 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Space History / July 2008...Question...Who Doesn't Deserve the Following Rights?
...Question...Who Doesn't Deserve the Following Rights? How many times have I heard it..."they" don't have a culture of democracy! Or...how dare we impose democracy on others? The ultimate Orwellian doublethink, as imposing democracy is 'imposing freedom'. So tell me, which nations..cultures..people do NOT deserve the following rights? Muslims, Chinese or Africans? IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776 We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/index.htm Answer: Those that would deny such rights on a massive scale. Olympic Motto "One World One Dream" http://en.beijing2008.cn/ Next month in Beijing the Surreal Spectacle of the Century will be broadcast around the globe. These Olympics will ...legitimize the largest and most repressive dictatorship in the history of humanity. The Beijing Olympics.... a Celebration of Enslavement. A Champagne Event...sparing no expense...where Hollywood and the Tyrants and the Moguls 'raise a glass' laughing at the demise of concepts such as; consent of the governed human rights and freedom of speech. We are about to witness, live and in broadband, the greatest /single/ crime against humanity ever committed. An act that /legitimizes/ the indefinite enslavement of a FIFTH of the human race. Oh, and a spiffy new Cold War between the Blue parts of the globe and the Red parts. We are about to create a new century that's just like the last one. Jonathan s Dear Mr Quoter ...... anytime the 1.3 billion +/- Chinese wish to change their system of Government, I am absolutely sure that the few thousand in the Politbureau won't have a chopstick to stand on ...... until then the Chinese, just the Americans when the british ruled the Americas will be quite ok trying to work out what the hell the following actually means ...... just like you obviously need to work out. QUOTE :: "...all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." Now, any chance you can leave the Chinese to their own desserts, nation, government, and just maybe MYOB? Damn shame the USA didn't have the same level of respect for the Iraqi's self-determination as they pretend to have for the Declaration of Independence. sheesh it's hard!!! ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ...Question...Who Doesn't Deserve the Following Rights? > [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > > s > Dear Mr Quoter ...... anytime the 1.3 billion +/- Chinese wish to change > their system of Government, I am absolutely sure that the few thousand in [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Now, any chance you can leave the Chinese to their own desserts, nation, > government, and just maybe MYOB? I say leave the Chinese their own desserts. > Dear Mr Quoter ...... anytime the 1.3 billion +/- Chinese wish to change > their system of Government, I am absolutely sure that the few thousand in [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > self-determination as they pretend to have for the Declaration of > Independence. Notice the Native Americans - our own Tibet - was not on the short of of deserving people? > sheesh it's hard!!! > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > Notice the Native Americans - our own Tibet - was not on the short of > of deserving people? "Tibetan monks on the warpath - dozens killed!" The Chinese wouldn't be expecting that, would they? Anyway, they are presently under a curse: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/2168554/Beijing-Olympic-Fuw a-mascots-'have-cursed'-China-in-unlucky-2008.html Wait till they figure out that "Nini" the swallow Fuwa is actually a prediction of a massive bird flu epidemic. Pat >Notice the Native Americans - our own Tibet - was not on the short of >of deserving people? Are you claiming Native Americans don't have these rights? They do. I'm not talking about last century, I'm talking about today? Is that a concept you can't understand? So far one poster indicated the 'answer' to my question is that the Chinese don't deserve them. Because of the ease in which they could throw off their tyrant, yet they haven't. A high school response if there ever were one. Another indictated Islam doesn't deserve them because of their religious attitudes. Even though the belief in God is some 90% in America. Another idiotic response. And now you respond that since there's been crimes in the past, no one can speak out about the crimes of today. That is a response with zero logic or thought behind it. > sheesh it's hard!!! > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > >Notice the Native Americans - our own Tibet - was not on the short of > >of deserving people? > > Are you claiming Native Americans don't have these rights? It is self evident that an average Native Americans and an average black American do not live like an average WASP. So, either the rights you enlisted are not complete or the rights you enlisted are not race or ethnicty neutral. Either way, it means Native American and black Amricans are missing something. > They do. I'm not talking about last century, I'm talking about > today? Is that a concept you can't understand? [quoted text clipped - 79 lines] > > - Show quoted text - On Jul 6, 6:09 pm, "jonathan" <H...