State of the Union - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-21-2004, 02:24 PM   #31
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Rono's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: the Netherlands
Posts: 6,163
Local Time: 05:05 PM
So, no gay mariage then,....

Next time when Bush has alcohol problems , he should go to the AA instead to Bill Graham.
__________________

__________________
Rono is offline  
Old 01-21-2004, 03:28 PM   #32
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 11:05 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Headache in a Suitcase
i can still voice my own opinions, practice my own religions, and lead my life the way i choose to lead it. sorry... i guess that horrifying oppression of the patriot act hasn't reached this part of the country just yet .
As long as you're visibly white, it won't affect you.

Melon
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
Old 01-21-2004, 03:36 PM   #33
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 11:05 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Headache in a Suitcase
where i agree with bush that marriage should be between a man and a woman, some sort of civil union between a man and a man or a woman and a woman should be recognized. the divorce rates in this country are staggering... so the so called sanctity of marriage is already stained... not that allowing civil unions between homosexuals would be a stain, but marriage is no longer sacred, so why try to pretend that it still is. if we live in a nation of freedom of choice, then the choice of a man to spend his life with another man has to be respected, wether you agree with it or not.
What pisses me off about this statement is the automatic assumption that a same-sex union is automatically undeserving of similar religious dignity. While the Pope and the Bible Belt scream as loud as they can, it is completely ignoring the fact that not all religions agree. There are lots of Christian and non-Christian religions willing to offer marriage to same-sex couples.

I think that marriage should probably change into how France deals with it. If you want to get married in a church, then go right ahead; but you still have to get married in front of a civil authority. The biggest hypocrites in this subject already have to be the Vatican, who don't recognize any marriages outside of ones performed in a Roman Catholic church or with a Catholic priest present. So, for the rest of you that aren't Catholic, officially speaking, all of you are living in sin in their eyes.

Church-and-state should be separated completely. If we want to establish civil unions, then fine. Heterosexuals should have their feelings reduced to a legal contract in the same manner, and if they want to go to church, then they should do it on their own time with no state recognition.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 01-21-2004, 04:27 PM   #34
War Child
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: New York, NY, USA
Posts: 613
Local Time: 04:05 PM

"OUR NATION MUST DEFEND THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE"


Question: Are TV shows like "The Bachelor" "The Bachelorette" "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire" "Average Joe" "Joe Millionaire" DEFENDING the sanctity of marriage?

No. Those shows are basically pissing on marriage. People saying they are in complete love after 2 episodes, or people marrying for money's sake, or just to be on television/famous. LOTS of people watch these shows, so they may even reach a larger population than even the State of the Union Address. My point is: How can "America" defend what it calls a sacred marriage between a man and woman when it SUPPORTS "propaganda" to piss on it with shows like those. Now, maybe that's for entertainment purposes only, but those people ARE REALLY GETTING married and are REALLY GETTINg divorced. I know I'm preaching to a choir here, but Bush's statement on gay marriage is completely hyprocritical. Marriage is about LOVE, not religion, popes, and traditional conservative crap. Welcome to the 21st century Dubya!!
__________________
tackleberry is offline  
Old 01-21-2004, 06:40 PM   #35
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 04:05 PM
melon,

""Irrelevance" isn't what you or Bush fear for the United Nations. "Irrelevance" is what you or Bush fear for the United States. By demanding UN weapons inspectors, and, once you get them, to have the US decide that they have done no good, then what was the point of the UN getting involved at all? To be a rubber stamp for a larger agenda? That little act has made the UN more irrelevant than anything else Bush could have done. I'm not terribly surprised, however."

Its very simple. Saddam went before the UN assembly in September 2002 and said he was willing to give Saddam "one last chance" providing he let the inspectors back in and then VERIFIABLY DISARMED! It was still SADDAM's responsibility to VERIFIABLY DISARM! It was up to Saddam to either:

1. Present the UN inspecters with all WMD and related programs so they could be verifiably destroyed in the presence of inspectors as required by the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire.

2. If Saddam had in fact destroyed the WMD and related programs, it was his responsibility to show the remains of the destruction to the inspectors and any other evidence relating to that destruction.


Saddam never did #1 or #2. At no time did the UN declare that Saddam had verifiably disarmed and complied with the resolutions. Saddam never showed the WMD or the remains of the WMD that he had back in 1998 according to UN inspectors and Saddam himself.

The UN inspectors job was to verifiably destroy WMD and related programs in cooperation with Saddam. The UN inspectors were never a POLICE force that could completely locate and destroy all WMD, independent of cooperation from Saddam.

Saddam's failure to cooperate in the 1990s and the world communities failure to enforce the resolutions with "all means necessary" helped to make the UN resolutions and ceacefire agreement seem irrelevant, especially in the eyes of Saddam himself who never believed the coalition would invade and overthrow him.

Instead of playing Saddam's games of hide and seek and duck duck goose, Bush gave Saddam one last chance finally cooperate or face a military invasion to remove him to insure verifiable disarmament.

