• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

World Politics

Page 28 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mar 18, 2009
745
0
0
Visit site
auscyclefan94 said:
i just find it funny though. i'm not having a go at anyone.


Yeah a bit funny...but it's been a very informative thread I'd say.

And it may actually be the longest thread on the forum that hasn't "gone down the drain" so to speak...virtually no ad-hominem attacks...well thought out opinions, links and references, points and counter-points.

And like berty said...it is the off-season :D
 
May 13, 2009
3,093
3
0
Visit site
flyor64 said:
Yeah a bit funny...but it's been a very informative thread I'd say.

And it may actually be the longest thread on the forum that hasn't "gone down the drain" so to speak...virtually no ad-hominem attacks...well thought out opinions, links and references, points and counter-points.

And like berty said...it is the off-season :D

+1 very true. Considering that it's a thread on politics, it's almost a miracle.

It's also interesting to see people here who (IMHO) are completely wrong on clinic issues, but with whom I agree on political matter.
 
Cobblestones said:
+1 very true. Considering that it's a thread on politics, it's almost a miracle.

It's also interesting to see people here who (IMHO) are completely wrong on clinic issues, but with whom I agree on political matter.

+ another 1
It is also interesting that some folks I agree with in the clinic, seem (to me) to really not get it over here.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
:DToday I received a transmission from my Mortgage company. They want to know why I am 108 days late on my Mortgage payments. My reply was to direct them to Obama’s administration czar for Mortgages. They know he has a stash of money which he can pay my mortgage with!

I am glad he gave the order for the Captain to give the order for those Navy Seals to kill those Somalian Pirates. That is change I can believe in.

“Keep it cool”
 
Jul 22, 2009
3,355
1
0
Visit site
Hugh Januss said:
+ another 1
It is also interesting that some folks I agree with in the clinic, seem (to me) to really not get it over here.

I can understand the confusion. But if you follow my postings closely, you will understand that I am always right on all issues.
 

buckwheat

BANNED
Sep 24, 2009
1,852
0
0
Visit site
Hugh Januss said:
+ another 1
It is also interesting that some folks I agree with in the clinic, seem (to me) to really not get it over here.

Janus, I'm with you.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"...The Communist motto. Funny how all the "Conservative Christians" who've perverted a whole religion, forget that it's derived from Acts 4:32-36 which was written by St. Luke, who also related the parables of the Good Samaritan, and the Prodigal Son.

Health Care is a Universal Human Right, an entitlement in all countries that consider themselves advanced, as some enlightened folks pointed out here, oh, except the good ol USA.

Except for the reactionaries who worship doddering Reagan, and Iron Lady:p Thatcher.

Imma done!

BTW, Obama is spineless. He's like Condi. He thinks getting to the top is the "success."

I'm waiting for him to do something productive for the people for whom he was a community activist. I wonder what the residents of the South Side of Chicago think of him.
 
Jul 23, 2009
1,120
2
0
Visit site
buckwheat said:
Health Care is a Universal Human Right, an entitlement in all countries that consider themselves advanced...

If the right is Universal, then if it cannot be extended to all it should be limited across the board so no one has an unfair level of care that cannot be obtained by another. No European, Australian, Canadian, or "First World" Asian, should get any better health care than what is obtainable in the poorest countries on earth - if you cannot bring their level of health care up, you should at least be willing to lower your health care so it is equal. Since it is highly doubtful that the economy of the US can handle it's own health care cost from a public debt standpoint I guess the remaining "First Worlders" will have to give up their health care so they can match that of the citizens of Albania, Sierra Leone, and Haiti.
 

buckwheat

BANNED
Sep 24, 2009
1,852
0
0
Visit site
and the logic of this is?

CentralCaliBike said:
If the right is Universal, then if it cannot be extended to all it should be limited across the board so no one has an unfair level of care that cannot be obtained by another. No European, Australian, Canadian, or "First World" Asian, should get any better health care than what is obtainable in the poorest countries on earth - if you cannot bring their level of health care up, you should at least be willing to lower your health care so it is equal. Since it is highly doubtful that the economy of the US can handle it's own health care cost from a public debt standpoint I guess the remaining "First Worlders" will have to give up their health care so they can match that of the citizens of Albania, Sierra Leone, and Haiti.

HUH?

