The bible has been in human hands for centuries and copied by hand before printing presses came in. A spelling mistake here, bad handwriting there, the next guy comes along and misreads a word and then 'fixes' the sentence so that it makes sense. I'd be shocked if there was a single page in there that hadn't changed. And that's only accidental changes.
Looking at the things politicians do today, when it's easier to fact-check and catch them out than ever before, I find it completely believable that people just... mis-copied parts of the bible to justify whatever they felt like doing. It's not like people in the year 900 were going to get on Facebook and compare notes with people in other countries. They'd probably never touched a copy of the Bible. Probably couldn't read. A man with a bible could tell people it said anything. Make some changes in his copy, noone would ever know.
The Masoretic scribes (A.D. 500-1000) in charge of the Old Testament manuscript copying used a very meticulous system of transcription and had a deep reverence for the text. God used their almost obsessive respect for the text to preserve the text’s accuracy. They had specific rules on the type of ink and the quality and size of parchment sheets. No individual letter could be written down without having looked back at the copy in front of them. The scribe could not write God’s name with a newly dipped pen (lest it blotch) and even if the king should address him, while writing God’s name, he should take no notice of him. They were so meticulous that they counted all the paragraphs, words and even letters, so they could know by counting, if they had done it perfectly. They knew the middle letter of each book so they could count back and see if they had missed anything. . .
D. The Dead Sea Scrolls
Since the oldest complete copy of a Hebrew Old Testament in existence is dated about A.D. 1000, that’s a long time after the originals were written (1450-400 B.C.). But there are portions that date back farther. Most significant are the Dead Sea Scrolls, which were discovered in caves in 1947 by an Arabian shepherd boy. These well-preserved Hebrew text fragments date back to 100 B.C. They include many Bible portions, including some complete books. Their value to the credibility of our Bible is that amazingly, there is virtual agreement between these Hebrew texts and the ones dated 1,100 years later! This proves how accurately the scribes copies for all those years.
The evidence shows that our Old Testaments today are extremely accurate reflections of the original manuscripts.
So how reliable are the manuscripts that all these Bibles are translated from? The evidence is overwhelming and seldom disputed. Manuscripts prepared from different individuals spread over various parts of the Middle East and Mediterranean region agree remarkably with each other. Also, the manuscripts agree with the Septuagint, which was translated to Greek from Hebrew possibly as far back as the 3rd century BC. The Dead Sea scrolls discovered in 1947 also provided a profound testimony to the reliability of the centuries of transmission of the Bible text, as every Old Testament book found was virtually word for word with today's Bible! (the few differences were "obvious slips of the pen or variations in spelling"1).
The scribes who were in charge of the Old Testament text dedicated their lives to preserving the text's accuracy when they made copies. The great lengths the scribes went to guarantee the reliability of the copies is illustrated by the fact that they would count every letter and every word, and record in the margins such things as the middle letter and word of the Torah. If
No, that's wrong. It attacked the nuclear enrichment facility responsible for producing heavy water. If you didn't know, it's a different set of equipment to produce heavy water for nuclear weapon, the concentration in heavy water has to be an order of magnitude higher.
Actually, it attacked centrifuges, necessary for enriching Uranium. The Iranians had been putting a lot more of them into operation to obtain both more Uranium, and more highly enriched Uranium. Funny, they turned down offers to get enriched Uranium from other nations. It is almost as if they had something to hide, such as exactly how much Uranium of what enrichment they were producing. The only reason they would be likely to do that would be if they intended to do something unauthorized, like build bombs. By the way, heavy water isn't actually used in nuclear weapons themselves, although tritium is used in boosted and thermal nuclear weapons.
The Stuxnet cyberweapon may have destroyed as many as 1,000 Iranian nuclear-fuel centrifuges – more than one-tenth of the Natanz uranium enrichment plant's capacity – in late 2009 and early 2010, according to a recent report by a nuclear arms-control watchdog group - - Stuxnet attack on Iran nuclear program came about a year ago, report says
--
That's really too bad that you got your facts wrong in the first place.
Even if we assume that all of Israel's neighbors want to wipe it off the face of the Earth, none of these neighbors currently have nuclear weapons. Israel already has the best military force in the Middle East.
Israel is a country of just under 8 million people on a sliver of land so small that at the shortest point it is only 20 miles across.
There are approximately 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, and they are taught the following according to the traditions of Islam and the sayings of the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH):
"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews , when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdullah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Muslim).Sahih Muslim, 41:6985, see also Sahih Muslim, 41:6981, Sahih Muslim, 41:6982, Sahih Muslim, 41:6983, Sahih Muslim, 41:6984, Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:56:791,(Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:177)
”This hadith has been quoted countless times, and it has become a part of the charter of Hamas.[54]
Think about that, approximately 25% of the world's population is taught that at the end of days, all Jews will be, must be killed. And some of them are eager to bring about the end of days, such as the Iranians with their cult of the Hidden Imam. There are Muslims all over the world who will live and die without ever meeting a Jew, yet they will be steadfast in "knowing" Jews are "despicable", and "worthy of death". And don't forget that the "Islamic bomb" already exists, and sits upon Pakistani missiles - Pakistan, the explicitly Islamic nation carved out of India.
In the near term, Israel is surrounded by around 100,000,000 Arabs, many of whom would like to see Israel and the Jews gone. Many of them are oil rich states that can now, as opposed to 1947, afford to buy the best military hardware on the planet - things too expensive for the nations where they were created even.
Just to defend against the 12:1* odds of the Arabs they have to be the best, forever. How realistic is that? Now add in 1.5 billion Muslims from other regions? The odds are decidedly not in Israel's favor. Now add in major shifts in population in the area not favorable to Israel?
There are still Israelis living with direct memories of genocide directed against them, and they know a second is planned. Would you like to trade places?
Then, we don't even have a proof that Iran has a program for nuclear weapons, we only know they are working on nuclear power.
Allow me to draw your attention to Section H of the IAEA director general's report dated 30 August 2012 on Iran's nuclear program, where it states, among other things: "39. The Annex to the Director General's November 2011 report (GOV/2011/65) provided a detailed analysis of the information available to the Agency, indicating that Iran has carried out activities that are relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device." In short, they have found nuclear weapons related activities. I will also drawn your attention to this, where at least seven activities related to nuclear weapons development carried out by Iran are noted. And last, but not least, the UN Secretary General is calling for Iran to come clean on its activities. So the bottom line is, yes, we have proof that Iran has been pursuing a nuclear weapon.
Why is it that USA should be the police of this world? Who gave them this authority?
I'm afraid you're badly confused on this point. It is European Union members that are taking the lead in trying to turn Iran around diplomatically, and the UN Security Council that is holding Iran accountable, as stated in my post above. (Among other things: "The UN Security Council has passed multiple resolutions demanding that Iran halt its uranium enrichment activities.")
My question to you is, how do you get this so wrong? How do you confuse Europe for the United States? Are you trying to claim that the United States is not equal to European powers? Why do you have this prejudice against the United States? Do you post without reading? (Silly me, this is Slashdot.)
The United States has acted in its interests, just like other powers. To pretend that the United States is unique in that is silly and against the facts.
Excuse me, who started it? That would be the Iranian government with their covert nuclear weapons program
I'm sorry, but this doesn't work with me.
I'm not surprised, but I'll work with you on this one - what did Stuxnet attack? Parts of the nuclear weapons program. If the nuclear weapons program didn't exist, would Stuxnet have exited? No, why would it - there would be nothing to attack. Nuclear program is action, Stuxnet is counter-action, AKA blowback. See, very simple when you think about it.