@write.instead.net> wrote: > "CharlesLiu" <chliu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >> Are you claiming Native Americans don't have these rights? >It is self evident that an average Native Americans and an average >black American do not live like an average WASP. So, either the rights >you enlisted are not complete or the rights you enlisted are not race >or ethnicty neutral. Either way, it means Native American and black >Amricans are missing something. Guaranteeing equality of...result...is only possible if freedom, democracy the ability to chose and human weaknesses are ALL REMOVED. That is not possible, or even desirable. Please respond using at least a minimum of logic and thought. > On Jul 6, 6:09 pm, "jonathan" <H...@write.instead.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Guaranteeing equality of...result...is only possible if freedom, democracy > the ability to chose and human weaknesses are ALL REMOVED. > That is not possible, or even desirable. Please respond using at > least a minimum of logic and thought. I am not asking for guaranteering equality at all. But if the rights lead to a permanent underclass. Something is amiss. To use your MISGUIDED question: Were they not as deserving? > >Notice the Native Americans - our own Tibet - was not on the short of > >of deserving people? > > Are you claiming Native Americans don't have these rights? > They do. I'm not talking about last century, I'm talking about > today? Is that a concept you can't understand? It is you who don't understand the fact our subjugation and oppression of Native Americans continues today. If we can't free our own Tibet, what right do we have to demand the Chinese? > So far one poster indicated the 'answer' to my question is > that the Chinese don't deserve them. Because of the ease [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > > - Show quoted text - On Jul 6, 3:09 pm, "jonathan" <H...@write.instead.net> wrote: > "CharlesLiu" <chliu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > They do. I'm not talking about last century, I'm talking about > today? Is that a concept you can't understand? >It is you who don't understand the fact our subjugation and oppression >of Native Americans continues today. >If we can't free our own Tibet, what right do we have to demand the >Chinese? What a load of bs. I live in Miami, the closest tribe to me are the Seminoles. The 3300 member tribe just bought the Hard Rock Cafe chain of hotels, casinos and clubs for $965 million dollars. They currently pay the state $100 million a year to operate their two casinos and their financial empire is a billion dollor a year operation. Each and every member of the tribe including each child gets $120 grand a year in payments from the operations. So the typical family of four has to make do on a mere half million dollars per year....without working a single minute. The tribe council members have a fleet of helicopters and a jet once owned by King Hussein of Jordan. Each council member gets $5 million per year for discretionary purposes. For giving away or spending on themselves. Now, you were somehow comparing the situation in Tibet with the American Indians? Go on please! > On Jul 6, 3:09 pm, "jonathan" <H...@write.instead.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > Go on please! Don't you know the Tibetans got the same deal as the seminoles? Give them a car, and they want a house. Give them a house, and they the whole state,... On Jul 7, 10:11 pm, "jonathan" <H...@write.instead.net> wrote: >Don't you know the Tibetans got the same deal as the seminoles? Give >them a car, and they want a house. Give them a house, and they the >whole state,... Maybe the Tibetans should start a Casino or two? I can see the slots now....instead of spitting out change when you win, it spits out wisdom.... ..."change must come from within"! > On Jul 7, 10:11 pm, "jonathan" <H...@write.instead.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > ..."change must come from within"! No one wants wisdom anymore. Too much Confucianism already. They want cash, lots of cash. > No one wants wisdom anymore. Too much Confucianism already. They > want cash, lots of cash. > "To be rich is glorious!" Actual political slogan from the Chinese government a few years back...in a slight revision of their classic Marxist/Leninist principles. :-D Pat > And now you respond that since there's been crimes in > the past, no one can speak out about the crimes of today. Yep, that's pretty much the MO of a certain "clique" posters here on soc.culture.china, whose main job seems to be acting as apologists for the Chinese government. > That is a response with zero logic or thought behind it. Yep. > Damn shame the USA didn't have the same level of respect for the Iraqi's > self-determination as they pretend to have for the Declaration of > Independence. 1. The Iraqi did not have self-determination. It was a dictatorship. 2. Everyone deserves the basic human rights.  