason at any time. The government should have no say in that at all.

Calling the protection of religious liberties "anti-gay" is like calling Liberalism "anti-freedom". Except in the case of Liberalism it's actually true.

Bonnie
03-01-2014, 08:27 PM
Owners of private businesses should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason at any time. The government should have no say in that at all.

Calling the protection of religious liberties "anti-gay" is like calling Liberalism "anti-freedom". Except in the case of Liberalism it's actually true.

Article explaining how this bill came about (use link to see full article):

http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2014/02/arizonas-religious-freedom-or-discrimination-debate-defined/

...Republican lawmakers in Arizona decided to pursue SB 1062 after a court in neighboring New Mexico last year decided that a photographer who refused to document a same-sex couple’s commitment ceremony had violated New Mexico’s public accommodations laws.

...The Arizona lawmakers saw the New Mexico case as a call to action to propose Arizona’s own expanded version of a Religious Freedom Restoration Act, also known as RFRA. If the acronym RFRA seems familiar, it is at the heart of two high-profile cases in front of the Supreme Court in March about the contraception mandate and the Affordable Care Act (also known as Obamacare).

And here's a link to an article talking about the New Mexico case mentioned above. I quoted the very end of the article (link for full article):

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/19/us/weighing-free-speech-in-refusal-to-photograph-ceremony.html

The court agreed, to a point. “If Elane Photography took photographs on its own time and sold them at a gallery,” it said, then it could say what it liked, but a business open to the public must take all comers.

Justice Richard C. Bosson concurred with the majority opinion, but uneasily.

“The Huguenins are not trying to prohibit anyone from marrying,” he wrote. “They only want to be left alone to conduct their photography business in a manner consistent with their moral convictions.” Instead, they “are compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives.”

“Though the rule of law requires it,” Justice Bosson wrote, “the result is sobering.”

rearnakedchoke
03-07-2014, 02:09 PM
Owners of private businesses should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason at any time. The government should have no say in that at all.

Calling the protection of religious liberties "anti-gay" is like calling Liberalism "anti-freedom". Except in the case of Liberalism it's actually true.

that would be fun!!!!! the discrimination would be a beautiful thing to watch!


all in all, i don't see an issue with this ... i think if the bills state more that "religious institutes" have a right to express religious freedom, that is one thing, but businesses should be left out of the bill imo

NateR
03-08-2014, 11:52 PM
that would be fun!!!!! the discrimination would be a beautiful thing to watch!


all in all, i don't see an issue with this ... i think if the bills state more that "religious institutes" have a right to express religious freedom, that is one thing, but businesses should be left out of the bill imo

So, you assume that all Americans are racist bigots and just looking for any excuse to discriminate against somebody? :rolleyes: That's pretty narrow-minded of you and insulting to anyone who is an American.

Right now it's the militant Gay Rights activists that are being the most intolerant and discriminatory in this situation. They are the ones that are saying that you are only allowed to have an opinion that they personally agree with and if you disagree with them, then you should be treated like a criminal. Those are not the values that America was founded on. They may be the values that Canada was founded on, though, I don't really know anything about your country.

Ideally in America, privately owned businesses should be able to enjoy all of the rights and freedoms of private citizens, since it is private citizens who start up and run those privately owned businesses. The government has no right to force those citizens to violate their own conscience just because their views might be unpopular. If a business owner is seen as discriminating against somebody and people in that area want to peacefully protest or boycott that business, that's completely within their rights as private citizens. But the government should never step in and threaten somebody just because they don't want to serve a specific customer. Basically, it's none of the government's business.

This notion that you need to be a religious organization to operate based on religious principles is absolute stupidity and is not one of the principles that America was founded upon.

rearnakedchoke
03-10-2014, 02:27 PM
So, you assume that all Americans are racist bigots and just looking for any excuse to discriminate against somebody? :rolleyes: That's pretty narrow-minded of you and insulting to anyone who is an American.
Right now it's the militant Gay Rights activists that are being the most intolerant and discriminatory in this situation. They are the ones that are saying that you are only allowed to have an opinion that they personally agree with and if you disagree with them, then you should be treated like a criminal. Those are not the values that America was founded on. They may be the values that Canada was founded on, though, I don't really know anything about your country.

Ideally in America, privately owned businesses should be able to enjoy all of the rights and freedoms of private citizens, since it is private citizens who start up and run those privately owned businesses. The government has no right to force those citizens to violate their own conscience just because their views might be unpopular. If a business owner is seen as discriminating against somebody and people in that area want to peacefully protest or boycott that business, that's completely within their rights as private citizens. But the government should never step in and threaten somebody just because they don't want to serve a specific customer. Basically, it's none of the government's business.

This notion that you need to be a religious organization to operate based on religious principles is absolute stupidity and is not one of the principles that America was founded upon.

the games you play on here are hilarious .. really .. when did i say that all amercans are bigots??? and if you don't think if business owners had the right to refuse businness to anyone for any reason there wouldn't be a rise in "discrimination" claims? if you don't think there would be, than you have either lived a sheltered life (but, you were in the military and have been to many countries ..lol, i know, i know) or are just blind .. most places would have a rise in discrimination if their bigotry was free to run wild ...

and you keep talking about the principles the country was founded on and the founding fathers .. i honestly think you deify them more than the bible itself.. like what they said is infallible ... times change and countries adapt to these changes ... i can understand your stance on the bible being absolute truth, but the US constitution is not a document without fault .. it was put together by people who were not perfect

so now you can reply and say how my post is so stupid, and i don't know what im talking about ..

NateR
03-10-2014, 08:47 PM
i don't know what im talking about ..

I don't need to, you already said it for me. :Whistle:

Businesses in America already have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. The Gay Rights movement simply wants to take away that right.

They're basically trying take away people's freedom to disagree with them and their lifestyle choices. The Gay Rights movement is not interested in advancing freedom, it's only interested in destroying it.

and you keep talking about the principles the country was founded on and the founding fathers .. times change and countries adapt to these changes ...

You're obviously approaching this debate from a progressive mindset and that's where we differ; so we're probably never going to see eye to eye on these issues.

(but, you were in the military and have been to many countries ..lol, i know, i know)

I've seen enough outside of the US to know that there are many other countries that are much more intolerant towards diversity than America is; but it's only America that seems to get criticized for being intolerant.

Probably because America usually works out its civil rights issues publicly for the whole world to see; so we make ourselves an easy target. It's like being in a room full of alcoholics, but only one guy is willing to admit that he has a problem with alcohol and so he gets constantly criticized by the other alcoholics, even though they all have the exact same drinking problem.

Tyburn
04-20-2014, 01:05 PM
Probably because America usually works out its civil rights issues publicly for the whole world to see; so we make ourselves an easy target. It's like being in a room full of alcoholics, but only one guy is willing to admit that he has a problem with alcohol and so he gets constantly criticized by the other alcoholics, even though they all have the exact same drinking problem.