USA admittedly has enough nuclear weapons to destroy earth multiple times. And it's been more than half a century this happened. Why didn't Iran go after USA then?
That is a pretty silly attempt at moral equivalency. I'm amazed that you would try it. But I'll throw in a history lesson for free - the US and Iran were allies until 1979, and World War 2 ended in 1945. Just think about it.
Now, here are a few reasons why Europeans and others might have some concerns about Iran:
You are badly misinformed, on more than one subject.
Allow me to draw you attention to Section H of the IAEA director general's report dated 30 August 2012 on Iran's nuclear program. In it you will see that Iran has carried out a number of weapons related activities, and that there are serious open questions. An earlier report referenced here found seven categories of activity aimed at nuclear weapons production, and rather damning ones at that. And if you can trouble yourself to read, the UN Secretary General is urging Iran to come clean.
Neither the US nor Israel want war with Iran as it would be both an enormous waste of resources, and a dangerous development for the world, including the economy. But the US, Israel, Europe, and most of Iran's neighbors want a nuclear armed Iran even less than war.
You are also wrong about the coup. It was a counter-coup that restored the Shaw to power - that would be the Shaw that was the lawful head of government in Iran prior to the coup that pushed him out and the counter-coup that restored him to power. So, your point there is also nonsense, particularly in light of the ambitions of the radical Shia who formed Iran's government.
Excuse me, who started it? That would be the Iranian government with their covert nuclear weapons program, and continuing threats against the Gulf states and other neighbors, Europe, the US, and Israel. Stuxnet was the blowback, these attacks are escalation. Stuxnet wouldn't have existed without the nuclear program - you'll notice it was apparently aimed at centrifuges, not at sewage treatment. The current attacks by Iran are just a part of their pattern.
The UN Security Council has passed multiple resolutions demanding that Iran halt its uranium enrichment activities. In 2009, concerns over Tehran's nuclear program increased when Iran revealed to the IAEA that it was constructing a second enrichment facility close to the city of Qom, now known as the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant. [7] In November 2011, tensions escalated further when the IAEA released a report with a 14-page annex outlining the "possible military dimensions" of Iran's nuclear program, though most activities described dated to the pre-2003 period. [8] While Iran questioned the evidence in the report and the IAEA's legal authority to investigate non-nuclear activities, the report provoked a series of new sanctions imposed by the United States and the European Union.
UN chief Ban Ki-moon met Iran's president and supreme leader in Tehran on Wednesday and urged them to take concrete steps to prove the country's nuclear program is peaceful. He also called on all states to stop supplying arms to the conflict in Syria, Ban's spokesman, Martin Nesirky, said.
He told reporters in New York that in separate meetings with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the secretary-general further said that he considered their latest verbal attacks on Israel to be offensive, inflammatory and unacceptable. . ..
"On the nuclear question... he said that he regretted that little tangible progress has been achieved so far," Nesirky, speaking by telephone from Tehran, told reporters in New York.
"He said that Iran needed to take concrete steps to address the concerns of the International Atomic Energy Agency and prove to the world that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes," Nesirky said.
In the last six months, the enduring tension between the international community and the Islamic Republic of Iran over its nuclear program has escalated dangerously. Tension notched up last November with a report released by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA): the report by the UN nuclear watchdog marked a break with past findings by expressing in very stark terms, and through extensive documentation, its serious concern that Iran had previously pursued nuclear weapons work. . .
“ – The so-called E3, the U.K., France and Germany: All three are much more inclined than the U.S. to believe that Iran is seeking to weaponize its uranium stockpiles. They have more experience negotiating with Iran as well, and that experience has taught them not to allow Tehran any wiggle room. France in particular has been pushing for a hard line: a full and complete halt to Iran’s nuclear program and the surrender of all of its uranium. “Even if they agree to hand over their 20% enriched uranium, some in Europe will argue to keep up the pressure – to not take down any of the sanctions — until the
Pretty much, yes. They have chemical weapons and missiles, and are trying for nuclear. They also threaten their neighbors, and Europe. (Would have sent you to the old Copt news site that hosted that as well, but for some reason it seems to be off-line. Ideas?)
In April 1984, the Iranian delegate to the United Nations, Rajai Khorassani, admitted at a London news conference that Iran was “capable of manufacturing chemical weapons [and would] consider using them.” In 1987, according to the U.S. Department of Defense, Iran was able to deploy limited quantities of mustard gas and cyanide against Iraqi troops. The change in Iran’s policy with regard to chemical warfare was publicly announced in December 1987, when Iranian Prime Minister Hussein Musavi was reported to have told parliament that Iran was producing “sophisticated offensive chemical weapons.”
As Iran’s chemical warfare capabilities grew, it became more difficult to determine which side was responsible for chemical attacks during the Iran-Iraq war. In March 1988, the Kurdish town of Halabja in northern Iraq, sandwiched between Iranian and Iraqi forces, was caught in chemical weapon crossfire that left thousands of civilians dead. A 1990 U.S. Department of Defense reconstruction of the Halabja incident reportedly concluded that both Iran and Iraq used chemical weapons in Halabja. Iran allegedly attacked the town with cyanide gas bombs and artillery, and Iraqi forces allegedly used a mixture of mustard gas and nerve agents. In total, the Defense Department study estimated that Iranian forces used more than 50 chemical bombs and artillery shells during the offensive. The Pentagon analysis of the Halabja incident is corroborated by a 1990 report co-written by Stephen Pelletiere, the CIA’s senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. In his report, Pelletiere stated that there was “no evidence whatsoever that the Iraqis have ever employed blood gasses such as cyanogen chloride or hydrogen cyanide.” Because “blood agents were allegedly responsible forthe killing of Kurds at Halabjah,” Pelletiere concluded that “the Iranians perpetrated this attack.” . . .
In an assessment of Iran’s chemical weapon development released in November 2004, the CIA concluded that Iran “may have already stockpiled blister, blood, choking, and possible nerve agents—and the bombs and artillery shells to deliver them.” Earlier assessments put Iran’s stockpile of chemical agents at anywhere from several hundred to several thousand metric tons. In March 2001, General Tommy Franks, head of U.S. Central Command, testified before the U.S. House Armed Services Committee that Iran was “the holder of the largest chemical weapons stockpile” in his area of responsibility.
In September 2000, the CIA assessed that Iran’s chemical weapon program still relied upon external suppliers for technology, equipment and precursor chemicals, but that Tehran was “rapidly approaching self-sufficiency and could become a supplier of CW-related materials to other nations.” Since then, the CIA has reported that Iran was seeking “production technology, training and expertise” that could help it “achieve an indigenous capability to produce nerve agents.”
One of the most recent assessments of Iran’s chemical weapon capabilities was revealed in a February 2005 report by the German news agency ddp, citing findings by Germany’s Customs Office of Criminal Investigations (ZKA). The ZKA reportedly believes that Iran has secretly carried out chemical weapon research and development in small, well-guarded unive
When you arbitrarily reduce the number of choices they have for jobs, it is YOU who is exploiting THEM.
Oooh, and I'll bet you're bitter that they can't sell their vital organs, either. What a ruthless society - forcing them to maintain some human dignity and their vital organs!
France's minister for women is to organise a consultation on ways to abolish prostitution in France and Europe, she has told the Guardian.
Najat Vallaud-Belkacem, the high profile women's rights minister and government spokeswoman, said in an interview that she would be organising a conference of experts on how to contain the sex-trade and human-trafficking and was seeking to meet the home secretary Theresa May for input from the UK.
"Since the 19th century and the role of [the Victorian feminist] Josephine Butler, Britain and France have been the core countries in the international mobilisation against prostitution. I really hope that these common roots are still alive," she said. She wanted a meeting with May on how Britain and France approach prostitution and human-trafficking. In France prostitution is not illegal, but activities around it are. Brothels were outlawed in 1946 and pimping is illegal.
