magekillr

Do I think they're after nuclear weapons? Yes. Do I have evidence for it? No. There's absolutely no evidence that suggests this is what they're after, just speculation. Why aren't they allowed to have nuclear weapons? The United States remains the only country to actually use them, seems to me we're the ones that shouldn't have them. And about Iran's stability, they're very stable. They're probably the most pro-American Muslim country, too, besides maybe Turkey. Iran is the only Muslim country that had candle light vigils for 9/11.

In order to stop the main causes of the pirate recruitment, the West needs to stop illegally fishing off of their coastline and stop dumping nuclear waste. Now, the leaders don't really give a damn about that, just like Hamas doesn't care about the Palestinians, but the people that they recruit do. So stop the illegal dumping and fishing, and the piracy will begin to dissipate. Now the people behind the piracy are only after money, but they'll lose support if these things are stopped. Of course...that doesn't solve the issues with Somalia, or piracy completely, but you'd see a lot less attacks.

Are you honestly saying that you support the rights of adults to have sex with young children if the child "consents" to it? The point is that it's a disorder, and I believe it to continue to be a disorder because I don't think the harm comes from a "social stigma." Perhaps it should be treated differently, in which case I agree because I think it's demonized far too easily, but what are you arguing for if not a condoning of this act? One final edit: I don't think that its status should affect the fact that the act of pedophilia is a crime. I think I feel the same way as Green, but I'm not prepared to tell the APA what is and what is not a psychological disorder. In other words, I agree with the distinction between "the legal [discourse], the moral [discourse], and the medical [discourse]."

Not necessarily. There's medical, legal, and psychological definitions, all meaning something slightly different, and in some cases there's a completely different meaning with subtle differences Well it seems you addressed the legal term down here, lol. Sorry, I shouldn't have said disease. It's a disorder. Yes, you're right, it's a sexual orientation just like homosexuality. The reason pedophilia is a disorder while homosexuality is not is because pedophilia poses a significant harm to those involved. http://www.medem.com/medlib/article/ZZZUZRUZGLC

Why not? Pakistan is far more of a nuclear threat than Iran, and they already have nuclear weapons. I don't support a nuclear Iran, but I don't support a nuclear United States, either. Second, there's no evidence that they're enriching uranium for weapons. Israel has nuclear weapons and won't even admit to it. Talk about hypocrisy. And last: What if Iran Acted like the United States Government okay robert sounds a little paranoid but, major world powers having nukes has kept us safe since the cold war. ww3 between the United States and Russia would have been quite plausible if there were no nuclear weapons. The need is obviously lessened now, but there is no benefit to removing nuclear weapons just so we can feel good about it. No, major world powers having nukes almost caused mutually assured destruction during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Just imagine if instead of JFK, we had George Bush at the helm? And if I may quote Barack Obama who recently gave a speech regarding the matter:

That's actually not true. It only increases the frequency of homozygotes, which will only have negative birth defects if it's widespread and continued throughout their families' gene pool for generations on end [1]Second, there's also an increased chance of birth defects in children born to women over the age of 35 and/or born to parents who were born with inherent defects (blindness), yet we let blind people and cougars have sex. Who cares what's natural and what isn't, and who's to say what's natural and what isn't? It's not causing a problem in the Scandinavian countries where it's legal, and I don't think it will cause a problem elsewhere, either. Well, wives could have multiple husbands *shrug*. However, I acknowledge the points about child abuse.

Yes, that can be used as an argument I suppose. However, do animals really consent to being slaughtered for food or being our pets, either? Animals don't consent to a lot of things, and we don't seem to have a problem with them. Necrophilia is also almost always associated with serial murderers, among other problems in the head, so maybe we shouldn't allow that. However, necrophilia occurs in nature among animals other than humans...so who knows. Again, I haven't thought extensively about this issue, per se. There's also a big public health issue dealing with this. There'd also have to be limits placed on how long the body could be kept as well. I think it's safe to say that this should remain illegal now that I've given it some thought.

Necrophilia--> See post below. Pedophilia--> Should obviously be illegal because child abuse is not something that I condone, and that's exactly what pedophilia is. Now, the age of consent should be 16 in my opinion, so that might be a pedophilia by some standards...but not by most of the Western nations including a few US states. Pedophilia is also a disease, unlike homosexuality.