You only have yourselves to blame for that one. :laugh:

If I could write a book called "Sins of America" this would be the preface. Try to understand...I am not "anti-american" but I AM Anti the Federal Union...because as far as im concerned, that is NOT what America is supposed to be. Hopefully, some of you will aggree with me on that one. George Washington was under the Crown for a long time, and his thoughts on the ideal of America, and the American Constitution pretty much went out of the window with Abraham Lincoln...as the Union gets larger, its corruption filters down into some major private companies, because of a mutual capitalistic benefit, which is now completely without the basis in the CHRISTIAN work ethic. Combined, they have led America, during its days as a Super-power Circa 1945-2020 estimated end to have made so most grave errors. I want to distinguish here between Americans as the Populas of people...and America as a Big Government that has forced these sins upon its own people by virtue of ignoring the good, for the gains of corruption. However, it also appears to me that many americans outside of the political system have grown up in a Lincolnian world, and need to be educated about how the Government they believe is essentially Holy...is most definately not, and thus I would write it to the American people and not to the Federal Government, in the hope that exposing what the Government, and by default, the people who believe in that Government have become, they may see it for what it is, and be motivated to change their views. I also place the mantle of International Law above Constitutional law, since it was primarily created by the Americans as a law to govern inter-state discourse outside of the Union. Analysis of how some of Americas issues have been caused by following the Constitution AGAINST international law are tricky subjects, and I have not gone into detail...but where these two do collide I usually provide some method of absolution via detailed discussion (but that wouldnt be in a preface now would it :laugh: )

Preface, a word to the American Populas who holds as sacred the Federal Government of the United States of the American Republics, since the conclusion of the American Civil War, and focussing on the years in which Continental America has been classified as a Super-Power

America is the powerhouse that she is because she claimed neutrality until directly threatened during the second world war. In which, she aided her allied forces who lost a hell of a lot more then she did...and then had the nerve to ask them to financially recompense her with interest!

Try to understand that all the other major world powers, except, maybe you could argue the Russians (but lets be honnest...it was only the elite few in Russia) had ANYTHING left.

Because your country REFUSED to fight for Freedom and Tollerance, because your country REFUSED to do the correct thing, Because your country REFUSED to help its friends, the rest of the world suffered.

England basically lost its entire Empire due to the inaction of America...and before you blame your President...consider...it wasnt the President who was against Action...it was your Congress...the SAME institution that will politically point score against itself at the expense of many of its workers, as prooved when it shuts down, like it did last Fall.

The difference between America and the rest of the intollerant world is that generally, we do not pretend to be something that we are not. Our systems are flawed and we know it...but the United States believes in itself far, far too much

Do you realize that had the Americans actually joined in the War when Hitler began marching across Europe, potentially the War could have been over before the main damage to England and France was done...Imagine...would you ever forgive us if we chose to stay silent whilst Chicago or New York were completely, and I dont just mean a single building, like the World Trade Centre...I mean the whole, whole of Manhatten, and the surrounding suberbs were smushed beyond recognition in a SIXTY DAY continuous air bombardment...would the Americans ever forgive us?? What about the Jews...? Have you considered the fact that had the United States joined the campaign earlier millions might have been saved from the concentration camps...because if the end of the war shows anything...it is that once the Americans finally decided to bother helping the rest of the world, it was over quickly and decisively...imagine a world where some of these concentration camps hadnt even finished being built by the time the lands were under American/British/Russian rule.

Who is responsible for the European Union being headed by Germany...? Ask yourself how the two time loooser of the two biggest wars last century is leading Europe by the 1980s....you might not be suprised to discover...its due to the Americans once again...the reason Germany is so rich is because it was rebuilt and reinvested in the most by the Americans after the war...Angela Merkel runs a larger Germanic Utopia in practise then Hitler dreamed in principle...and we havent marked the Centenary of Adolfs attempt yet.

Finally...consider the news of the last decade...the early point, dominated by a War which was unsanctioned, arguably did as much harm as good, and distroyed the foundation of the institution that America set up to stop any country acting like the Nazi Regieme...that is to say, invasion because they want to invade. America did that aswell...or we could perhaps consider what occured in the later part of the decade...where because America doesnt keep an eye on her own corrupt capitalistic citizens...you had an American Bank practically distroy the banking system of the entire western world in less then a week...and still half the americans, were saying to hell with the rest of the world, stop a Government bail out.

You wonder why you've been a super-power for less then a century and you're about to be eclipsed by the Orient...in a few years time you wont be airing your laundry so much because you wont be in the position you are now in. Your own President cant even manage to stick to the constitution...and still he gets ellected for a second term in office...why? coz he can speak...that is all he can do...that is how far you have fallen from the 1770s

There is only one country who has used weapons of mass destruction against another country, and in so doing, destroyed two entire cities full of civilians (so we're told at a lesser cost then the value of life for any other way of beating Japan...but I'm not sure the resident of Hiroshima would take any comfort in that)

So before you get all self righteous and chant the usual blah about America being sooo much better then everyone else...consider swallowing the pomposity of all your patriotic pride, and admitting that as far as the last 70 years goes...Americas record is as tarnished as almost anywhere else on the planet (except maybe Cambodia) and consider that the reason you are in full view of the world, is because your country sat on her hands until she was the only one left...the way you became a super-power is the best testimony for how your country has abandoned its constitution, and ceased to anything like the Washingtonian Vision of the 1770s...its a good job he's not here now...he would probably be heart broken...and if you do have to blame one man, personally...blame President Lincoln...coz thats where your country effectively abandoned the constitution by prioritizing the Union ahead of it....Washington put Ethos ahead of Government...Lincoln put Government ahead of Ethos, what he did is missed by most Americans...its why they effectively class him as a Martyre, that, and no doubt the teachings of the Government who are eternally grateful to the man for effectively giving them free reign over you all.

Neezar
04-21-2014, 01:49 PM
Well. This is going well.

NateR
04-22-2014, 03:01 PM
If I could write a book called "Sins of America" this would be the preface.

Maybe you should start by writing a book called "Sins of Great Britain", but then you'd never be able to fit everything into just one book.

Bonnie
04-22-2014, 05:07 PM
Well. This is going well.