Finally after 13 years since they were passed, multiple UN resolutions and the Ceacefire have been complied with. That has brought the relevance of UN resolutions from 0 back to where they should be. Especially these UN resolutions which were passed under Chapter VII rules of the UN.


"So why didn't Bush make this speech? He didn't, though. He focused on WMDs that he said the UN weapons inspectors were too stupid to find, and now even we can't find them. The fact remains that Bush did not officially topple Saddam on any of these points you mention except one: WMDs. And the way he advocated such a case was on the basis of faulty intelligence. It was our faith-based war: Bush knew the end that he wanted (toppling Saddam). It was only a matter of inventing a reason, and, as Wolfowitz once said with a Dean-like zeal, WMDs were a reason "that we could all agree upon.""


Everything is linked together. Do you want someone that has murdered 1.7 million people to have WMDs? Do you want someone that has invaded and attacked 4 countries in the past 20 years to have WMD's? Do you want someone that has used WMD's on more occasions to have WMD's? Do you want someone that has threatened the world's economy and way of life through his attempts to sieze and destroy much of the worlds energy supply to possess WMD?

When laying down the conditions for the March 1991 Gulf War Ceace Fire, the Bush Sr. Administration along with other countries determined that because of the above, Saddam should not have WMD and MUST be verifiably disarmed or face military action to verifiably disarm him.

Bush Jr. did list all of the above in his speaches. All of it is linked together in addition with Saddam's failure to verifiably disarm of all WMD. Considering what Saddam had done in the past, how could anyone advocate not forcing Saddam to finally verifiably disarm with whatever means necessary.

Saddam had failed to verifiably disarm for 12 years, what does anyone gain in terms of security by waiting longer for this to happen. Do you think Saddam would suddenly wake up one day and say, GEE, I think it would be cool to verifiably disarm?

There is no "invention" here of a reason! Saddam was required by the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire to verifiably disarm or face the use of military force. This is not some invention. This is a FACT! It was incumbent upon Saddam to prove that he had verifiably disarmed 100%. Although he had the means to do so, Saddam never did this. Saddam failed to comply with the conditions he agreed to in March 1991, and has now suffered the consequences of failing to satisfy those conditions on the ceacefire agreement.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 01-21-2004, 07:22 PM   #36
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
DrTeeth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Q continuum
Posts: 4,770
Local Time: 05:05 PM
I just don't get why gay marriage is still an issue. In a secular state, what on earth can be the legal ground for refusing two men or women to get married? I'm not aware of any researches which conclude that gay marriages are bad for society, so I assume keeping it illegal is done on pure religious grounds? How the hell does this hold up in court?
__________________
DrTeeth is offline  
Old 01-21-2004, 07:26 PM   #37
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 11:05 AM
Only the UN Security Council can decide if a Cease Fire Agreement has been broken not a member state. That has been the history of international law and the history of the UN. I cited case history before on this this. You cannot justify this action based on UN Agreements since ONLY the SECURITY COUNCIL can decide if the AGREEMENT has been broken.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 01-21-2004, 07:56 PM   #38
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
DrTeeth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Q continuum
Posts: 4,770
Local Time: 05:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by melon
[B]"Irrelevance" isn't what you or Bush fear for the United Nations. "Irrelevance" is what you or Bush fear for the United States.
I think this is a very accurate assumption, at least for Bush and his administration (don't know about Sting). I have the feeling these people are scared shitless the UN or in particular for a united Europe which will be rising as a politcal, economical and military power the next couple of decades. Maybe not as powerfull as the US because I don't think Europe will be that closely united, at least not in the near future.

I'm not saying this is the most important reason why Bush went to Iraq but the fact that this was a chance to create a divisions in Europe was certainly an added bonus. Not that these slowing-down-tactics will work in the long term of course... There will be a point at which Europe will be tired of walking at the US' leash (did I spell that correctly?) and will be in the position to play a much bigger role in foreign affairs and then the US' leadership days are over. In the end they will have to learn how to work together. And I hope that by that time, you will have a smarter man or woman in the White House than you have now.
__________________
DrTeeth is offline  
Old 01-21-2004, 08:00 PM   #39
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
DrTeeth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Q continuum
Posts: 4,770
Local Time: 05:05 PM
btw I hope that by that time, us Europeans also have smarter people at the wheel than we have now.
__________________
DrTeeth is offline  
Old 01-21-2004, 09:49 PM   #40
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 04:05 PM
The divorce rate is astronomical, but I don't think it's got anything to do with gay unions/marriages whatever. A divorce happens when a relationship doesn't work. People don't think about how tough marriage is before they do it. I myself have two divorced siblings. It was traumatic for the whole family both times, not just for them. Admittedly, none of us took responsibility seriously enough when we were in high school/college--the '70's mind-set, the self-indulgent type that got nuked along with disco and other related dinosaurs by the punk revolution. Or should have. I don't think these divorces had a damn thing to do with homosexuality. I'm for same-sex civil unions. If you want to marry in a church, fine. I'm a practicing Catholic (my family is Protestant, I'm a convert) and if I ever get married, I will want the church to bless my marriage, so it will be done in a church, etc, etc. That's my business. If two people really love each other and are willing to work and sacrifice for each other to make it work, and they happen to be gay and of the same gender, there's nothing wrong with it. Let them make a deal with the state. Just my purple tuppence's worth.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 01-21-2004, 10:03 PM   #41
New Yorker
 
Sherry Darling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,857
Local Time: 12:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Sherry Darling
and PS

THREE...a grand total of THREE sentences on job creation?

sd

PPS: Still thinking about this (and for the record, this is not a knee-jerk I hate Bush thing, I liked his speech fine last year). Another word I can't believe didn't make it into his speech.