In 2003 a controversial law against soliciting was introduced by Nicolas Sarkozy, then interior minister, making it illegal to stand in a public place known for prostitution dressed in revealing clothes.
Last year, the French parliament adopted a resolution on the abolition of prostitution saying its objective was a "society without prostitution".
The consultation would consider recommendations made last year by a cross-party commission of French MPs that it should be illegal to pay for sex. The MPs had suggested all clients of sex workers, meaning anyone who buys sex from any kind of prostitute, would face prison and a fine. Clients of sex-workers face prison in a handful of European countries, including Sweden, Norway and Iceland.
LA JONQUERA, Spain — She had expected a job in a hotel. But when Valentina arrived here two months ago from Romania, the man who helped her get here — a man she had considered her boyfriend — made it clear that the job was on the side of the road.
He threatened to beat her and to kill her children if she did not comply. And so she stood near a roundabout recently, her hair in a greasy ponytail, charging $40 for intercourse, $27 for oral sex.
“For me, life is finished,” she said later that evening, tears running down her face. “I will never forget that I have done this.”
La Jonquera used to be a quiet border town where truckers rested and the French came looking for a deal on hand-painted pottery and leather goods. But these days, prostitution is big business here, as it is elsewhere in Spain, where it is essentially legal.
While the rest of Spain’s economy may be struggling, experts say that prostitution — almost all of it involving the ruthless trafficking of foreign women — is booming, exploding into public view in small towns and big cities. The police recently rescued a 19-year-old Romanian woman from traffickers who had tattooed on her wrist a bar code and the amount she still owed them: more than $2,500.
It's an idealistic vision for how economies work that is very appealing to people with money or people who think they're going to be rich one day. . . . If the economy runs out of bargain hunters as capital dries up, you end up in a feedback loop as the economy spirals downward. Hence, trillions in government stimulus spending.
You must be doing some special math if you think this is a good idea over the long term.
. . . the “Seventh Quarterly Report” on the economic impact of the “stimulus,” released on Friday, July 1, provides further evidence that President Obama’s economic “stimulus” did very little, if anything, to stimulate the economy, and a whole lot to stimulate the debt.
The report was written by the White House’s Council of Economic Advisors, a group of three economists who were all handpicked by Obama, and it chronicles the alleged success of the “stimulus” in adding or saving jobs. The council reports that, using “mainstream estimates of economic multipliers for the effects of fiscal stimulus” (which it describes as a “natural way to estimate the effects of” the legislation), the “stimulus” has added or saved just under 2.4 million jobs — whether private or public — at a cost (to date) of $666 billion. That’s a cost to taxpayers of $278,000 per job.
In other words, the government could simply have cut a $100,000 check to everyone whose employment was allegedly made possible by the “stimulus,” and taxpayers would have come out $427 billion ahead. -- Obama’s Economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job
You should listen to Romney speak, he kind of gives it away:
- Eliminate NPR
I've selected just one of your bullets because it nicely captures overall flavor of your post, and the general level of accuracy.
Romney doesn't call for NPR, actually PBS, to be eliminated, he thinks there is no reason for the Federal government to supply it with 12% of its budget. If the Federal government no longer provides PBS with 12% of its budget, what happens? It either finds someone else to replace that money, or it continues to operate at 88% of current funding. So, your post is not only wrong, but grossly misleading. That is pretty much the picture for the rest of your post - false or misleading, at best. I don't know who finds that "informative", but you obviously duped someone.
Americans like to be lied to so they can keep their precious illusions intact. That is a huge part of the reason your country is in such a mess now.
Spanish unemployment ~ 25%, Greece borders on revolt, the PIGS face economic collapse. The Eurozone is in danger of dissolving. Native European birthrates are so low that Europe is heading toward demographic catastrophe. Large percentages of the large numbers of immigrants brought into Europe do not accept European values and represent a long term danger of civil war. And yet, you cast stones. ..
A bit of humility and actually getting to grips with reality could place the US firmly back in the 1st world.
I think most Americans would rather move forward than back.
(Forget about "world leadership"
That would be taking the eyes off from the road. That doesn't end well usually.
The ability to destroy something does not imply you lead anything.
The ability of the US Navy to destroy the Iranian naval forces planning to block the Straits of Hormuz means that if the need arises, the US Navy will lead the naval task forces keeping the oil flowing to Europe despite the threats of Iranian generals to freeze Europeans in winter.
I used to think that, until the Iraq War. That disaster made me much more partisan. I really think hundreds of thousands of people died because Gore (barely!) lost that election.
I'm afraid you're wrong. Saddam was a butcher that killed his people in peace and war - the Iraqi government is still finding mass graves of Iraqis killed by his regime. The rulers of Iraq's future, his sons, were more violent than he was - he had to restrain them. Think of that - mass murderer Saddam Hussain acting as a restraining influence, and what that would mean for the future of Iraq. The number of people that died from terrorist and insurgent violence under coalition occupation until the reconstitution of the Iraqi government and return of sovereignty to it was no worse than Saddam's long term average. As it is, the mass killing by the government of Iraq is done because Saddam was removed from power, although terrorism is still killing a few thousand people a year in Iraq. If Gore had been elected, and hadn't removed Saddam from power, as was US policy developed under President Clinton, Saddam would still be killing today. Would you feel better if he was still in power and still killing?
Can anyone explain how the Romney tax plan works. We've all heard it doesn't add up, so I'll just summarize that below. What I'm looking for are explanations of how it makes sense.
Seriously - I'd love to see both candidates try and wriggle out of owning that one in the upcoming debates, since both are (by now) equally culpable.
You have the mistaken idea that most Americans oppose the government conducting surveillance on people in direct contact with terrorists organizations. That isn't the case - most Americas support it. Most Americans aren't trapped in the crank fringe view that spying on terrorists trying to blow up shopping malls with truck bombs is the same spying on domestic political opposition.
Too bad there isn't a moderator with sufficient testicular fortitude to hold their feet to that particular fire...
I can tell you how that would work out: Moderator: Ah ha! So you admit you are going to take active steps to prevent terrorists from blowing up ordinary Americans by infringing on the rights of terrorists! Candidate A: Yes! Of course! Moderator: I guess we'll see how many Americas are OK with that! Candidate A: I'm counting on it.
It is quite odd that some people think that any American president would be OK with terrorists attacking Americans at home and not do all in his power to prevent it.
The Spanish Inquisition was also useful in preventing the spread of heretical doctrines. Doesn't mean it was a good idea.
The concern here isn't to prevent the spread of "heretical doctrines" so much as the spreading use of truck bombs. Surveillance of people in contact with the planners of such actions is a good idea. There are people in the United States now who continue to attempt such things. So far the would-be terrorists have been stopped, but there is no guarantee that will continue.
Denver: Man Arrested for Providing Material Support to a Designated Foreign Terrorist Organization
Jamshid Muhtorov was arrested by members of the FBI’s Denver and Chicago Joint Terrorism Task Forces on a charge of providing and attempting to provide material support to the Islamic Jihad Union, a Pakistan-based designated foreign terrorist organization.
Baltimore: Man Pleads Guilty to Attempted Use of a Weapon of Mass Destruction in Plot to Attack Armed Forces Recruiting Center
U.S. citizen Antonio Martinez, aka Muhammad Hussain, pled guilty to attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction against federal property in connection with a scheme to attack an armed forces recruiting station in Catonsville, Maryland.