SignatureLove, Jim (I often delete parts of the previous post and I often remove excessive crossposts.) >> Damn shame the USA didn't have the same level of respect for the Iraqi's >> self-determination as they pretend to have for the Declaration of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 1. The Iraqi did not have self-determination. It was a dictatorship. > And now it's a...well, we aren't really sure what it is now, are we? Which way is the wind blowing? > 2. Everyone deserves the basic human rights. > Surprisingly, under Saddam, Iraqis enjoyed one right that neither the citizens of America or Britain have. They could own a fully automatic rifle - one per family - for self defense. The US found out all about this when we invaded the place, and found it crawling with full-auto AK-47s. Sort of a NRA dreamworld. :-D Pat > >> Damn shame the USA didn't have the same level of respect for the Iraqi's > >> self-determination as they pretend to have for the Declaration of [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > The US found out all about this when we invaded the place, and found it > crawling with full-auto AK-47s. They could have used them on Saddam Hussein, but they didn't. They used them on us!!!! > Sort of a NRA dreamworld. :-D > > Pat >> Surprisingly, under Saddam, Iraqis enjoyed one right that neither the >> citizens of America or Britain have. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > used them on us!!!! > Because they were too afraid to use them on Saddam... what if they _missed_? He might lock them away in Abu Ghraib prison without a trial... strip them naked and treat them like animals... attach wires to them and threaten to electrocute them ...wait a second...why _did_ they dare shoot at us? Oh, that's right - he used to do stuff like that to people who were caught chewing gum during government meetings. For attempted assassination, he would no doubt become even more sadistic in his punishments. There's a rumor that he once chained someone to a chair and made him watch 'The Lawrence Welk Show" for 72 hours straight. The _same episode_ even. Over and over, till he went mad. At least that's what the Israelis claim, and if they don't know about fiendish German torture tactics, nobody does. There are still Holocaust survivors who go into traumatic shock at the sounds of polka music and champagne corks popping, feeling that they are drowning in a sea of smiling freshly-scrubbed Aryan faces while soulless music is being sung. The polka version of "Die Fahne hoch" is a truly terrifying thing to hear, particularly when the whistles come into play...sounding like the festive arrival of a squadron of Stuka dive-bombers. ;-) Pat Here's a question for you fine fellows: Why the hell is any of this in sci.space.history? > Here's a question for you fine fellows: > > Why the hell is any of this in sci.space.history? I believe it refers to the space between the ears of anyone who thinks China is either a free country or a true friend to the west, that Iraq is a democracy and won't turn back into a terrorist dictatorship when the US leaves, etc etc... So...how about that Moon landing? Liftoff was 39 years ago tomorrow... We interrupt this post to bring you a breaking news story ... *** MIGRANT WORKERS RIOT AT COMMIECHINK POLICE STATION! *** Around the World Tuesday, July 15, 2008; A14 CHINA HUNDREDS OF MIGRANT WORKERS attacked a police station in eastern China after one was allegedly beaten while trying to get a residence permit, highlighting enduring tensions between temporary workers and authorities. The three days of unrest in coastal Zhejiang province began Thursday when a crowd gathered in front of the Kanmen town police station to protest the treatment of the beaten worker, with some demonstrators throwing rocks at officers, the official New China News Agency said Monday. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/14/AR2008071402621.html jonathan expressed precisely : > ...Question...Who Doesn't Deserve the Following Rights? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > So tell me, which nations..cultures..people do NOT deserve > the following rights? Muslims, Chinese or Africans? The concept of Inalienable Rights does not equate to Democracy and Democracy does not equate to freedom. A political system where Inalienable Rights are respected includes the Right to vote; but unlike in a Democracy, the majority can't vote to remove any Right. That's why all Socialists and other closet totalitarians are for Democracy but none are for Individual Rights. In a Democracy they use their Right to vote to destroy other Rights (especially property Rights), not to strengthen them. Islam is anathema to the concept of Inalienable Rights. We can rule out every god-fearing Muslim deserving of freedom. How about every individual who values Individual Rights and advocates for them is deserving of freedom, while the rest deserve to get what they would inflict on others? Tony. Signatureemail: fierce,guppy@paradise,net,nz Christchurch, New Zealand. > jonathan expressed precisely : >> ...Question...Who Doesn't Deserve the Following Rights? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > The concept of Inalienable Rights does not equate to Democracy Sure it does. Nations that rule by the consent of the people clearly show a greater amount of respect for human rights. Dictatorships spend most of the time and effort figuring out how to reduce the rights of the people, how to control their people. >and Democracy does not equate to freedom. Democracies have the strong tendency to create more freedoms than a dictatorship. While rigid govts tend to create a viscous cycle of ever greater internal stress with greater controls being imposed over time. One grows over time, the other grows old. Which is the better system should be obvious. I didn't say perfect btw. >A political system where > Inalienable Rights are respected includes the Right to vote; but unlike in a > Democracy, the majority can't vote to remove any Right. That's why all > Socialists and other closet