Tax rates on the wealthiest,who've sold their junk to the lemmings they've convinced need it, can be raised to pre Reagan levels.

Funny how the most fundementalist "Christians" in the U.S., who claim that we can't afford health care, also subscribe to a dogma, where GOD's Son can feed the multitudes with 2 fishes, and 5 loaves, with leftovers.

We can't afford to help our neighbors (basically everyone) but we can afford "Shock and Awe." The righties talk a good game there, about the necessity of these endless wars, but whenever the U.S. starts handing out the rifles, these tough guys have "priorities other than military service."
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
buckwheat said:
HUH?

Tax rates on the wealthiest,who've sold their junk to the lemmings they've convinced need it, can be raised to pre Reagan levels.

Funny how the most fundementalist "Christians" in the U.S., who claim that we can't afford health care, also subscribe to a dogma, where GOD's Son can feed the multitudes with 2 fishes, and 5 loaves, with leftovers.

We can't afford to help our neighbors (basically everyone) but we can afford "Shock and Awe." The righties talk a good game there, about the necessity of these endless wars, but whenever the U.S. starts handing out the rifles, these tough guys have "priorities other than military service."

Let's see. The wealthy became wealthy by "selling junk to the lemmings". The wealthy are clearly the problem then. Why stop top marginal tax rates at pre-Reagan levels? Why don't we just confiscate their wealth? That would solve everything.

Re-read CentralCali's post. His point is made well.

Your position on a strong military is not surprising. One does not have to look very far back in history to see why a strong defense is necessary. But I suppose the only evil that can be identified are fellow countrymen who oppose a leftist political agenda. Does that about sum it up?
 
Jul 23, 2009
1,120
2
0
Visit site
Scott SoCal said:
On another note, yesterday was not Atty General Holder's finest moment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sG7lm8Sfbo4

I was very surprised to see Senator Graham unload on AG Holder. The point made should concern every American, IMO.

Senator Graham has said it so much better - clearly he understands the criminal much better than our current Attorney General (unless the Attorney General is just following orders with the understanding that he is doing exactly what Senator Graham pointed out).
 
Jul 23, 2009
1,120
2
0
Visit site
buckwheat said:
HUH?

Tax rates on the wealthiest,who've sold their junk to the lemmings they've convinced need it, can be raised to pre Reagan levels.

Funny how the most fundementalist "Christians" in the U.S., who claim that we can't afford health care, also subscribe to a dogma, where GOD's Son can feed the multitudes with 2 fishes, and 5 loaves, with leftovers.

We can't afford to help our neighbors (basically everyone) but we can afford "Shock and Awe." The righties talk a good game there, about the necessity of these endless wars, but whenever the U.S. starts handing out the rifles, these tough guys have "priorities other than military service."

I guess we certainly could do without all of that junk; electricity (most utilities are held publicly but the bond returns do pad the portfolios of the wealthy), automobiles, planes, trucking, food (a lot of wealthy make their money from the agriculture business in my area), in fact the lemmings even seem to like toilet paper which has made wealth for more than one family.

Yes - let us tax the evil people to death who forced all of these unnecessary products on a public that cannot say no to buying junk. :rolleyes:
 

buckwheat

BANNED
Sep 24, 2009
1,852
0
0
Visit site
Scott SoCal said:
Let's see. The wealthy became wealthy by "selling junk to the lemmings". The wealthy are clearly the problem then. Why stop top marginal tax rates at pre-Reagan levels? Why don't we just confiscate their wealth? That would solve everything.

Re-read CentralCali's post. His point is made well.

Your position on a strong military is not surprising. One does not have to look very far back in history to see why a strong defense is necessary. But I suppose the only evil that can be identified are fellow countrymen who oppose a leftist political agenda. Does that about sum it up?

No, I like a military that FDR thought was appropriate. Would be nice if we could get someone in his mold, but I'm sure you'd consider him a leftist.

I like David Shoup's ideas of a strong military as well as Smedley Butler's. I like their ideas about how that military should be used too. Learn something and google their names. Compare them to right wing screwball hero **** Cheney and all the other tough talking chicken hawks. What branch of the forces did they serve in? Funny how shorthand for Richard receive asterisks on these forums.



BTW, as I pointed out earlier, try reading the Bible that the reactionaries have perverted.