While on the topic of gay marriage, religious conservatives almost always bring up the red herring of, "What next? Marrying your dog or your brother? What about polygamy?" So, about these issues: Incest--> This should be legal, and I see no reason why it should not be unless there were obvious cases of child abuse and manipulation. Bestiality--> This should also be legal, but I don't think that they should be given marriage benefits because it's a tad bit ridiculous to go down to your local animal shelter, pick up a cat and marry it, and be given the same legal rights as my parents. I might as well be given the benefits if I weren't married at all, which makes no sense. Anyway, sex with animals should be legal, state-recognized marriage should not. Polygamy--> If you can have multiple wives and NOT abuse your children, I don't see anything wrong with this. There's an extreme link between child abuse and polygamy, but the main problem here is giving so many benefits to so many people at once. If these marriages were state recognized, there'd need to be serious restructuring of the law. I don't see such a restructuring as feasible or practical, so for all intensive purposes I doubt I'd ever support state-recognized polygamous marriages. If they'd like to have orgies or multiple partners, then have at it.

Why not? Pakistan is far more of a nuclear threat than Iran, and they already have nuclear weapons. I don't support a nuclear Iran, but I don't support a nuclear United States, either. Second, there's no evidence that they're enriching uranium for weapons. Israel has nuclear weapons and won't even admit to it. Talk about hypocrisy. And last: What if Iran Acted like the United States Government

Bolded the statement that is obviously correct. Why do you care if the government is watching you? As long as you've done nothing wrong, what on earth could they do with that information? Lol, the author was being facetious because these asshats are suddenly upset over the Department of Homeland Security releasing statements to local authorities to keep an eye on right wing extremists, when they cheered Bush on for doing the same thing to the other side.

"If you've not done anything wrong, you dont have anything to hide!" Yeah, right: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/ ... /protests/ Excerpts that I liked: And Best of all, Brendan Calling: http://brendancalling.com/2009/04/14/mo ... ry-bright/

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009 ... iage-bill/ I doubt it will pass in the New York Senate, but it's worth a try, hey?

Win: Source: http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldNews ... F520090414

[/hide] you need to find some more objective sources, I would hardly call it a major victory to say "you can use force if necessary" and not comment on the situation. Kudos to Obama for managing it well, but its a stretch to say he did amazingly. Interesting idea to avoid commenting on it publicly, I think a small reassurance we had it under control was in order but thats more a personal taste issue. Limbaugh is an idiot though :lol: edit--anyone think it is hilarious the pirates are threatening revenge? I mean if I were to attack a vessel and take hostages there is that understanding you may get yourself killed. How is it a stretch to say he did amazingly? How could he have handled it any better than he did, and gotten any better results than he did? You don't negotiate with people like this because it only encourages this sort of behavior. You distract them, and take them out. Besides, this source was "AP," and AP is notoriously conservative; especially articles that yahoo peddles. edit: I know what you're saying, and ultimately I agree; as does Obama, as he took none of the credit. However, it's what AP gave, so it's the news that I peddled. I think what you're saying is what John Cole is saying:

[hide=Obama Beats First National Security Test]The U.S. economy is showing only glimmers of life and two costly wars remain in the balance, but President Barack Obama's "no drama" handling of the Indian Ocean hostage crisis proved a big win for his administration in its first critical national security test. Obama's quiet backstage decision to authorize the Defense Department to take necessary action if Capt. Richard Phillips' life was in imminent danger gave a Navy commander the go-ahead to order snipers to fire on the pirates holding the cargo ship captain at gunpoint. For Obama, the benefits were instantly clear: an American life saved and a major victory notched against an increasingly worrisome scourge of the seas off the Horn of Africa. Obama's handling of the crisis showed a president who was comfortable in relying on the U.S. military, much as his predecessor, George W. Bush, did. But it also showed a new commander in chief who was willing to use all the tools at his disposal, bringing in federal law enforcement officials to handle the judicial elements of the crisis. The rescue appeared to vindicate Obama's muted but determined handling of the incident. What won't be known for some time is whether Obama will benefit politically. When Obama campaigns for re-election, he may take Bush's approach of turning any such incident into evidence of his leadership acumen. On the other hand, Obama didn't go before the cameras Sunday to trumpet the success, instead releasing a written statement that saluted the bravery of the military and Phillips but claimed no credit for himself. Also, this crisis, while topping the news now, may fade into distant memory by the time voters get a chance to take any new measure of Obama and his party. Still, it goes some way toward dispelling the notion that a liberal Democrat with a known distaste for war - Obama campaigned on his consistent opposition to the Iraq invasion - doesn't have the chops to call on U.S. military power. The sniper operation Sunday, with pirate guns aimed at Phillips, was a daring, high-stakes gambit, and it could have easily gone awry. If it had, the fallout would have probably landed hardest on Obama. Indeed, the last Democratic president to unleash American military might against Somalis suffered miserably from the failure of that operation. Portrayed in the book and movie "Black Hawk Down," a U.S. peacekeeping mission ordered by President Bill Clinton ended with a humiliating withdrawal of troops after a deadly clash in the Somali capital of Mogadishu. The outcome this time was vastly different. Since the standoff began last Tuesday, Obama made no public, in-person remarks on the topic, even declining to answer when questions were shouted at him during a press availability. He didn't call in his Cabinet for a high-profile command meeting. He let military and top administration officials do the talking, but even they kept saber rattling out of the equation. White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel said Obama's silence should not be interpreted to mean that he wasn't deeply involved. The president's public posture was calculated to not raise the temperature on the situation or give the hostage-takers anything to exploit. "Let's not confuse a public role with being on top of the situation," Emanuel said. "If you'd interjected yourself, you would make the discussions that were happening more difficult." So what Obama did was receive regular briefings, sometimes as often as half a dozen times a day. He weighed in with two critical decisions allowing the military to take action to save Phillips' life. And he laid the groundwork for a federal criminal law enforcement response. White House officials said the Justice Department is already reviewing evidence to determine whether to file criminal charges against the captured Somali pirate. The U.S. is treating the matter as a criminal case because officials have found no direct ties between East African pirates and terror groups. Obama doesn't like labels for himself or catch phrases for policy. So it's notable that in an administration that has virtually banned the phrase "war on terror," no one called the pirates "terrorists."[/hide] Source: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/O/ ... TE=DEFAULT It's really sad that people like Rush Limbaugh tried to use this as a weapon against Obama rather than hoping that the captain would make it out alive. Rush kept saying that this crisis was quite similar to the Iranian Hostage Situation with Carter, and that it would show Obama's true colors as a weak President that "doesn't know what to do." Well, Rush, are you vindicated, yet?