Washington Field: Man Pleads Guilty to Shootings at Pentagon, Other Military Buildings
Yonathan Melaku, of Alexandria, Virginia, pled guilty to damaging property and to firearms violations involving five separate shootings at military installations in northern Virginia between October and November 2010, and to attempting to damage veterans’ memorials at Arlington National Cemetery.
1.Tampa: Florida Resident Charged with Plotting to Bomb Locations in Tampa
A 25-year-old resident of Pinellas Park, Florida was charged in connection with an alleged plot to attack locations in Tampa with a vehicle bomb, assault rifle, and other explosives.
2.Baltimore: Former Army Solider Charged with Attempting to Provide Material Support to al Shabaab
A man who secretly converted to Islam days before he separated from the Army was charged with attempting to provide material support to al Shabaab, a foreign terrorist organization, and was arrested upon his return to Maryland after traveling to Africa.
Ben Franklin would be completely ignored by the media today, aside from being the occasional punchline.
Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson authorized opening other people's private mail, without a warrant,l to gather intelligence to help win the Revolutionary War. I very much doubt he would object to government surveillance of people in direct contact with Al Qaida.
And the voters would continue to ignore the loss of civil rights.
Which civil rights would those be? The US Constitution doesn't grant any civil right to private communications with foreign terrorist organizations at war with the United States.
They cowered in fear and offered their rights up to a police state as payment for perceived security.
The United States isn't a police state, not even close. You are indulging in hyperbole.
"Breaking the Law is useful in enforcing the Law that is illegal under the foundation of Law."
Wonderful little police state you got there.
Most people here will mistakenly think your comment is snide, but isn't it closer to the mark to call it appreciation tinged with envy?* Of course it isn't true, the United States isn't a police state. Defending yourself against would-be mass murderers, that is terrorists as opposed to political dissenters, is not oppression. Neither is surveillance on people in direct contact with Al Qaida oppression. You'll know the United States is a genuine police state when "slandering the state" earns you 10 years in a labor camp as was common under various socialist regimes of the sort you don't seem to criticize much.
Groups and individuals monitoring human rights have been anticipating the legal changes, hoping that they would eliminate articles that have been used to suppress and punish political dissent - in particular, Article 70, which sanctions imprisonment for anti-Soviet agitation, and Article 190, which allows it for anti-Soviet slander. But the ''guidelines for criminal legislation of the U.S.S.R. and the constituent republics,'' do not mention either article. They deal with some, but not all, of the individual statutes, and mostly offer direction to the 15 republics for rewriting their criminal codes.
* Nobody should be confused about the willingness of would-be revolutionaries to fight the system they intend to overthrow with its own procedures (Rule 4) to maximize their opportunity to act legally while working to subvert the nation. (Once power passes to them, surprises can follow.) The founding leadership of the ACLU is a case in point:
First, Roger Baldwin: Baldwin was the founder of the ACLU . . . Baldwin was an atheist. He was also a onetime communist, who, among other ignoble gestures, wrote a horrible 1928 book called Liberty Under the Soviets. Notably, he was smart enough not to join Communist Party USA (CPUSA). Other early officials of the ACLU, which was founded almost exactly the same time as the American Communist Party, included major party members like William Z. Foster, Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, and Louis Budenz (who later broke with the party). Communists used the ACLU to deflect questions from the U.S. government over whether they were loyal to the USSR, were serving Joe Stalin in some capacity, and were committed to the overthrow of the American system. . ..
So bad had been the ACLU in aiding and abetting American communists that various legislative committees, federal and state, considered whether it was a communist front. The 1943 California Senate Fact-Finding Committee on Un-American Activities reported that the ACLU "may be definitely classed as a communist front." The committee added that "at least 90 percent of its [the ACLU's] efforts are expended on behalf of communists who come into conflict with the law." That 90-percent figure was consistent with a major report produced by Congress a decade earlier, January 17, 1931. --- The ACLU's Not-So-Holy Tri
For instance, the Texas Republican Party Platform document stated that they should make bill of rights cases un-appealable to the Supreme Court by using Congress's control over jurisdiction of courts to make violations of the Bill of Rights outside of the Supreme Court's jurisdiction. (All that bullshit about "critical thinking skills" or whatever was a huge fucking snowjob and the liberals bought into it hook line and stinker.)
I think your entire post is pure BS. Even if what you wrote about the Texas Republican Party was true, which I highly doubt, it doesn't write the platform document for the national Republican party, and it would take national level action, not state level action, to make that sort of change. I think you are trying to take in some rubes.
Limbaugh is also a comedian. The difference is, neither he nor his audience know it.
That isn't quite true. Limbaugh exposes progressive ideas to ridicule, and both he and his audience get it. It is the subjects of the ridicule that don't get it.
If Jesus was alive today he would be against the american conservative movement, those holier than thou fucks need to pull their heads out of their ass and love thy neighbor.
Irony - does it get better than this?
Here are a few topical verses:
One of the scribes came and heard them arguing, and recognizing that He had answered them well, asked Him, “What commandment is the foremost of all?” Jesus answered, “The foremost is, ‘HEAR, O ISRAEL! THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD; AND YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH.’ “The second is this, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” The scribe said to Him, “Right, Teacher; You have truly stated that HE IS ONE, AND THERE IS NO ONE ELSE BESIDES HIM; AND TO LOVE HIM WITH ALL THE HEART AND WITH ALL THE UNDERSTANDING AND WITH ALL THE STRENGTH, AND TO LOVE ONE’S NEIGHBOR AS HIMSELF, is much more than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.” When Jesus saw that he had answered intelligently, He said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” -- Mark 12:28-34
You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.’ “But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. -- Matthew 5:43-45
“Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? “Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me take out the speck that is in your eye,’ when you yourself do not see the log that is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take out the speck that is in your brother’s eye. --- Luke 6:41-42
For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example, because we did not act in an undisciplined manner among you, nor did we eat anyone’s bread without paying for it, but with labor and hardship we kept working night and day so that we would not be a burden to any of you; not because we do not have the right to this, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you, so that you would follow our example. For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either. For we hear that some among you are leading an undisciplined life, doing no work at all, but acting like busybodies. -- 2 Thessalonians 3:7-11
The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery, and having set her in the center of the court, they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in adultery, in the very act. “Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women; what then do You say?” They were saying this, testing Him, so that they might have grounds for accusing Him. But Jesus stooped down and with His finger wrote on the ground. But when they persisted in asking Him, He straightened up, and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” Again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. When they heard it, they began to go out one by one, beginning with the older ones, and He was left alone, and the woman, where she was, in the center of the court. Straightening up, Jesus said to her, “Woman, where ar
Maybe you need to listen to what Romney is saying.
You can find more information and commentary on the plan here.
It doesn't seem to resemble your comments much.
This will be payed by cutting . . . Public Health Mandate, Food Stamps, Subsidized Housing and COBRA aka everything the poorest among us have to not fall into desperate poverty, disease and hunger.
I believe that it is Governor Romney's* plan to move as many people off those programs as possible to a replacement that is much better for both the poor and the taxpayer while leaving the programs for the truly needy. This replacement is called a "job". I hear they work marvels. It is strange that President Obama is trying to gut the Workfare requirements in law.
You do know he was governor of "right wing" Massachusetts, infamous for its poor farms and debtors prisons, right?
Slashdot Mirror
In short, you didn't bother to read the thread, since I don't rely to my own post.
The bible has been in human hands for centuries and copied by hand before printing presses came in. A spelling mistake here, bad handwriting there, the next guy comes along and misreads a word and then 'fixes' the sentence so that it makes sense. I'd be shocked if there was a single page in there that hadn't changed. And that's only accidental changes.