Read Acts 4:32-36. I'm sure that you'll be shocked to find out St. Luke was a "leftist."
 

buckwheat

BANNED
Sep 24, 2009
1,852
0
0
Visit site
CentralCaliBike said:
I guess we certainly could do without all of that junk; electricity (most utilities are held publicly but the bond returns do pad the portfolios of the wealthy), automobiles, planes, trucking, food (a lot of wealthy make their money from the agriculture business in my area), in fact the lemmings even seem to like toilet paper which has made wealth for more than one family.

Yes - let us tax the evil people to death who forced all of these unnecessary products on a public that cannot say no to buying junk. :rolleyes:

You're more than a little hysterical here. Funny how the right wing has demonized all of the public works projects and civil service jobs that are performed by union workers and which actually add value to our society.

Jeez, aren't the utilities very tightly regulated and we run into problems when right wing nuts want to deregulate a la the Enron created rolling blackouts.

Government created public works projects don't get done by private industry and neither do green projects without a government mandate. But it's ok for **** Cheney to have secret oil meetings.



Odd how someone like Carter who created the Department of Energy and saw the absolute need for energy independence was driven out of office by a clown/actor like Reagan who also threw thousands of mentally ill out of care and onto the street.
 
Jul 23, 2009
1,120
2
0
Visit site
buckwheat said:
No, I like a military that FDR thought was appropriate. Would be nice if we could get someone in his mold, but I'm sure you'd consider him a leftist.

I like David Shoup's ideas of a strong military as well as Smedley Butler's. I like their ideas about how that military should be used too. Learn something and google their names. Compare them to right wing screwball hero **** Cheney and all the other tough talking chicken hawks. What branch of the forces did they serve in? Funny how shorthand for Richard receive asterisks on these forums.



BTW, as I pointed out earlier, try reading the Bible that the reactionaries have perverted.

Read Acts 4:32-36. I'm sure that you'll be shocked to find out St. Luke was a "leftist."

FDR - the guy who allowed Hawaii to get hit to motivate the US public to agree that we needed to get into WWII. It took us far longer, and millions of lives, to finish WWII because we were so unprepared at the start of the war.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
buckwheat said:
You're more than a little hysterical here. Funny how the right wing has demonized all of the public works projects and civil service jobs that are performed by union workers and which actually add value to our society.

Jeez, aren't the utilities very tightly regulated and we run into problems when right wing nuts want to deregulate a la the Enron created rolling blackouts.

Government created public works projects don't get done by private industry and neither do green projects without a government mandate. But it's ok for **** Cheney to have secret oil meetings.



Odd how someone like Carter who created the Department of Energy and saw the absolute need for energy independence was driven out of office by a clown/actor like Reagan who also threw thousands of mentally ill out of care and onto the street.





So it's only unionized civil service workes which actually add value to our society?

State regulators in California had nothing to do with rolling black-outs under Gray Davis? Thomas Sowell disputes your perception of events.

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=86

"The electric power shortage in California is not unique. What is a new twist, however, is that there are no limits on how much the wholesale electric power suppliers can charge the utility companies that directly supply the consumer. Since the utility companies have been paying more for electricity than they were allowed to charge their customers, they were operating in the red and the financial markets are downgrading their bonds. Buying high and selling low is the royal road to bankruptcy, and bonds in a bankrupt company are not usually worth much."

Green projects will get done when they make economic sense AND there is a demand.

"There are all sorts of bright ideas for generating electricity by using sunlight or windmills. It never seems to occur to those who espouse these ideas to ask why people who have spent a lifetime working in the electricity industry do not share their enthusiasm for these schemes. Could it possibly be that the costs of generating electricity this way are higher?"

Jimmy Carter was "driven" from office because of his policies and their effect on this country.

http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed102709a.cfm

What is really odd is that the rabid environmentalists are what keep this country from being energy independent. No nuclear, no drilling, no mining, no clean fossil fuel technology. And if you have a family compound near Martha's Vineyard no wind farm either.
 
Mar 10, 2009
7,268
1
0
Visit site
CentralCaliBike said:
As an aside - your definition of torture might change if you ever watched the Ng tapes (the ones he and his partner made while murdering a number of women).

It's not my definition of 'torture' that matters, it's the legal 'definition' (which is left vague intentionally because it would otherwise entice perpetrators to be creative in their cruel acts to avoid violations of clearly stated methods). The 'legal definition' of torture - as a side note a violation of the provision which can also includes the lesser degrees of inhumane and degrading treatment - is restricted to perpetration by state agents or public officials.