Osama.




SD
__________________
Sherry Darling is offline  
Old 01-21-2004, 10:16 PM   #42
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 04:05 PM
Dreadsox,

"Only the UN Security Council can decide if a Cease Fire Agreement has been broken not a member state. That has been the history of international law and the history of the UN. I cited case history before on this this. You cannot justify this action based on UN Agreements since ONLY the SECURITY COUNCIL can decide if the AGREEMENT has been broken."

The UN Security Council through Resolution 678 already decided that "all subsequent resolutions" were subject "to the use of all means necessary" in regards to compliance. That includes resolutions 687 that covers the ceacefire aggreement in which resolution 678 was also re-affirmed.

Saddam was found to be in material breach of his obligations in regards to the ceacefire in Resolution 1441.

Saddam failed to comply with any of the resolutions passed against him and faced the consequences of failing to do so as laid out by multiple UN resolutions.

It was the Security Council that decided and voted on the above resolutions and authorized the use of force if Saddam failed to comply.

It has also been the Security Council that has approved of the coalition occupation in Iraq in 1483 and other resolutions since the war ended.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 01-21-2004, 10:20 PM   #43
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,270
Local Time: 10:05 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by DrTeeth
I just don't get why gay marriage is still an issue. In a secular state, what on earth can be the legal ground for refusing two men or women to get married? I'm not aware of any researches which conclude that gay marriages are bad for society, so I assume keeping it illegal is done on pure religious grounds? How the hell does this hold up in court?
I don't get it, either. Why people care so much about whether or not two men or two women marry is beyond my comprehension. If they personally have issues with it, whatever...I don't understand why, but it's their opinion and they're entitled to it.

But to flat out state that it should be banned......how in the hell can people support that? I mean, last time I checked, this was a free country, right? Denying two people who are madly in love the right to legally marry because they personally have problems with the sexual orientation of those who are marrying is just...gah, it just makes no sense. It's just downright cruel, is what it is.

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is online now  
Old 01-21-2004, 10:43 PM   #44
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 04:05 PM
DrTeeth,

"I think this is a very accurate assumption, at least for Bush and his administration (don't know about Sting). I have the feeling these people are scared shitless the UN or in particular for a united Europe which will be rising as a politcal, economical and military power the next couple of decades. Maybe not as powerfull as the US because I don't think Europe will be that closely united, at least not in the near future."

Not at all. The United States helped fight and win two worldwars and defended Europe for over 50 years following the end of World War II from the Warsaw Pact. It has been instrumental in helping to create the new Europe we see today. Europe continue's to by hundreds of Billions of dollars in USA exports and most NATO nations are taking part in or support the current Coalition deployment in Iraq.

What the USA does not like about Europe is its failure to keep up in with the USA in regards to military spending and military capability. Since the end of the Cold War, Europe has been falling behind the USA in Military capability and power projection capability. This is part of the reason why the troop contingent of several European countries in Iraq is so small. Europe currently can only deploy a small fraction of the troops it has on paper, abroad. That was different prior to the end of the Cold War.

If anything, the USA is concerned about not having strong capable partners in helping to insure and keep security and stability around the world.

Rather than play a bigger role in foreign affairs, it appears that Europe will probably play a smaller one in the decades to come. European population in the west is expected to continue to decline, while the US population is projected to continue to grow strongly. US popluation was 281 million on the USA 2000 Census. The UNDP projects that US population will hit 330 million in the year 2015. More importantly, Europeans have a graying demographic problem that will make for difficult domestic situations.

Yes the USA has the babyboom population, but that is followed by a much smaller generation x afterward which is followed by the largest generation in US history, generation y. Generation y will help to prevent the problem Europeans will experience in the coming years with x number of workers vs. x number of retired people.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 01-21-2004, 11:39 PM   #45
ONE
love, blood, life
 
indra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,689
Local Time: 12:05 PM
I'm not sure if I should put this quote here or start a "Funniest Quote" thread....

"But let us be candid about the consequences of leaving Saddam Hussein in power. Had we failed to act, the dictator's weapons of mass destruction programs would continue to this day." (You know who said this. Yeah it's a Dubya classic. 1/20/2004)


Wow! Imagine that! Saddam Hussein's incredible invisible, undetectable weapons of mass destruction programs still cranking out.... Uh, just what was it they were cranking out anyway?
__________________

__________________
indra is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:05 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com