Looking at the things politicians do today, when it's easier to fact-check and catch them out than ever before, I find it completely believable that people just... mis-copied parts of the bible to justify whatever they felt like doing. It's not like people in the year 900 were going to get on Facebook and compare notes with people in other countries. They'd probably never touched a copy of the Bible. Probably couldn't read. A man with a bible could tell people it said anything. Make some changes in his copy, noone would ever know.
You are way wrong on this.
Transmission
B. The Masoretes
The Masoretic scribes (A.D. 500-1000) in charge of the Old Testament manuscript copying used a very meticulous system of transcription and had a deep reverence for the text. God used their almost obsessive respect for the text to preserve the text’s accuracy. They had specific rules on the type of ink and the quality and size of parchment sheets. No individual letter could be written down without having looked back at the copy in front of them. The scribe could not write God’s name with a newly dipped pen (lest it blotch) and even if the king should address him, while writing God’s name, he should take no notice of him. They were so meticulous that they counted all the paragraphs, words and even letters, so they could know by counting, if they had done it perfectly. They knew the middle letter of each book so they could count back and see if they had missed anything. . .
D. The Dead Sea Scrolls
Since the oldest complete copy of a Hebrew Old Testament in existence is dated about A.D. 1000, that’s a long time after the originals were written (1450-400 B.C.). But there are portions that date back farther. Most significant are the Dead Sea Scrolls, which were discovered in caves in 1947 by an Arabian shepherd boy. These well-preserved Hebrew text fragments date back to 100 B.C. They include many Bible portions, including some complete books. Their value to the credibility of our Bible is that amazingly, there is virtual agreement between these Hebrew texts and the ones dated 1,100 years later! This proves how accurately the scribes copies for all those years.
The evidence shows that our Old Testaments today are extremely accurate reflections of the original manuscripts.
Meticulous Care in the Transmission of the Bible
So how reliable are the manuscripts that all these Bibles are translated from? The evidence is overwhelming and seldom disputed. Manuscripts prepared from different individuals spread over various parts of the Middle East and Mediterranean region agree remarkably with each other. Also, the manuscripts agree with the Septuagint, which was translated to Greek from Hebrew possibly as far back as the 3rd century BC. The Dead Sea scrolls discovered in 1947 also provided a profound testimony to the reliability of the centuries of transmission of the Bible text, as every Old Testament book found was virtually word for word with today's Bible! (the few differences were "obvious slips of the pen or variations in spelling"1).
The scribes who were in charge of the Old Testament text dedicated their lives to preserving the text's accuracy when they made copies. The great lengths the scribes went to guarantee the reliability of the copies is illustrated by the fact that they would count every letter and every word, and record in the margins such things as the middle letter and word of the Torah. If
No, that's wrong. It attacked the nuclear enrichment facility responsible for producing heavy water. If you didn't know, it's a different set of equipment to produce heavy water for nuclear weapon, the concentration in heavy water has to be an order of magnitude higher.
Actually, it attacked centrifuges, necessary for enriching Uranium. The Iranians had been putting a lot more of them into operation to obtain both more Uranium, and more highly enriched Uranium. Funny, they turned down offers to get enriched Uranium from other nations. It is almost as if they had something to hide, such as exactly how much Uranium of what enrichment they were producing. The only reason they would be likely to do that would be if they intended to do something unauthorized, like build bombs. By the way, heavy water isn't actually used in nuclear weapons themselves, although tritium is used in boosted and thermal nuclear weapons.
The Stuxnet cyberweapon may have destroyed as many as 1,000 Iranian nuclear-fuel centrifuges – more than one-tenth of the Natanz uranium enrichment plant's capacity – in late 2009 and early 2010, according to a recent report by a nuclear arms-control watchdog group - - Stuxnet attack on Iran nuclear program came about a year ago, report says
--
That's really too bad that you got your facts wrong in the first place.
Funny, I was thinking the same about you.
Even if we assume that all of Israel's neighbors want to wipe it off the face of the Earth, none of these neighbors currently have nuclear weapons. Israel already has the best military force in the Middle East.
Israel is a country of just under 8 million people on a sliver of land so small that at the shortest point it is only 20 miles across.
There are approximately 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, and they are taught the following according to the traditions of Islam and the sayings of the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH):
Islam and antisemitism
"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews , when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdullah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Muslim).Sahih Muslim, 41:6985, see also Sahih Muslim, 41:6981, Sahih Muslim, 41:6982, Sahih Muslim, 41:6983, Sahih Muslim, 41:6984, Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:56:791,(Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:177)
”This hadith has been quoted countless times, and it has become a part of the charter of Hamas.[54]
Think about that, approximately 25% of the world's population is taught that at the end of days, all Jews will be, must be killed. And some of them are eager to bring about the end of days, such as the Iranians with their cult of the Hidden Imam. There are Muslims all over the world who will live and die without ever meeting a Jew, yet they will be steadfast in "knowing" Jews are "despicable", and "worthy of death". And don't forget that the "Islamic bomb" already exists, and sits upon Pakistani missiles - Pakistan, the explicitly Islamic nation carved out of India.
In the near term, Israel is surrounded by around 100,000,000 Arabs, many of whom would like to see Israel and the Jews gone. Many of them are oil rich states that can now, as opposed to 1947, afford to buy the best military hardware on the planet - things too expensive for the nations where they were created even.
Just to defend against the 12:1* odds of the Arabs they have to be the best, forever. How realistic is that? Now add in 1.5 billion Muslims from other regions? The odds are decidedly not in Israel's favor. Now add in major shifts in population in the area not favorable to Israel?
There are still Israelis living with direct memories of genocide directed against them, and they know a second is planned. Would you like to trade places?
We haven't even touched on European anti-semitism, which is on the rise again.
* 12:1 is being generous - Israel is only 75% Jewish, and many in Israel are exempt from the draft - both Jews and non-Jews.
Then, we don't even have a proof that Iran has a program for nuclear weapons, we only know they are working on nuclear power.
Allow me to draw your attention to Section H of the IAEA director general's report dated 30 August 2012 on Iran's nuclear program, where it states, among other things: "39. The Annex to the Director General's November 2011 report (GOV/2011/65) provided a detailed analysis of the information available to the Agency, indicating that Iran has carried out activities that are relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device." In short, they have found nuclear weapons related activities. I will also drawn your attention to this, where at least seven activities related to nuclear weapons development carried out by Iran are noted. And last, but not least, the UN Secretary General is calling for Iran to come clean on its activities. So the bottom line is, yes, we have proof that Iran has been pursuing a nuclear weapon.
Why is it that USA should be the police of this world? Who gave them this authority?
I'm afraid you're badly confused on this point. It is European Union members that are taking the lead in trying to turn Iran around diplomatically, and the UN Security Council that is holding Iran accountable, as stated in my post above. (Among other things: "The UN Security Council has passed multiple resolutions demanding that Iran halt its uranium enrichment activities.")
My question to you is, how do you get this so wrong? How do you confuse Europe for the United States? Are you trying to claim that the United States is not equal to European powers? Why do you have this prejudice against the United States? Do you post without reading? (Silly me, this is Slashdot.)
The United States has acted in its interests, just like other powers. To pretend that the United States is unique in that is silly and against the facts.
Excuse me, who started it? That would be the Iranian government with their covert nuclear weapons program
I'm sorry, but this doesn't work with me.
I'm not surprised, but I'll work with you on this one - what did Stuxnet attack? Parts of the nuclear weapons program. If the nuclear weapons program didn't exist, would Stuxnet have exited? No, why would it - there would be nothing to attack. Nuclear program is action, Stuxnet is counter-action, AKA blowback. See, very simple when you think about it.
USA admittedly has enough nuclear weapons to destroy earth multiple times. And it's been more than half a century this happened. Why didn't Iran go after USA then?