http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_whyusa03.html That's why the UN can't do anything, and why there needs to be reform. Ironically, the only way to reform it is through the UN Security Council, and you'd have every country that can veto...not use their veto. Who wants to give up that power? None of them. It should take 3/5ths of the permanent members to veto, or as the Iranian President has said, reaffirm members because the world has changed since World War II. Germany should be a permanent member over France given their level of influence.

The UN can't do anything because of the supposed "freedom fighters" like the United States because they constantly abuse their vetoes.

Creative, brilliant new project by the United Nations launched in Australia. 7 pictures throughout major cities highlight untold, inspirational stories of the oppressed. Using a cell phone camera to take a picture of the mouth and texting it, photographic mobile technology matches the picture sent with the person, who calls the user back with his or her story. Watch the video to understand this better. I think it's a great idea to raise awareness about different issues around the world: http://www.vimeo.com/1854851

I don't miss Ron Paul. He's a hypocrite on every issue from earmarks to government spending to "rights and freedom." He's a homophobic bigot that favors federal intervention if it goes against his views, such as with abortion and gay marriage. He's a "doctor" that denies evolution and supports teaching creationism. He also gets to have his cake and eat it too by voting against spending, but including earmarks for his district. Second, I am NOT worried about the government "taking random people off the street" and such. I want my 4th amendment protection back, and if the President cannot do that then we essentially have no 4th amendment. It's not a matter of fear, but a matter of principle and freedom. Why is everyone so [bleep]ing apathetic about their freedom? I don't care about the government "being big," so long as my freedoms are protected. I want the government to be as large as possible economically and provide health care, transportation, roads, welfare and education. However, when it comes to privacy and what I choose to do to my own body, I want them to [bleep] off. That's what really upsets me about conservatives. When it comes to their money they flip [cabbage], but when it comes to their freedom...they're completely complacent. "Oh, spy on me all you want and grant telecom immunity to private contractors, even though it's illegal, just let me be rich while I tell the poor to [bleep] themselves."

If by crack you mean tell whatever you want to hear, then yes, they 'crack.' http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Jan11.html http://www.alternet.org/rights/28585/ http://www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/26 ... 60427.html What if you were the one that was tortured innocently? That's why you don't have empathy, you don't put yourself in that situation.

It's not? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipton_Three

Just because someone has violated your rights does not give you the right to abandon your privilege to respect theirs. Tell me, what is the point of torturing if it doesn't give us anything, builds resentment among those detained, and no lives are saved? There's not been ONE recorded moment in history where torture was needed or provided ANY results. And True, about the secret prisons, here's some progress: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/10/world ... ?ref=world http://english.aljazeera.net/news/ameri ... 94735.html And about this, Senator Russ Feingold is trying to build together a coalition to destroy this "state secrets" [cabbage] once and for all: http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.c ... ts_cla.php The only people that call Obama "The Messiah" are the far right conservatives. As a matter of fact, Glenn Greenwald did a field study on this exact thing, and has found that the left is far more critical of their own side than the conservatives are. Conservatives get in line and go along with the ride, whereas the left will never stop being critical if they see injustices: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/ ... criticism/

You have no empathy for anyone other than yourself. It's truly sad. Why do they not deserve the same human rights as anyone else, especially when torture has been proven NOT to work, and will in fact make things worse by encouraging terrorist recruitment and give faulty intelligence.

Why do you believe in torture?