:laugh:

Bonnie
04-22-2014, 06:57 PM
You only have yourselves to blame for that one. :laugh:

If I could write a book called "Sins of America" this would be the preface. Try to understand...I am not "anti-american" but I AM Anti the Federal Union...because as far as im concerned, that is NOT what America is supposed to be. Hopefully, some of you will aggree with me on that one. George Washington was under the Crown for a long time, and his thoughts on the ideal of America, and the American Constitution pretty much went out of the window with Abraham Lincoln...as the Union gets larger, its corruption filters down into some major private companies, because of a mutual capitalistic benefit, which is now completely without the basis in the CHRISTIAN work ethic. Combined, they have led America, during its days as a Super-power Circa 1945-2020 estimated end to have made so most grave errors. I want to distinguish here between Americans as the Populas of people...and America as a Big Government that has forced these sins upon its own people by virtue of ignoring the good, for the gains of corruption. However, it also appears to me that many americans outside of the political system have grown up in a Lincolnian world, and need to be educated about how the Government they believe is essentially Holy...is most definately not, and thus I would write it to the American people and not to the Federal Government, in the hope that exposing what the Government, and by default, the people who believe in that Government have become, they may see it for what it is, and be motivated to change their views. I also place the mantle of International Law above Constitutional law, since it was primarily created by the Americans as a law to govern inter-state discourse outside of the Union. Analysis of how some of Americas issues have been caused by following the Constitution AGAINST international law are tricky subjects, and I have not gone into detail...but where these two do collide I usually provide some method of absolution via detailed discussion (but that wouldnt be in a preface now would it :laugh: )

Preface, a word to the American Populas who holds as sacred the Federal Government of the United States of the American Republics, since the conclusion of the American Civil War, and focussing on the years in which Continental America has been classified as a Super-Power

America is the powerhouse that she is because she claimed neutrality until directly threatened during the second world war. In which, she aided her allied forces who lost a hell of a lot more then she did...and then had the nerve to ask them to financially recompense her with interest!

Try to understand that all the other major world powers, except, maybe you could argue the Russians (but lets be honnest...it was only the elite few in Russia) had ANYTHING left.

Because your country REFUSED to fight for Freedom and Tollerance, because your country REFUSED to do the correct thing, Because your country REFUSED to help its friends, the rest of the world suffered.

England basically lost its entire Empire due to the inaction of America...and before you blame your President...consider...it wasnt the President who was against Action...it was your Congress...the SAME institution that will politically point score against itself at the expense of many of its workers, as prooved when it shuts down, like it did last Fall.

The difference between America and the rest of the intollerant world is that generally, we do not pretend to be something that we are not. Our systems are flawed and we know it...but the United States believes in itself far, far too much

Do you realize that had the Americans actually joined in the War when Hitler began marching across Europe, potentially the War could have been over before the main damage to England and France was done...Imagine...would you ever forgive us if we chose to stay silent whilst Chicago or New York were completely, and I dont just mean a single building, like the World Trade Centre...I mean the whole, whole of Manhatten, and the surrounding suberbs were smushed beyond recognition in a SIXTY DAY continuous air bombardment...would the Americans ever forgive us?? What about the Jews...? Have you considered the fact that had the United States joined the campaign earlier millions might have been saved from the concentration camps...because if the end of the war shows anything...it is that once the Americans finally decided to bother helping the rest of the world, it was over quickly and decisively...imagine a world where some of these concentration camps hadnt even finished being built by the time the lands were under American/British/Russian rule.

Who is responsible for the European Union being headed by Germany...? Ask yourself how the two time loooser of the two biggest wars last century is leading Europe by the 1980s....you might not be suprised to discover...its due to the Americans once again...the reason Germany is so rich is because it was rebuilt and reinvested in the most by the Americans after the war...Angela Merkel runs a larger Germanic Utopia in practise then Hitler dreamed in principle...and we havent marked the Centenary of Adolfs attempt yet.

Finally...consider the news of the last decade...the early point, dominated by a War which was unsanctioned, arguably did as much harm as good, and distroyed the foundation of the institution that America set up to stop any country acting like the Nazi Regieme...that is to say, invasion because they want to invade. America did that aswell...or we could perhaps consider what occured in the later part of the decade...where because America doesnt keep an eye on her own corrupt capitalistic citizens...you had an American Bank practically distroy the banking system of the entire western world in less then a week...and still half the americans, were saying to hell with the rest of the world, stop a Government bail out.

You wonder why you've been a super-power for less then a century and you're about to be eclipsed by the Orient...in a few years time you wont be airing your laundry so much because you wont be in the position you are now in. Your own President cant even manage to stick to the constitution...and still he gets ellected for a second term in office...why? coz he can speak...that is all he can do...that is how far you have fallen from the 1770s

There is only one country who has used weapons of mass destruction against another country, and in so doing, destroyed two entire cities full of civilians (so we're told at a lesser cost then the value of life for any other way of beating Japan...but I'm not sure the resident of Hiroshima would take any comfort in that)

So before you get all self righteous and chant the usual blah about America being sooo much better then everyone else...consider swallowing the pomposity of all your patriotic pride, and admitting that as far as the last 70 years goes...Americas record is as tarnished as almost anywhere else on the planet (except maybe Cambodia) and consider that the reason you are in full view of the world, is because your country sat on her hands until she was the only one left...the way you became a super-power is the best testimony for how your country has abandoned its constitution, and ceased to anything like the Washingtonian Vision of the 1770s...its a good job he's not here now...he would probably be heart broken...and if you do have to blame one man, personally...blame President Lincoln...coz thats where your country effectively abandoned the constitution by prioritizing the Union ahead of it....Washington put Ethos ahead of Government...Lincoln put Government ahead of Ethos, what he did is missed by most Americans...its why they effectively class him as a Martyre, that, and no doubt the teachings of the Government who are eternally grateful to the man for effectively giving them free reign over you all.

Well, if we are going to point fingers about Hitler and the horrors he committed, why don't we start with British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, who signed the Munich Agreement in 1938.

Chamberlain is best known for his appeasement foreign policy, and in particular for his signing of the Munich Agreement in 1938, conceding the German-populated Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia to Germany. However when Adolf Hitler continued his aggression by invading Poland, Britain declared war on Germany on 3 September 1939, and Chamberlain led Britain through the first eight months of World War II.

When Stanley Baldwin retired in May 1937, Chamberlain took his place as Prime Minister. His premiership was dominated by the question of policy toward the increasingly aggressive Germany, and his actions at Munich were widely popular among Britons at the time. When Hitler continued his aggression, Chamberlain pledged Britain to defend Poland's independence if the latter were attacked, an alliance that brought Britain into war when Germany attacked Poland in 1939.

As for our "pomposity and pride", where do you think we got that from...our British roots! :tongue0011: :laugh: Don't blame us, we can't help where we came from! :laugh:

rearnakedchoke
04-22-2014, 07:46 PM
jeez dave, where did that come from?

Chuck
04-24-2014, 10:46 PM
jeez dave, where did that come from?

Normally the one that talks the loudest has the fewest people listening. That's Dave in a nutshell.

I guess I just don't understand why a Brit cares so much about America or worse yet who anybody on this forum would give a rats ass what a Brit thinks about our country. It's easier for Dave to trash America than it is to learn Arabic because the way HIS country is headed that will be his only option in the not too distant future.