That is a pretty silly attempt at moral equivalency. I'm amazed that you would try it. But I'll throw in a history lesson for free - the US and Iran were allies until 1979, and World War 2 ended in 1945. Just think about it.
Now, here are a few reasons why Europeans and others might have some concerns about Iran:
Iran Threatens To 'Freeze' Europe for Backing Sanctions (Would have sent you to the old Copt news site that hosted that as well, but for some reason it seems to be off-line. Ideas ?)
State Sponsors: Iran
You are badly misinformed, on more than one subject.
Allow me to draw you attention to Section H of the IAEA director general's report dated 30 August 2012 on Iran's nuclear program. In it you will see that Iran has carried out a number of weapons related activities, and that there are serious open questions. An earlier report referenced here found seven categories of activity aimed at nuclear weapons production, and rather damning ones at that. And if you can trouble yourself to read, the UN Secretary General is urging Iran to come clean.
Neither the US nor Israel want war with Iran as it would be both an enormous waste of resources, and a dangerous development for the world, including the economy. But the US, Israel, Europe, and most of Iran's neighbors want a nuclear armed Iran even less than war.
You are also wrong about the coup. It was a counter-coup that restored the Shaw to power - that would be the Shaw that was the lawful head of government in Iran prior to the coup that pushed him out and the counter-coup that restored him to power. So, your point there is also nonsense, particularly in light of the ambitions of the radical Shia who formed Iran's government.
And I'll throw in a bonus since you get so much else wrong: State Sponsors: Iran
Excuse me, who started it? That would be the Iranian government with their covert nuclear weapons program, and continuing threats against the Gulf states and other neighbors, Europe, the US, and Israel. Stuxnet was the blowback, these attacks are escalation. Stuxnet wouldn't have existed without the nuclear program - you'll notice it was apparently aimed at centrifuges, not at sewage treatment. The current attacks by Iran are just a part of their pattern.
Nuclear
The UN Security Council has passed multiple resolutions demanding that Iran halt its uranium enrichment activities. In 2009, concerns over Tehran's nuclear program increased when Iran revealed to the IAEA that it was constructing a second enrichment facility close to the city of Qom, now known as the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant. [7] In November 2011, tensions escalated further when the IAEA released a report with a 14-page annex outlining the "possible military dimensions" of Iran's nuclear program, though most activities described dated to the pre-2003 period. [8] While Iran questioned the evidence in the report and the IAEA's legal authority to investigate non-nuclear activities, the report provoked a series of new sanctions imposed by the United States and the European Union.
UN chief to Iran: Prove nuclear program is peaceful, cease verbal attacks on Israel
UN chief Ban Ki-moon met Iran's president and supreme leader in Tehran on Wednesday and urged them to take concrete steps to prove the country's nuclear program is peaceful. He also called on all states to stop supplying arms to the conflict in Syria, Ban's spokesman, Martin Nesirky, said.
He told reporters in New York that in separate meetings with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the secretary-general further said that he considered their latest verbal attacks on Israel to be offensive, inflammatory and unacceptable. . . .
"On the nuclear question ... he said that he regretted that little tangible progress has been achieved so far," Nesirky, speaking by telephone from Tehran, told reporters in New York.
"He said that Iran needed to take concrete steps to address the concerns of the International Atomic Energy Agency and prove to the world that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes," Nesirky said.
STAKES ARE HIGH FOR EU DIPLOMACY IN IRANIAN NUCLEAR CRISIS
In the last six months, the enduring tension between the international community and the Islamic Republic of Iran over its nuclear program has escalated dangerously. Tension notched up last November with a report released by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA): the report by the UN nuclear watchdog marked a break with past findings by expressing in very stark terms, and through extensive documentation, its serious concern that Iran had previously pursued nuclear weapons work. . .
“ – The so-called E3, the U.K., France and Germany: All three are much more inclined than the U.S. to believe that Iran is seeking to weaponize its uranium stockpiles. They have more experience negotiating with Iran as well, and that experience has taught them not to allow Tehran any wiggle room. France in particular has been pushing for a hard line: a full and complete halt to Iran’s nuclear program and the surrender of all of its uranium. “Even if they agree to hand over their 20% enriched uranium, some in Europe will argue to keep up the pressure – to not take down any of the sanctions — until the
Nobody is going to confuse Iran with the "Free" part of Freedonia.
Pretty much, yes. They have chemical weapons and missiles, and are trying for nuclear. They also threaten their neighbors, and Europe. (Would have sent you to the old Copt news site that hosted that as well, but for some reason it seems to be off-line. Ideas?)
Iran’s Chemical Weapon Program
In April 1984, the Iranian delegate to the United Nations, Rajai Khorassani, admitted at a London news conference that Iran was “capable of manufacturing chemical weapons [and would] consider using them.” In 1987, according to the U.S. Department of Defense, Iran was able to deploy limited quantities of mustard gas and cyanide against Iraqi troops. The change in Iran’s policy with regard to chemical warfare was publicly announced in December 1987, when Iranian Prime Minister Hussein Musavi was reported to have told parliament that Iran was producing “sophisticated offensive chemical weapons.”
As Iran’s chemical warfare capabilities grew, it became more difficult to determine which side was responsible for chemical attacks during the Iran-Iraq war. In March 1988, the Kurdish town of Halabja in northern Iraq, sandwiched between Iranian and Iraqi forces, was caught in chemical weapon crossfire that left thousands of civilians dead. A 1990 U.S. Department of Defense reconstruction of the Halabja incident reportedly concluded that both Iran and Iraq used chemical weapons in Halabja. Iran allegedly attacked the town with cyanide gas bombs and artillery, and Iraqi forces allegedly used a mixture of mustard gas and nerve agents. In total, the Defense Department study estimated that Iranian forces used more than 50 chemical bombs and artillery shells during the offensive. The Pentagon analysis of the Halabja incident is corroborated by a 1990 report co-written by Stephen Pelletiere, the CIA’s senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. In his report, Pelletiere stated that there was “no evidence whatsoever that the Iraqis have ever employed blood gasses such as cyanogen chloride or hydrogen cyanide.” Because “blood agents were allegedly responsible forthe killing of Kurds at Halabjah,” Pelletiere concluded that “the Iranians perpetrated this attack.” . . .
In an assessment of Iran’s chemical weapon development released in November 2004, the CIA concluded that Iran “may have already stockpiled blister, blood, choking, and possible nerve agents—and the bombs and artillery shells to deliver them.” Earlier assessments put Iran’s stockpile of chemical agents at anywhere from several hundred to several thousand metric tons. In March 2001, General Tommy Franks, head of U.S. Central Command, testified before the U.S. House Armed Services Committee that Iran was “the holder of the largest chemical weapons stockpile” in his area of responsibility.
In September 2000, the CIA assessed that Iran’s chemical weapon program still relied upon external suppliers for technology, equipment and precursor chemicals, but that Tehran was “rapidly approaching self-sufficiency and could become a supplier of CW-related materials to other nations.” Since then, the CIA has reported that Iran was seeking “production technology, training and expertise” that could help it “achieve an indigenous capability to produce nerve agents.”
One of the most recent assessments of Iran’s chemical weapon capabilities was revealed in a February 2005 report by the German news agency ddp, citing findings by Germany’s Customs Office of Criminal Investigations (ZKA). The ZKA reportedly believes that Iran has secretly carried out chemical weapon research and development in small, well-guarded unive
When you arbitrarily reduce the number of choices they have for jobs, it is YOU who is exploiting THEM.
Oooh, and I'll bet you're bitter that they can't sell their vital organs, either. What a ruthless society - forcing them to maintain some human dignity and their vital organs!