totalitarians are for Democracy but none are for > Individual Rights. In a Democracy they use their Right to vote to destroy > other Rights (especially property Rights), not to strengthen them. The marxists of today use democracy as a way of gaining power, do they can dismantle democracy and be the new dictator for life. > Islam is anathema to the concept of Inalienable Rights. We can rule out every > god-fearing Muslim deserving of freedom. Really! Iraq, the Tigress and Euphrates, are firmly near the heart and soul of Islam. And ...they...wrote the following constitution and over 75% voted for it. It was religious law to vote, and to vote for democracy and a modern view of human rights. They sound rather civilized to me, now that they've been given the chance to decide for themselves...that is. Constitution of Iraq We the sons of Mesopotamia, the land of the prophets, resting place of the holy imams, the leaders of civilization and the creators of the alphabet, the cradle of arithmetic: on our land, the first law put in place by mankind was written; in our nation, the most noble era of justice in the politics of nations was laid down; on our soil, the followers of the prophet and the saints prayed, the philosophers and the scientists theorized and the writers and poets created. Recognizing Allah's right upon us; obeying the call of our nation and our citizens; responding to the call of our religious and national leaders and the insistence of our great religious authorities and our leaders and our reformers, we went by the millions for the first time in our history to the ballot box, men and women, young and old, on 30 January 2005, remembering the pains of the despotic band's sectarian oppression of the majority; inspired by the suffering of Iraq's martyrs - Sunni and Shiite, Arab, Kurd and Turkomen, and the remaining brethren in all communities - inspired by the injustice against the holy cities in the popular uprising and against the marshes and other places; recalling the agonies of the national oppression in the massacres of Halabja, Barzan, Anfal and against the Faili Kurds; inspired by the tragedies of the Turkomen in Bashir and the suffering of the people of the western region, whom the terrorists and their allies sought to take hostage and prevent from participating in the elections and the establishment of a society of peace and brotherhood and cooperation so we can create a new Iraq, Iraq of the future, without sectarianism, racial strife, regionalism, discrimination or isolation. Article (1): The Republic of Iraq is an independent, sovereign nation, and the system of rule in it is a democratic, federal, representative (parliamentary) republic. Article (2): (a) No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam. (b) No law can be passed that contradicts the principles of democracy. (c) No law can be passed that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms outlined in this constitution Article 14: Iraqis are equal before the law without discrimination based on gender, race, ethnicity, origin, color, religion, creed, belief or opinion, or economic and social status. Article 15: Every individual has the right to enjoy life, security and liberty. Deprivation or restriction of these rights is prohibited except in accordance with the law and based on a decision issued by a competent judicial authority. Sounds to me like democracy and Islam can coexist. > > Tony. > > -- > email: fierce,guppy@paradise,net,nz > Christchurch, New Zealand. > > >> jonathan expressed precisely : >>> ...Question...Who Doesn't Deserve the Following Rights? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>> The ultimate Orwellian doublethink, as imposing democracy is >>> 'imposing freedom'. [snip] > Iraq, the Tigress and Euphrates, are firmly near the heart and soul of > Islam. [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] > > Sounds to me like democracy and Islam can coexist. Sounds like the Muslims won. on 6/07/2008, jonathan supposed : >> jonathan expressed precisely : >>> ...Question...Who Doesn't Deserve the Following Rights? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > spend most of the time and effort figuring out how to reduce > the rights of the people, how to control their people. I thought about discussing the Germans people during the Weimar Republic, or today's Venesuela and Zimbabwe but those are extreme cases and not the rule of thumb, so... I'll choose little ol' New Zealand. Even New Zealand's government routinely violates people's Indivdiual Rights in the name of "town planning and sustainable management", "Saving the Planet", "social justice", "protecting the children", "looking after the Nation's health", and "preventing monopolies" except the government kind. Just last week it nationalized the railways. Citizens are not even allowed to own firearms for self-defense. That's Democracy. That's the consent New Zealand's majority in action. How about your own country? Is it moving towards giving individuals more control over their own lives or less? >>and Democracy does not equate to freedom. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Which is the better system should be obvious. > I didn't say perfect btw. It's more the caprice and arbitrary nature of a dictorship's laws rather than their rigidity that really terrorfies people. One doesn't know where one stands in relation to the law. Your door could get smashed open in the middle of the night and yourself dragged kicking and screaming to the nearlest politburo and given a taste of the kommandant's lovely imported boot leather for insulting his dog, for instance. Dictatorships generally do not last as long as Democracies but they sure last long enough to cause an immense amount of death and suffering. A Democracy is clearly better than any dictorship, but that's not what we're discussing. Democracies swing back and forth between a near dictorship and a system of full fledged Rights, collecting and shedding the attributes of dictatorships in accord with whatever floats the majority's boat each election year. That's nothing to do with Inalienable Rights. The point of Inalienable Rights is that they're supposed to inalienable, not permission slips to be given or revoked by the majority. >>A political system where >> Inalienable Rights are respected includes the Right to vote; but unlike in [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > power, do they can dismantle democracy and be the > new dictator for life. It's the Gramsci variety of marxist that is the most insidious and poisonous. They don't talk the rhetoric of "Revolution" and overthrowing Capitalism. That is too obvious. They're more the tread softly, go slow, clandestine subversion at every level of capitalist society kind of marxist. The kind you'll find in social and political spheres with the most influence, namely government, unions, public schooling, and media. >> Islam is anathema to the concept of Inalienable Rights. We can rule out >> every [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > Article (2): This, > (a) No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam. need not contradict this, > (b) No law can be passed that contradicts the principles of democracy. because the majority can vote for Sharia Law. They can vote for the oppression of women, the execution of homosexuals, the accomodation into law of arranged marriages of young children to old men, and force non Muslims to pay the jizya. But it does contradict this: > (c) No law can be passed that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms > outlined in this constitution In Islam there is no distinction between the personal and political life for the Muslim whose human ideal is a mass murdering, child raping, marauding barbarian who did not give a jot of an inkling of a spidgen of respect for the freedom of others. Any peaceful verses in the Koran are anulled by Mohammad's later meanderings after he became a powerful warlord. Take Mohammad out of Islam, and what's left? Bugger all. > Article 14: > > Iraqis are equal before the law without discrimination based on > gender, race, ethnicity, origin, color, religion, creed, belief or > opinion, or economic and social status. That is not Islam. > Article 15: > > Every individual has the right to enjoy life, security and liberty. > Deprivation or restriction of these rights is prohibited except > in accordance with the law and based on a decision issued > by a competent judicial authority. None of it is based on Islam. > Sounds to me like democracy and Islam can coexist. Iraq will sea-saw between more freedom or more Islam, but that doesn't make Islam compatible with freedom. Tony. Signatureemail: fierce,guppy@paradise,net,nz Christchurch, New Zealand. > Just last week it nationalized the railways. All fifteen miles worth of them. > Citizens are not even allowed to own firearms for self-defense. Well, that was in the spirit of sportsmanship... since the Maoris were only armed with war clubs, it wasn't thought sporting to go after them with guns, so everyone has the right to own a cricket bat for self defense against them. Since the Laughing Owl is now extinct, there's nothing left worth shooting for fun anyway. Harpooning the penguins is still good sport though. But if they could clone the giant Moa back into existence...now, _that_ would be worth shooting at. Beat the hell out of kicking those damn Kiwis around like soccer balls. That gets old in a hurry. ;-) Pat > > Just last week it nationalized the railways. > > All fifteen miles worth of them. It's worth it if its in the downtown capital city of the country. > > Citizens are not even allowed to own firearms for self-defense. > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Pat Maybe they might come up with a new sporting game call "hunt down the excaped convict". Let one prisoner out at a time, and announce the start of the game. This way, we can reduce our prison population and save money to feed and house them. > Maybe they might come up with a new sporting game call "hunt down the > excaped convict". Think of a Maori soccer club... with real clubs! Those guys would by the soccer rowdies to end all soccer rowdies. Hit one in the head with a beer bottle, and get something with shark teeth along its edge coming down on yours. With the Maori team's victory celebrations, "losing one's head" takes on a whole new meaning. And when the game commentators say they are "eating their opponents for breakfast" they might well mean that literally. :-D Pat >> Just last week it nationalized the railways. > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Beat the hell out of kicking those damn Kiwis around like soccer balls. That > gets old in a hurry. ;-) Not a fan of New Zealand I see~ > Pat > on 6/07/2008, jonathan supposed : >>> jonathan expressed precisely : >>>> ...Question...Who Doesn't Deserve the Following Rights? >> Article (2): > This, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > of arranged marriages of young children to old men, and force non Muslims to > pay the jizya. But it does contradict this: That's what I find fascinating about the Iraqi Constitution. That there are three tests for laws, a religious tests, a constitutional test and an inalienable rights test. That's brilliant! They've managed to create a potential framework that can merge modern democratic ideals and ancient religious values. That was the big question going in, could democracy work. And they've come up with a very elegant solution that just might set an example. >> (c) No law can be passed that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms >> outlined in this constitution [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > later meanderings after he became a powerful warlord. Take Mohammad out of > Islam, and what's left? Bugger all. It's important to make judgements on facts. Ayatollah Sistani is the highest ranking religious official for the Shia world. His word is law in Iraq and throughout much of the Middle East. Sistani.org http://www.sistani.org/local.php?modules=main His website detail Islamic law for most major crimes. It would fit quite well into just about any society. Except for a few cultural and historical aspects such as the ban on chess and alcohol and such, while allowing betting on horses. But otherwise if you were to actually read Islamic law as practiced in the mainstream, I think you'd change your view about Islam. And btw, it is Ayatollah Sistani that made all the key decisions on the current form of the Iraq govt. He wanted the parliamentary system, while we wanted a US type system. And he made it religious law to vote. >> Article 14: >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >> Sounds to me like democracy and Islam can coexist. > Iraq will sea-saw between more freedom or more Islam, That is what democracies do, the pendulum swings from liberal to conservate everywhere. With the idea it'll settle near the middle. Settling on one extreme or the other is the way we lose our freedoms, whether too liberal and too restrictive as you said about New Zealand. Or too dictatorial and capricious from a fascist extreme. It's the give and take, finding the middle. that generates a balance between law and order, freedom and prosperity. but that doesn't > make Islam compatible with freedom. > > Tony. > ...Question...Who Doesn't Deserve the Following Rights? > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as > to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and A lot of beautiful words which we ourselves did not live up to. So why impose it on others? > We hold these truths to be self-evident, Yes, but the evidence point to the other way, that we did not live up to those written words. >that all men are created equal, The writer himself owned many many slaves while at the same time, wrote a document specifying "that all men are created equal", and took liberty with his female slaves to satify his sexual desires. >that they are endowed by their Creator > with certain unalienable Rights, that among these > are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness Yes, yes, yes, to the plantation owners and their fellow white Southern gentlemen. >That to > secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, > deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That meant the white people with the money and enough slaves to make them richer than ever. > - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive > of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to > abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation > on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as > to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and That meant any other government which may become a threat to our way of life, must be destroyed by all means available regardless of good or bad. It's the American way or no other ways. > Happiness.http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/index.htm > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > s > ...Question...Who Doesn't Deserve the Following Rights? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > So tell me, which nations..cultures..people do NOT deserve > the following rights? Muslims, Chinese or Africans? Almost everyone can be said to deserve everything in general. So I can answer your question positively without reading the following. But why stop at the rgiths you have envisions? Who does not deserve a good life, a meaninful life, a healthy life, and etc? The list can go on and on. But this kind of question is the wrong question unseess one is talking about something which can be provided totally without cost. If something has to be done achieve an objective, then someone has to pay the price. Hence the question is not whether muslims or Chinese or Africans deserve this or that right. You can image a right and they will deserve that right. The question is who is going to pay for the cost to achieve that right? My answer to this question is this. Do you really care? If so, ask not what other person or other government should do, ask you or your government what you can do to afford these people the "whatever you think they deserve.". > IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776 > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > s |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.