Tyburn
04-25-2014, 07:34 PM
1)Well, if we are going to point fingers about Hitler and the horrors he committed, why don't we start with British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, who signed the Munich Agreement in 1938.



2)As for our "pomposity and pride", where do you think we got that from...our British roots! :tongue0011: :laugh: Don't blame us, we can't help where we came from! :laugh:

2) The reason why I most love America is because thats exactly the case, both historically, and in reality. What you have with America, and some of it still survives beyond the civil war, and despite the Federal Government...is a snap shot of British Culture circa 1760s-1780s...in actual fact, If the British looked closer at America, they would find that American Culture isnt Foreign...the fact it feels foreign is not a testament to their radical nature...but a glimpse on how far England has fallen.

I love America, because she is everything we once were and arent any more. I look at her and I see what the culture in England might have been, in an age where we rulled the world, and in an age where we had no fear neither, in an age where we had an identity, in an age where we also had things, ethos, statutes, people, we held sacred and with reverence. In days when things mattered, and people could be persuaded to actually be passionate about ANYTHING.

I dislike the Federal Government because it is slowly distroying the vision of America, and erroding that snap shot. The Big Government, is sliding towards Centrism, its like watching America age...and I know her destination because I live in it every single day :unsure-1:

1) Ah yes... "peace in our time" what an utter load of bollox that was....England probably waited far to long before going to war in the first place...They certainly didnt move fast enough against the home grown movement...Even high society was full of Nationalistic groups which undermined the Churchill Cabinate for at least half the war....But I dont mind admitting that...Heavens...about half the problems in the world, are historically the result of the British Empire

Tyburn
04-25-2014, 07:45 PM
Maybe you should start by writing a book called "Sins of Great Britain", but then you'd never be able to fit everything into just one book.

:laugh: Well Great Britain hasnt really done that much it inherited seeds that were planted WELL before the Union was founded...the same one the Scots are probably going to distroy this year :rolleyes:

I would go back a lot further....I would begin with the Reign of King John...I would ask the question...What can we learn from the fact that in the 1700s the American Collonies submitted a statement which was nearly identical to a Statement submitted to the Monarchy in the 1200s....and ask why five hundred years later, the SAME problems are still persisting enough to cause a revolt.

I would want to write about what they did in their explorations of North America, I would want to write about their African Slave Trade, I would want to write about their Plantations and why many conflicts now are in areas where those plantations were unsuccessful. I would want to ask why the Parliamentarians think that they can change their side of the Act of Settlement...but the Royalists may not be allowed to change their side...I would want to ask why the British ever permitted The Glorious Revolution...infact I would want to know why they appealed to William of Orange in the first place.

Then I would want to do a very similar thing to what Cromwell did after his attempt at starting a Republic backfired...because, just like with the Magna Carta, and the Dec of Independance...the list that Cromwell gives for abolishing the Parliament is almost the same as the list that I, and most people I know, believe the British Government is guilty of right now.

I could write ten times more regarding England...particularly what it has now become :sad:

Bonnie
04-25-2014, 11:12 PM
2) The reason why I most love America is because thats exactly the case, both historically, and in reality. What you have with America, and some of it still survives beyond the civil war, and despite the Federal Government...is a snap shot of British Culture circa 1760s-1780s...in actual fact, If the British looked closer at America, they would find that American Culture isnt Foreign...the fact it feels foreign is not a testament to their radical nature...but a glimpse on how far England has fallen.

I love America, because she is everything we once were and arent any more. I look at her and I see what the culture in England might have been, in an age where we rulled the world, and in an age where we had no fear neither, in an age where we had an identity, in an age where we also had things, ethos, statutes, people, we held sacred and with reverence. In days when things mattered, and people could be persuaded to actually be passionate about ANYTHING.

I dislike the Federal Government because it is slowly distroying the vision of America, and erroding that snap shot. The Big Government, is sliding towards Centrism, its like watching America age...and I know her destination because I live in it every single day :unsure-1:

1) Ah yes... "peace in our time" what an utter load of bollox that was....England probably waited far to long before going to war in the first place...They certainly didnt move fast enough against the home grown movement...Even high society was full of Nationalistic groups which undermined the Churchill Cabinate for at least half the war....But I dont mind admitting that...Heavens...about half the problems in the world, are historically the result of the British Empire

I know you do, Dave. :)

It still is a load of bollox! But, history seems to be repeating itself with our current President and his policy of appeasement. If Putin were at our door step, Obama would be threatening him with sanctions. :rolleyes: Our super power status has definitely been diminished in the eyes of the world, but then, that seems to be the goal. :wink:

Tyburn
04-26-2014, 03:04 PM
I know you do, Dave. :)

It still is a load of bollox! But, history seems to be repeating itself with our current President and his policy of appeasement. If Putin were at our door step, Obama would be threatening him with sanctions. :rolleyes: Our super power status has definitely been diminished in the eyes of the world, but then, that seems to be the goal. :wink:

I dont know how Vlad gets away with it, time and again...I really dont!



I always use the below as a rough guide to super-powers.

Ancient and Founding Empires

Indus (the site of predeluge civilization)
Mesopotamia
Egypt
Minoa (Santorini and Biblical Exodus chronology)
Mycenae
Akkaddia
Babylonia (destruction of First JewishTemple)
Persia
Macedonia (Alexander The Great)
Assyria
Armenia

Classical and Second Generation Empires

Dynastic China
The Union of Greek City States
Cathage
Holy Roman Empire (Destruction of Second Jewish Temple)
Maya

Medieval and Third Generation Empires

Byzantia (Establishement of Constantinople)
Papal States (Christondom)
Abysinia
Micronesia
Viking/Dane/Norman (Unification of Monarchy in England)
Caliphate/Sultinate/Ayyubid (Crusades and Islamic Rise)

Modern Globals and Fourth Generation Empires

Aztec
Inca
Monghol
Ottoman (The Turks and Fall of Constantinople)
Spain (Destruction of Meso-America)
Portugal
Dutch
Britannica
Russia
Old Europe

Post-Modern and Fifth Generation Empires

The Germanic Weimar and Reich
Austria-Hungary
The United Nations
Soviet Communism
Coorperate Capitalistic Consumerism (Growth of the Multi-National companies)
The Republic and Federal Union of the United States of America (re-establishment of Israel)

Future additions to the list could be

The European Union
The Peoples Republic of China

Bonnie
04-27-2014, 12:58 AM
I dont know how Vlad gets away with it, time and again...I really dont!

I did not realize how many countries rely on Russia for oil and gas, that's one reason he's getting away with the crap he's pulling. The other, is, in my opinion, Obama's retreat from the rest of the world. Plus, no one seems to have any vested interest in Ukraine so they're not motivated to jump to their aide to help them keep Putin from taking whatever he wants. Isn't this exactly what Hitler did in his quest to take over the world and make Germany all powerful.