For bonus points, I grew in Wells, ME, about 10km south of Kennebunk
I guess you grew up there some time ago.
just make prostitution legal (and regulated) like most of Europe.
A very long time ago.
Maybe it is better if the US doesn't legalize prostitution like the !most of Europe, and the part of Europe where it is legal but being moved against?
French minister for women seeks abolition of prostitution in Europe
France's minister for women is to organise a consultation on ways to abolish prostitution in France and Europe, she has told the Guardian.
Najat Vallaud-Belkacem, the high profile women's rights minister and government spokeswoman, said in an interview that she would be organising a conference of experts on how to contain the sex-trade and human-trafficking and was seeking to meet the home secretary Theresa May for input from the UK.
"Since the 19th century and the role of [the Victorian feminist] Josephine Butler, Britain and France have been the core countries in the international mobilisation against prostitution. I really hope that these common roots are still alive," she said. She wanted a meeting with May on how Britain and France approach prostitution and human-trafficking. In France prostitution is not illegal, but activities around it are. Brothels were outlawed in 1946 and pimping is illegal.
In 2003 a controversial law against soliciting was introduced by Nicolas Sarkozy, then interior minister, making it illegal to stand in a public place known for prostitution dressed in revealing clothes.
Last year, the French parliament adopted a resolution on the abolition of prostitution saying its objective was a "society without prostitution".
The consultation would consider recommendations made last year by a cross-party commission of French MPs that it should be illegal to pay for sex. The MPs had suggested all clients of sex workers, meaning anyone who buys sex from any kind of prostitute, would face prison and a fine. Clients of sex-workers face prison in a handful of European countries, including Sweden, Norway and Iceland.
Spain, the world capital of prostitution?
In Spain, Women Enslaved by a Boom in Brothel Tourism
LA JONQUERA, Spain — She had expected a job in a hotel. But when Valentina arrived here two months ago from Romania, the man who helped her get here — a man she had considered her boyfriend — made it clear that the job was on the side of the road.
He threatened to beat her and to kill her children if she did not comply. And so she stood near a roundabout recently, her hair in a greasy ponytail, charging $40 for intercourse, $27 for oral sex.
“For me, life is finished,” she said later that evening, tears running down her face. “I will never forget that I have done this.”
La Jonquera used to be a quiet border town where truckers rested and the French came looking for a deal on hand-painted pottery and leather goods. But these days, prostitution is big business here, as it is elsewhere in Spain, where it is essentially legal.
While the rest of Spain’s economy may be struggling, experts say that prostitution — almost all of it involving the ruthless trafficking of foreign women — is booming, exploding into public view in small towns and big cities. The police recently rescued a 19-year-old Romanian woman from traffickers who had tattooed on her wrist a bar code and the amount she still owed them: more than $2,500.
In the past, most c
It's an idealistic vision for how economies work that is very appealing to people with money or people who think they're going to be rich one day. . . . If the economy runs out of bargain hunters as capital dries up, you end up in a feedback loop as the economy spirals downward. Hence, trillions in government stimulus spending.
You must be doing some special math if you think this is a good idea over the long term.
. . . the “Seventh Quarterly Report” on the economic impact of the “stimulus,” released on Friday, July 1, provides further evidence that President Obama’s economic “stimulus” did very little, if anything, to stimulate the economy, and a whole lot to stimulate the debt.
The report was written by the White House’s Council of Economic Advisors, a group of three economists who were all handpicked by Obama, and it chronicles the alleged success of the “stimulus” in adding or saving jobs. The council reports that, using “mainstream estimates of economic multipliers for the effects of fiscal stimulus” (which it describes as a “natural way to estimate the effects of” the legislation), the “stimulus” has added or saved just under 2.4 million jobs — whether private or public — at a cost (to date) of $666 billion. That’s a cost to taxpayers of $278,000 per job.
In other words, the government could simply have cut a $100,000 check to everyone whose employment was allegedly made possible by the “stimulus,” and taxpayers would have come out $427 billion ahead. -- Obama’s Economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job
You should listen to Romney speak, he kind of gives it away:
- Eliminate NPR
I've selected just one of your bullets because it nicely captures overall flavor of your post, and the general level of accuracy.
Romney doesn't call for NPR, actually PBS, to be eliminated, he thinks there is no reason for the Federal government to supply it with 12% of its budget. If the Federal government no longer provides PBS with 12% of its budget, what happens? It either finds someone else to replace that money, or it continues to operate at 88% of current funding. So, your post is not only wrong, but grossly misleading. That is pretty much the picture for the rest of your post - false or misleading, at best. I don't know who finds that "informative", but you obviously duped someone.
Americans like to be lied to so they can keep their precious illusions intact. That is a huge part of the reason your country is in such a mess now.
Spanish unemployment ~ 25%, Greece borders on revolt, the PIGS face economic collapse. The Eurozone is in danger of dissolving. Native European birthrates are so low that Europe is heading toward demographic catastrophe. Large percentages of the large numbers of immigrants brought into Europe do not accept European values and represent a long term danger of civil war. And yet, you cast stones. . .
A bit of humility and actually getting to grips with reality could place the US firmly back in the 1st world.
I think most Americans would rather move forward than back.
(Forget about "world leadership"
That would be taking the eyes off from the road. That doesn't end well usually.
The ability to destroy something does not imply you lead anything.
The ability of the US Navy to destroy the Iranian naval forces planning to block the Straits of Hormuz means that if the need arises, the US Navy will lead the naval task forces keeping the oil flowing to Europe despite the threats of Iranian generals to freeze Europeans in winter.
I used to think that, until the Iraq War. That disaster made me much more partisan. I really think hundreds of thousands of people died because Gore (barely!) lost that election.
I'm afraid you're wrong. Saddam was a butcher that killed his people in peace and war - the Iraqi government is still finding mass graves of Iraqis killed by his regime. The rulers of Iraq's future, his sons, were more violent than he was - he had to restrain them. Think of that - mass murderer Saddam Hussain acting as a restraining influence, and what that would mean for the future of Iraq. The number of people that died from terrorist and insurgent violence under coalition occupation until the reconstitution of the Iraqi government and return of sovereignty to it was no worse than Saddam's long term average. As it is, the mass killing by the government of Iraq is done because Saddam was removed from power, although terrorism is still killing a few thousand people a year in Iraq. If Gore had been elected, and hadn't removed Saddam from power, as was US policy developed under President Clinton, Saddam would still be killing today. Would you feel better if he was still in power and still killing?
Can anyone explain how the Romney tax plan works. We've all heard it doesn't add up, so I'll just summarize that below. What I'm looking for are explanations of how it makes sense.
You can find your explanation here: The Romney Tax Plan: Not a Tax Hike on the Middle Class
Seriously - I'd love to see both candidates try and wriggle out of owning that one in the upcoming debates, since both are (by now) equally culpable.
You have the mistaken idea that most Americans oppose the government conducting surveillance on people in direct contact with terrorists organizations. That isn't the case - most Americas support it. Most Americans aren't trapped in the crank fringe view that spying on terrorists trying to blow up shopping malls with truck bombs is the same spying on domestic political opposition.
Too bad there isn't a moderator with sufficient testicular fortitude to hold their feet to that particular fire...
I can tell you how that would work out:
Moderator: Ah ha! So you admit you are going to take active steps to prevent terrorists from blowing up ordinary Americans by infringing on the rights of terrorists!
Candidate A: Yes! Of course!
Moderator: I guess we'll see how many Americas are OK with that!
Candidate A: I'm counting on it.
It is quite odd that some people think that any American president would be OK with terrorists attacking Americans at home and not do all in his power to prevent it.