I always use the below as a rough guide to super-powers.

Post-Modern and Fifth Generation Empires

The Germanic Weimar and Reich
Austria-Hungary
The United Nations
Soviet Communism
Coorperate Capitalistic Consumerism (Growth of the Multi-National companies)
The Republic and Federal Union of the United States of America (re-establishment of Israel)



The United Nations? Please explain that one! I don't know why they even exist, they are useless and pathetic!

For example, their latest inexplicable decision:

Iran gains prominence at UN despite human rights record

By Jonathan Wachtel · Published April 24, 2014

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/04/24/iran-gains-prominence-at-un/

Despite their human rights records, the United Nations has elected the Islamic Republic of Iran, Cuba, Sudan and several other repressive regimes to influential committees charged with promoting human rights.

Human rights activists see this as a major setback in their campaign to end abuse and to create open and healthy societies.

The Economic and Social Council, a U.N. body based in New York, elected Iran to a four-year term on its Commission on the Status of Women, the world’s top intergovernmental organization dedicated to promoting women’s rights. Tehran also won a seat on the 19-nation Committee on NGOs (non-government organizations), a position that enables Tehran to champion and silence human rights organizations, depending on their views.

rearnakedchoke
04-28-2014, 09:02 PM
I did not realize how many countries rely on Russia for oil and gas, that's one reason he's getting away with the crap he's pulling. The other, is, in my opinion, Obama's retreat from the rest of the world. Plus, no one seems to have any vested interest in Ukraine so they're not motivated to jump to their aide to help them keep Putin from taking whatever he wants. Isn't this exactly what Hitler did in his quest to take over the world and make Germany all powerful.





The United Nations? Please explain that one! I don't know why they even exist, they are useless and pathetic!

For example, their latest inexplicable decision:

what would you suggest obama do? invade russia? i think his sanctions right now are fine ... lets see who you vote for in 2016 .. if rand paul gets the nomination, will you vote for him based on his stance on foreign policy?

Tyburn
04-28-2014, 09:46 PM
The United Nations? Please explain that one! I don't know why they even exist, they are useless and pathetic!



At the end of the first world war several Governments got together, to create, essentially, a house of representatives, from Old Europe. Their mission was to club together to prevent unilateral war, empire building, and to punish those who dissobeyed the view of the many representatives in a dipolmatic vote.

The problem was, it had no armed force, and so couldnt enforce anything...when Adolf wanted to invade, he simply ignored them.

The United Nations was the Mark Two version after the second world war. It was the brain child of an American President on the conclusion of the second world war, its mission, as ever, was to act as an international peace keeping force...they allowed member states to join an assembly, (once again, a house of representatives, where people from each member state could vote) but the key difference was that the Great Powers...those who had won the second world war, got special induction into a Council where each member could pull a veto. Those were England, France, America, Russia, and China...Unfortunately, as soon as these induction were done...Russia and America effectively went to war...which created the obvious problem with playing the Veto card in the security council.

In time the United Nations also decided that as well as being peace keepers, they ought to also promote development, provide aid, and monitor health on a world wide level. These subsiduries are mainly monitoring or emergency funds rather then anything geopolitical...the United Nations also created its own morality and court, so that State Leaders could be prosecuted on an international level...something the European Union has also tried to do within the European Membership...and I gotta tell you...the European court of human rights is a load of bollox...dear GOD...if we listened to them we would be letting all our criminals vote in general ellections...and allowing any criminal to go free if to deport them might make life unpleasent for them in their own country...I am FFS...thats not Justice!

Now in theory, the United Nations doesnt really have an armed force, it uses peace keeping troops from member states, but it works closely with NATO...the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation...which for all intense and purposes is now the effective military wing of the United Nations. Again, the American forces basically helpped set this up...and whilst it was supposed to be a band of friendly states who would defend each other in the case of an attack on anyone of their members...it was threatening towards the Russians

The Russians east of Germany installed puppet governments in the area they had invaded to reach berlin in the close of the war. They never retreated back to their original boarders...instead, the Governments of those nations under Russia created the exact same packt between themselves...the Warsaw packt...so that it was NATO (America) Vs Warsaw (Russia) and those were the stand off viechals of the cold war right there...eventually the USSR collapsed, and obviously the puppet governments were overthrown, and the break away eastern block became self governing...that has always upset russia...so she makes plays for various portions that she owned between second world war and cold war everysooften...as well as cutting off their supplies if they agree with the West

NATO did not break up...it still exists, but it mainly sides with the United Nations now, since its original threat, ceases to exist when the cold war ends.

NOW you see why the Europeans and the rest of the world were so shocked at what the US did in 2003. Here was a major power, a member of the security council, the country who invented this body to keep the peace and stop rouge nations acting as they wanted with consent of the majority....and you know...America paid no attention to them at all....talk about "do as I say and not as I do" That effectively distroyed the UN...although it continues...its now obviously just a case of goodwill...the Americans prooved that its worthless when they refused to follow their own created rules...for some reason President Bush believed the rules that his Country set up for international world peace did not apply to him. In so doing...he acted just like a rouge nation...he ignored the general consensus and Just like Adolf with the League of Nations...he ignored the United Nations, and off the Americans went regardless of the rest of us....now...Sure, the Americans stopped after Iraq...but they didnt need to...the UN would have been powerless to stop them, had they wished to invade the entire middle east....so the point they chose to stop is mute...by violating that code, they prooved that they dont give a toss about anyone else...

...and yet they expect everyone else to live by those rules. So when Iran comes along and wants to develope nuclear weapons...and the rest of the world say, absolutely not...give me one good reason why Iran should pay any attention whatsoever?? Do the Americans listen to the UN? No...so why is it one rule for one State and another rule for another state...that is now the fundemental issue that the rest of the world have had politically speaking with America, ever since 2003

They say that she invents rules, but wont follow them herself, and then attacks those who like her, choose not to follow the rules...you see...if your justice involves undermining the very law that justice is based on, you must, logically see that you have also become a criminal by your own standard...and thats why the huge coillition that supported the Afghanistan War, abandoned America over Iraq

Now...credit for Bush in staying in once he's gone in...and there are many other reasons besides WMD as to why he might have done what he did, many of which the Americans couldnt admit to...like, invading before a powerful Iran decided to invade...and dont think that America is alone in this...One European Government is possibly even more to blame then the American about the Veto in the UN, and about the lengths to which it would go to, in order to preserve the faulty premise for war, because the real reason couldnt be uncovered, however valid it was...if you dont know what I'm talking about here research Dr David Kelly...and get back to me :ninja:

Bonnie
04-29-2014, 06:45 PM
what would you suggest obama do? invade russia? i think his sanctions right now are fine ... lets see who you vote for in 2016 .. if rand paul gets the nomination, will you vote for him based on his stance on foreign policy?

I KNEW you were going to ask me that! :laugh: Below are some good ideas from K.T. McFarland on what she hoped President Obama might have said to Putin in their phone conversation. Unfortunately, her idea about the Keystone pipeline isn't happening; President Obama just delayed, again, making a decision on Keystone so that shuts down any avenues leading to options/leverage that could really hurt Russia/Putin. But he could still do some other things on her list, though, no one should hold their breath. :wink:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/03/03/how-obama-could-stop-putin-ukraine-power-grab-without-firing-shot/

How Obama could stop Putin's Ukraine power grab without firing a shot

By K.T. McFarland, Published March 03, 2014, FoxNews.com

....

First: I will reverse my decision to halt the missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic. America will go ahead as originally planned and build the missile shield, but an accelerated basis. That means U.S. military personal will be working alongside Polish and Czech military to construct and operate the systems. The missile shield is designed to protect Europe from Iranian missiles, but you get the point. Uniformed U.S. military will soon be stationed near the Russian border.

Second: I will reverse course on the defense budget. Your defense minister just announced Russia is negotiating basing rights in seven nations around the world. He also said you were rebuilding old Soviet era military bases in central Asia. Your parliament has just voted unanimously to invade Ukraine. In light of that, this is no time for my Secretary of Defense to announce we’re gutting our military.

Third: I will allow the Keystone Pipeline to go ahead, again on an accelerated basis. That will not only give a boost to the American and Canadian economies, it will start driving down the price of oil.

Fourth: I will give my wholehearted support for fracking and horizontal drilling. American energy companies will now develop the vast oil and gas resources that lie, literally, under our feet. We’ve seen the U.S. go from natural gas importers to exporters in less than five years and the price of gas fall accordingly. We will now do the same with oil. Analysts expect the price of oil could decline by 20%.

I don’t have to tell you what that means for the Russian economy. Your economy and government are solely dependent on energy revenues. You need oil above $90 to meet payroll. It should settle well below that within a few years time. And free markets are a great thing – they anticipate change and will start short selling you now. That will make it difficult for you to pay for food imports, subsidies, your military buildup, and of course the extremely expensive the Sochi Olympics.

Fifth: I will send a trade delegation to Poland and other countries in Central Europe to explore ways of helping them use fracking technologies to develop their own gas reserves. Chevron and Shell have already signed a $13 billion deal with Ukraine. I expect others to follow.

At the same time I will throw roadblocks in front of any American energy company that seeks to develop your eastern Siberian fields. Your existing oil fields in western Siberia have, maybe, a decade left. You need our technology to develop new ones. You’re not getting it.

Sixth: It’s time we refocus on Western Europe’s over-dependence on Russian natural gas. We will explore ways to export our newfound natural gas surpluses to Europe by underwriting building of LNG terminals to accept imports from America. And while we’re at it, we will reassure our NATO allies, especially those that used to be under Soviet control, that Article Five of the NATO charter is still valid. If you are setting your sights on them next, think again. It’s all for one and one for all.

Seventh: It’s high time we expand our relations with the oil and gas rich nations of central Asia. We will extend invitations to each of them to visit Washington, to see how America and American energy companies might work with them to build pipelines to get their energy exports to Europe and beyond bypassing Russia.

....


Kathleen Troia "K.T." McFarland is a Fox News National Security Analyst and host of FoxNews.com's "DefCon 3." She served in national security posts in the Nixon, Ford and Reagan administrations. She was an aide to Dr. Henry Kissinger at the White House, and in 1984 Ms. McFarland wrote Secretary of Defense Weinberger's groundbreaking "Principles of War " speech. She received the Defense Department's highest civilian award for her work in the Reagan administration.

rearnakedchoke
04-29-2014, 07:59 PM
anyone can give their opinion on what the potus should be doing . but its easier said than done ... the right are going to paint a picture of obama as one of the worst presidents in history .. after his term, he will probably be ranked somewhere in the top half of previous presidents .. the fact that he got a second term says a lot .. if the dems win the presidency in 2016, this will further solidify his spot as a better than average president ..

Bonnie
04-30-2014, 04:32 AM
anyone can give their opinion on what the potus should be doing . but its easier said than done ... the right are going to paint a picture of obama as one of the worst presidents in history .. after his term, he will probably be ranked somewhere in the top half of previous presidents .. the fact that he got a second term says a lot .. if the dems win the presidency in 2016, this will further solidify his spot as a better than average president ..

She's not just anyone. Did you even read her suggestions? Why aren't you commenting or arguing specifically why you disagree with them, why you think they wouldn't work? I do think especially in this day and age that it is more important than ever for us to be present as a world leader. Do you think that retreat from the world stage and appeasement has made us look stronger or weaker to Putin and our enemies? I'd think being next door to us you would be very concerned with what has happened under this American President. Would you believe him if he told Canada, "We've got your back."? You think Netanyahu trusts that he's got their back?

Yeah, I'm still dumbfounded about him being re-elected. It brings to mind that saying, "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me." :wink:

rearnakedchoke
04-30-2014, 02:16 PM
She's not just anyone. Did you even read her suggestions? Why aren't you commenting or arguing specifically why you disagree with them, why you think they wouldn't work? I do think especially in this day and age that it is more important than ever for us to be present as a world leader. Do you think that retreat from the world stage and appeasement has made us look stronger or weaker to Putin and our enemies? I'd think being next door to us you would be very concerned with what has happened under this American President. Would you believe him if he told Canada, "We've got your back."? You think Netanyahu trusts that he's got their back?

Yeah, I'm still dumbfounded about him being re-elected. It brings to mind that saying, "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me." :wink:

i read the suggestions, on paper it sounds right, but its easier said then done ... do i think obama is perfect? nope .. this started all back with snowden, and you are right, it makes the US look like a pushover a bit ... but i think thats fine .. because the US is doing the right thing by not giving this mad man much attention .. i think the sanctions are fine .. imo, i would have boycotted the olympics over the snowden thing, but that's just me ... i feel more than comfortable with the US as having our back, because obama hasn't been alienating his allies by trying to show putin who has the bigger umm ...

putin is looking to start wwiii and i think something big is inevitable ..

Tyburn
04-30-2014, 06:31 PM
1) I will reverse my decision to halt the missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic. America will go ahead as originally planned and build the missile shield, but an accelerated basis. That means U.S. military personal will be working alongside Polish and Czech military to construct and operate the systems. The missile shield is designed to protect Europe from Iranian missiles, but you get the point. Uniformed U.S. military will soon be stationed near the Russian border.

2) I will allow the Keystone Pipeline to go ahead, again on an accelerated basis. That will not only give a boost to the American and Canadian economies, it will start driving down the price of oil.