... and dissenters are put on "lists", and harrassed.
Or worse.
You do realize that was primarily a power struggle within one fascist political party, right?
It would be somewhere between utter fantasy and sheer lunacy to assert the United States is on the precipice of anything like that.
The Spanish Inquisition was also useful in preventing the spread of heretical doctrines. Doesn't mean it was a good idea.
The concern here isn't to prevent the spread of "heretical doctrines" so much as the spreading use of truck bombs. Surveillance of people in contact with the planners of such actions is a good idea. There are people in the United States now who continue to attempt such things. So far the would-be terrorists have been stopped, but there is no guarantee that will continue.
Just a small sample:
FBI’s Top Ten News Stories for the Week Ending January 27, 2012
FBI’s Top Ten News Stories for the Week Ending January 13, 2012
FBI’s Top Ten News Stories for the Week Ending December 9, 2011
FBI’s Top Ten News Stories for the Week Ending December 2, 2011
More here.
Ben Franklin would be completely ignored by the media today, aside from being the occasional punchline.
Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson authorized opening other people's private mail, without a warrant,l to gather intelligence to help win the Revolutionary War. I very much doubt he would object to government surveillance of people in direct contact with Al Qaida.
And the voters would continue to ignore the loss of civil rights.
Which civil rights would those be? The US Constitution doesn't grant any civil right to private communications with foreign terrorist organizations at war with the United States.
They cowered in fear and offered their rights up to a police state as payment for perceived security.
The United States isn't a police state, not even close. You are indulging in hyperbole.
"Breaking the Law is useful in enforcing the Law that is illegal under the foundation of Law."
Wonderful little police state you got there.
Most people here will mistakenly think your comment is snide, but isn't it closer to the mark to call it appreciation tinged with envy?* Of course it isn't true, the United States isn't a police state. Defending yourself against would-be mass murderers, that is terrorists as opposed to political dissenters, is not oppression. Neither is surveillance on people in direct contact with Al Qaida oppression. You'll know the United States is a genuine police state when "slandering the state" earns you 10 years in a labor camp as was common under various socialist regimes of the sort you don't seem to criticize much.
The United States isn't quite there yet as President Obama's "Green Jobs Czar", Van Jones, was just a little too openly radical for the present age.
Proposed Soviet Legal Code to Retain Execution - By ESTHER B. FEIN, Special to the New York Times, December 18, 1988
Groups and individuals monitoring human rights have been anticipating the legal changes, hoping that they would eliminate articles that have been used to suppress and punish political dissent - in particular, Article 70, which sanctions imprisonment for anti-Soviet agitation, and Article 190, which allows it for anti-Soviet slander. But the ''guidelines for criminal legislation of the U.S.S.R. and the constituent republics,'' do not mention either article. They deal with some, but not all, of the individual statutes, and mostly offer direction to the 15 republics for rewriting their criminal codes.
* Nobody should be confused about the willingness of would-be revolutionaries to fight the system they intend to overthrow with its own procedures (Rule 4) to maximize their opportunity to act legally while working to subvert the nation. (Once power passes to them, surprises can follow.) The founding leadership of the ACLU is a case in point:
First, Roger Baldwin: Baldwin was the founder of the ACLU . . . Baldwin was an atheist. He was also a onetime communist, who, among other ignoble gestures, wrote a horrible 1928 book called Liberty Under the Soviets. Notably, he was smart enough not to join Communist Party USA (CPUSA). Other early officials of the ACLU, which was founded almost exactly the same time as the American Communist Party, included major party members like William Z. Foster, Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, and Louis Budenz (who later broke with the party). Communists used the ACLU to deflect questions from the U.S. government over whether they were loyal to the USSR, were serving Joe Stalin in some capacity, and were committed to the overthrow of the American system. . . .
So bad had been the ACLU in aiding and abetting American communists that various legislative committees, federal and state, considered whether it was a communist front. The 1943 California Senate Fact-Finding Committee on Un-American Activities reported that the ACLU "may be definitely classed as a communist front." The committee added that "at least 90 percent of its [the ACLU's] efforts are expended on behalf of communists who come into conflict with the law." That 90-percent figure was consistent with a major report produced by Congress a decade earlier, January 17, 1931. --- The ACLU's Not-So-Holy Tri
For instance, the Texas Republican Party Platform document stated that they should make bill of rights cases un-appealable to the Supreme Court by using Congress's control over jurisdiction of courts to make violations of the Bill of Rights outside of the Supreme Court's jurisdiction. (All that bullshit about "critical thinking skills" or whatever was a huge fucking snowjob and the liberals bought into it hook line and stinker.)
I think your entire post is pure BS. Even if what you wrote about the Texas Republican Party was true, which I highly doubt, it doesn't write the platform document for the national Republican party, and it would take national level action, not state level action, to make that sort of change. I think you are trying to take in some rubes.
Limbaugh is also a comedian. The difference is, neither he nor his audience know it.
That isn't quite true. Limbaugh exposes progressive ideas to ridicule, and both he and his audience get it. It is the subjects of the ridicule that don't get it.
If Jesus was alive today he would be against the american conservative movement, those holier than thou fucks need to pull their heads out of their ass and love thy neighbor.
Irony - does it get better than this?
Here are a few topical verses:
One of the scribes came and heard them arguing, and recognizing that He had answered them well, asked Him, “What commandment is the foremost of all?” Jesus answered, “The foremost is, ‘HEAR, O ISRAEL! THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD; AND YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH.’ “The second is this, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” The scribe said to Him, “Right, Teacher; You have truly stated that HE IS ONE, AND THERE IS NO ONE ELSE BESIDES HIM; AND TO LOVE HIM WITH ALL THE HEART AND WITH ALL THE UNDERSTANDING AND WITH ALL THE STRENGTH, AND TO LOVE ONE’S NEIGHBOR AS HIMSELF, is much more than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.” When Jesus saw that he had answered intelligently, He said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” -- Mark 12:28-34
You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.’ “But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. -- Matthew 5:43-45
“Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? “Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me take out the speck that is in your eye,’ when you yourself do not see the log that is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take out the speck that is in your brother’s eye. --- Luke 6:41-42
For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example, because we did not act in an undisciplined manner among you, nor did we eat anyone’s bread without paying for it, but with labor and hardship we kept working night and day so that we would not be a burden to any of you; not because we do not have the right to this, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you, so that you would follow our example. For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either. For we hear that some among you are leading an undisciplined life, doing no work at all, but acting like busybodies. -- 2 Thessalonians 3:7-11
The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery, and having set her in the center of the court, they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in adultery, in the very act. “Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women; what then do You say?” They were saying this, testing Him, so that they might have grounds for accusing Him. But Jesus stooped down and with His finger wrote on the ground. But when they persisted in asking Him, He straightened up, and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” Again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. When they heard it, they began to go out one by one, beginning with the older ones, and He was left alone, and the woman, where she was, in the center of the court. Straightening up, Jesus said to her, “Woman, where ar
Maybe you need to listen to what Romney is saying.
You can find more information and commentary on the plan here.
It doesn't seem to resemble your comments much.
This will be payed by cutting . . . Public Health Mandate, Food Stamps, Subsidized Housing and COBRA aka everything the poorest among us have to not fall into desperate poverty, disease and hunger.
I believe that it is Governor Romney's* plan to move as many people off those programs as possible to a replacement that is much better for both the poor and the taxpayer while leaving the programs for the truly needy. This replacement is called a "job". I hear they work marvels. It is strange that President Obama is trying to gut the Workfare requirements in law.
You do know he was governor of "right wing" Massachusetts, infamous for its poor farms and debtors prisons, right?