3) I will give my wholehearted support for fracking and horizontal drilling


Actually, the United States agreed to host Missile bases for Starwars all across the Easter Block, and several states signed up. I was in America, in Virginia when the papers reported that Obama had decided to stop the Starwars programme.

Now what do you suppose Russia did to those States who had said YES to America before she pulled out of the deal :huh: At least one Government was toppled democratically because the decision to say yes to the Americans had not been democratically aggreed upon by the populas, and when America pulled out, she left those who had sided with her to faulter.

So The Governments in that region are different from the ones who said yes before, and some of them will probably not say yes if asked again, because they know unless the US follows through swiftly, they will be crushed amid a tide of Pro-Russians who do NOT want Starwars because they wholeheartedly believe that its re-ignites the cold war threat.

Barack Obama should NEVER have stopped the programme in the first place...also its a long term thing and he is no longer a long term officiate is he...the last thing the eastern block want is to have a new President arrive in the US that they do not know who might be different to the most recent and long running incumbant. Hopefully, that WILL happen, and a new Republican officiate will be installed, one who will re-open the prospect of Starwars, and have the guts to see it through.

I live less then two miles from a Starwars listening base you know :laugh: RAF Menwithhill airbase, was given to the Americans along with Fylingdales...which is not to far away from me, on the north yorkshire moors.
Menwith is north west of Harrogate and looks like a set of giant golf balls, its got its own village also by the same name. Fylingdales on the other hand is honnest to GOD in the middle of nowhere, a huge, solid concreate pyramid-toblerone type structure in the middle of a moor...viewed only by the coastliner Bus which runs along the single road past it enroute to scarborough...When I first saw Fylingdales, I wondered what it was...it looks like some alienspaceship has landed or something and because the land is high in altitude and flat, you can see it for miles in all directions :laugh: I dont know how it is on fylingdales...but in Menwith village, its mostly Americans, and Harrogate is teeming with American Forces personnel...one of which, a Black guy, I walk past every morning on my way to work (I walk a mile to work...it must only be a mile and a half from where I pass him...but he waits for a bus :laugh:) The Station is looked after by the British Ministry of Defence Police...one of those obscure and tiny forces that noone knows anything about...they are one of the very few forces allowed to carry firearms...the British Transport police carry machine guns of some description...and I've never encountered the counter-terrorist agencies to the best of my knowledge so I couldnt tell you what they carry...but the MOD Police carry these little peashooters :laugh: They are always comming into store off duty...and yet still armed...I'm sure thats illegal...but i've yet to ask them :ashamed::laugh:

2) Dont know much about that one :mellow:

3) I would be concerned of doing that in certain parts of the United States, because it can destabalize tectonics, and you dont want that to happen near a major western seaboard city anytime soon.

I reserve judgement on the supposed environmental dangers until its fully opporational and know more, but I know Fracking is considered a bad prospect by many in this country

Bonnie
04-30-2014, 10:38 PM
i read the suggestions, on paper it sounds right, but its easier said then done ... do i think obama is perfect? nope .. this started all back with snowden, and you are right, it makes the US look like a pushover a bit ... but i think thats fine .. because the US is doing the right thing by not giving this mad man much attention .. i think the sanctions are fine .. imo, i would have boycotted the olympics over the snowden thing, but that's just me ... i feel more than comfortable with the US as having our back, because obama hasn't been alienating his allies by trying to show putin who has the bigger umm ...

putin is looking to start wwiii and i think something big is inevitable ..

He could do all of those things, RNC, but he won't! He should have never stopped the missle defence system for those countries bordering Russia. You don't think that decision played a part in Putin's plans? Dave is right, what other leaders/countries do or don't do, DOES have an impact on the rest of the world. Can you not see how President Obama's retreat has emboldened the likes of Putin and Bashar al-Assad, as well as Al-Qaeda and other radicals? His actions here at home and abroad have painted the picture of Obama; both our enemies and allies see him clearly. Our enemies now know they can kill us with impunity, while our allies have to be wondering if they can trust us.

Bonnie
04-30-2014, 11:13 PM
Actually, the United States agreed to host Missile bases for Starwars all across the Easter Block, and several states signed up. I was in America, in Virginia when the papers reported that Obama had decided to stop the Starwars programme.

Now what do you suppose Russia did to those States who had said YES to America before she pulled out of the deal :huh: At least one Government was toppled democratically because the decision to say yes to the Americans had not been democratically aggreed upon by the populas, and when America pulled out, she left those who had sided with her to faulter.

So The Governments in that region are different from the ones who said yes before, and some of them will probably not say yes if asked again, because they know unless the US follows through swiftly, they will be crushed amid a tide of Pro-Russians who do NOT want Starwars because they wholeheartedly believe that its re-ignites the cold war threat.

Barack Obama should NEVER have stopped the programme in the first place...also its a long term thing and he is no longer a long term officiate is he...the last thing the eastern block want is to have a new President arrive in the US that they do not know who might be different to the most recent and long running incumbant. Hopefully, that WILL happen, and a new Republican officiate will be installed, one who will re-open the prospect of Starwars, and have the guts to see it through.

I live less then two miles from a Starwars listening base you know :laugh: RAF Menwithhill airbase, was given to the Americans along with Fylingdales...which is not to far away from me, on the north yorkshire moors.
Menwith is north west of Harrogate and looks like a set of giant golf balls, its got its own village also by the same name. Fylingdales on the other hand is honnest to GOD in the middle of nowhere, a huge, solid concreate pyramid-toblerone type structure in the middle of a moor...viewed only by the coastliner Bus which runs along the single road past it enroute to scarborough...When I first saw Fylingdales, I wondered what it was...it looks like some alienspaceship has landed or something and because the land is high in altitude and flat, you can see it for miles in all directions :laugh: I dont know how it is on fylingdales...but in Menwith village, its mostly Americans, and Harrogate is teeming with American Forces personnel...one of which, a Black guy, I walk past every morning on my way to work (I walk a mile to work...it must only be a mile and a half from where I pass him...but he waits for a bus :laugh:) The Station is looked after by the British Ministry of Defence Police...one of those obscure and tiny forces that noone knows anything about...they are one of the very few forces allowed to carry firearms...the British Transport police carry machine guns of some description...and I've never encountered the counter-terrorist agencies to the best of my knowledge so I couldnt tell you what they carry...but the MOD Police carry these little peashooters :laugh: They are always comming into store off duty...and yet still armed...I'm sure thats illegal...but i've yet to ask them :ashamed::laugh:

2) Dont know much about that one :mellow:

3) I would be concerned of doing that in certain parts of the United States, because it can destabalize tectonics, and you dont want that to happen near a major western seaboard city anytime soon.

I reserve judgement on the supposed environmental dangers until its fully opporational and know more, but I know Fracking is considered a bad prospect by many in this country

1) I agree, he should have followed thru putting missile defense systems in Poland and the Czech Republic; he caved to Putin.

2) His brilliant plan is to reduce our army to pre-WWII levels.

3) We need that pipeline. They say it's safer to have the oil transported via the pipeline versus the current system using rail. We need to be energy self-reliant!

4) I'm not certain of the long-term consequences of fracking, but we have to find a way to get to our own rich resources. Other countries too so they don't find themselves held hostage and at the mercy of another country who provides their oil and gas.

rearnakedchoke
05-01-2014, 02:41 PM
He could do all of those things, RNC, but he won't! He should have never stopped the missle defence system for those countries bordering Russia. You don't think that decision played a part in Putin's plans? Dave is right, what other leaders/countries do or don't do, DOES have an impact on the rest of the world. Can you not see how President Obama's retreat has emboldened the likes of Putin and Bashar al-Assad, as well as Al-Qaeda and other radicals? His actions here at home and abroad have painted the picture of Obama; both our enemies and allies see him clearly. Our enemies now know they can kill us with impunity, while our allies have to be wondering if they can trust us.

maybe he could have done all of those ... i know that from our end, the delay on the pipeline is a good idea .. unless you live out west ... our gov't needs to look more at the environmental issues with the oil sands .. but that's another story ..

and i understand your outlook, but i think most of it is fear mongering of the right to its voters and well, those on the fence .. imo, the US is safer now than it was under clinton and bush ... i think the fact that obama is not acting unilaterially like his predecessors, the US is gaining respect from its allies .. the enemies are always going to hate the US, can't increase that .. but with more respect from allies, more countries will be willing to help the US out with Obama's tactics ...

Bonnie
05-01-2014, 11:25 PM
maybe he could have done all of those ... i know that from our end, the delay on the pipeline is a good idea .. unless you live out west ... our gov't needs to look more at the environmental issues with the oil sands .. but that's another story ..

and i understand your outlook, but i think most of it is fear mongering of the right to its voters and well, those on the fence .. imo, the US is safer now than it was under clinton and bush ... i think the fact that obama is not acting unilaterially like his predecessors, the US is gaining respect from its allies .. the enemies are always going to hate the US, can't increase that .. but with more respect from allies, more countries will be willing to help the US out with Obama's tactics ...

I thought Canada wanted the pipeline to go thru, but from what you say, people are divided as some here. Yesterday, in Lynchburg, VA, there was another train derailment of tanker cars carrying crude oil. Between March of last year and February this year, not including yesterday's accident, there have been eight (8) major rail accidents of tanker cars carrying crude oil. There is going to be risks with anything manmade, but if it's safer to transport the oil by pipeline versus by rail, I'd think environmentalists would prefer the safer option. It's way past time for the U.S. to become energy independent.

I don't see how the U.S. is gaining respect, I think the exact opposite is happening under Obama's non-leadership. How can they possibly respect a U.S. President, a Commander in Chief who leaves his citizens unprotected on foreign soil and then when they are being attacked, he does NOTHING to help them! And still no one has been arrested and brought to justice for the murder of an American Ambassador and three others in Benghazi. How do our allies respect that, or when he draws a red line then doesn't back it up? He's famous for, "There will be consequences"...for Benghazi, for Syria, for the IRS, for Putin. It's just empty words. I don't see how that kind of leadership gains respect.

CAVEMAN1
05-12-2014, 06:03 PM
Wow, this thread got derailed. Back to the original issue, gay rights activists will not stop until they have taken away any and all rights of those who disagree with their lifestyle. They no doubt have an agenda to destroy the rights of others as well as destroy the institution of marriage. If you don't believe it, click the link below to hear one of their own state these very claims.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9M0xcs2Vw4

rearnakedchoke
05-12-2014, 07:01 PM
Wow, this thread got derailed. Back to the original issue, gay rights activists will not stop until they have taken away any and all rights of those who disagree with their lifestyle. They no doubt have an agenda to destroy the rights of others as well as destroy the institution of marriage. If you don't believe it, click the link below to hear one of their own state these very claims.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9M0xcs2Vw4

nah .. homosexuals just want to be treated the same as everyone else ... they are not trying to take away peoples rights to anything ... they just want equality .. it will take some time .. but it will happen ...

on the weekend michael sam was the first openly gay player to get drafted in the nfl .. after he got drafted, he gave his boyfriend a peck ... LOL .. the ••••storm it caused ...

CAVEMAN1
05-12-2014, 07:23 PM
nah .. homosexuals just want to be treated the same as everyone else ... they are not trying to take away peoples rights to anything ... they just want equality .. it will take some time .. but it will happen ...

on the weekend michael sam was the first openly gay player to get drafted in the nfl .. after he got drafted, he gave his boyfriend a peck ... LOL .. the ••••storm it caused ...

Did you watch the video I posted? Her statements went much farther than just equality!

rearnakedchoke
05-12-2014, 09:16 PM
Did you watch the video I posted? Her statements went much farther than just equality!

i don't know how the views of this person reflects the views of all gay people tho ...

Tyburn
05-13-2014, 08:23 PM
Wow, this thread got derailed. Back to the original issue, gay rights activists will not stop until they have taken away any and all rights of those who disagree with their lifestyle. They no doubt have an agenda to destroy the rights of others as well as destroy the institution of marriage. If you don't believe it, click the link below to hear one of their own state these very claims.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9M0xcs2Vw4

"one of their own" :laugh:

:mellow:

I think there are two different groupings in this...there is what is known as "the scene" which is what you might see on the streets of some of your cities at certain points of the year...These are often heavily associated with something known as "The Pride" movement...which is not to be confused with some of the fetish clubs which also meet...The difference between the two is that the latter exists for members, and caters only for members...so whilst they might appear in public its unlikely anyone not involved would ever come across them...The former are a militant group who parade, deliberately, and publicly through the streets, flaunting themselves, and trying to attract the attention of heterosexuals...they only exist to try and assert some kind of dominance over everyone else. They do this because they have been bullied by moralists that should know better...YOU don't change people by condemning them...all you do is make them bitter, angry and dangerous...The churches are primarily responsible for the Pride movement...its a counter culture...a response to people like YOU. In effect, what you see is a reflection of what you have created by not bringing the love of GOD to those who desperately need it...but rather, have acted cruelly towards, have scorned, and have made them feel sub-human by your holier then thou attitude.

You may want to remember that, since you feel so strongly about it...that this is a monster of your own making.

In the same way, there are those who would quietly campaign for equality, usually not because they want to destroy marriage...but because they want the law to be applied to them as if they were married...which matters, mostly, when one of the pair die...those are not likely to be the ones that make all the noise though.

The final section simply don't care, they don't care about your moral views on them, and they don't care about marriage, be it heterosexual or otherwise