The right is intended as a protection of the individual against the state's potentially pervasive powers.

It is tempting to question your abilities to navigate the internet and assimilate information. If you clicked on the links and actually read you might not have made a statement that anyone here would see is incorrect. The information was in abstract format but it left a clear statement of the research findings.

I usually don't go by abstract, because they are too short to fully comprehend the matter at hand.

Anyway, I still don't fully understand how these sources used in support of your claim that the ICJ has an agenda and is political in nature, have any relevance on my argument that 'International Human Rights laws do not cease in times of war', which I was supported by reference to an interpretation of an aspect of international law in an advisory opinion (which is intended to elucidate the current status of the law, by experts), and which was shared amongst all panel members.

First of all, it seems like a 'poisoning the well' type of argument. Because of the allegation that the ICJ is ‘politicized’ and has ‘an agenda’ (left implicit that ‘being political in nature’ and their ‘agenda’ carries a ‘negative’ connotation, or at least an ‘agenda’ and ‘political nature’ you don’t agree with), everything it does (decisions/arguments) should therefore be tainted?

Then I haven't even begun to ask what ‘agenda’ the ICJ has.

Since we seemed to agree that the US Supreme Court judges also have their cultural/political/economic/sexual etc identities anyone could thus say the same about the Supreme Court. Because of its selection methods and composition, the Court is also 'political in nature' and has an 'agenda' (whatever that means). Should therefore its decisions or its existence even be put into question?

But let's turn to the articles and see what they say exactly:

SOURCE

The success of any court is dependent to a large degree upon its reputation for impartial adjudication [...] This study examines the voting behavior of the Court's members for the purpose of determining if the justices have been impartial. The results indicate that the justices have shown a disposition to favor their own countries. This pattern is not related, however, to the importance of the decisions for the countries; the justices do not show a statistically significant tendency to support their countries in decisions of greater national importance. Rather, the more subtle influence of culturally inculcated values seems to account for the propensity of justices to vote with their own countries, and it is argued that this does not violate the criterion for impartial adjudication

1 - This (as the other articles) talk about bias and/or disputed impartiality. They don't say anything about (secret) agenda's.

2 - I quoted para 25 from an Advisory Opinion, in other words an interpretation of the state of international law. Hence, there was no 'adjudication' and therefore falls outside the scope of this and other articles. (Im)partiality – and a very specific one, namely national prejudice - was only measured in settlement cases, not interpretations of the status of the law.

3 - the last sentence then reveals that even though judges are 'culturally' shaped - similarly to what we agreed upon in the case of the US Supreme Court judges - it apparently does not violate their impartial adjudication.

SOURCE

[...]We have not shown in a straightforward way that judges are consciously biased. All that we have shown is that the judges, on the margin, do not vote impartially in the manner prescribed by the null hypothesis. The motivation for their votes may be psychological or cultural ; a judge does not necessarily consciously choose to favor a state that is similar to his or her own states. We also have not shown that judges—consciously or unconsciously— vote in a manner that promotes that strategic interests of their home states; it is possible that the judges vote in a manner that reflects their own psychological or philosophical biases. [...]
1 – The only thing the article seems to confirm is that ICJ judges suffer from the same type of ‘bias’ that apparently affects any judge when they reach conclusions in cases they adjudicate, and interpret the law. They all have backgrounds, or multiple identity(y)/(ies) (national, ethnic, political, social, historical, sexual, cultural, religious etc). On the international level, national bias seems to be overriding, while domestically others prevail.

The evidence also does not prove that the ICJ is dysfunctional […] For our evidence suggests that even nonparty judges would be influenced by legally irrelevant factors
2 – That seems to be obvious, because otherwise one could do away with all Courts. It seems to come down to the question of whether any court and their judges can actually be (perfectly) impartial. No court. or better, their judges seems to be able to leave their identities at the door step of the Court, so why that would carry more weight in relation to ICJ than any domestic Court is puzzling.

3 - Lastly, the ‘statistical claim’ to judicial bias omits actual legal reasoning in unique cases by different national judges over the past 63 years (including a highly politicized Cold War). A judge siding with the US in 1 case in 1946-1954 and another judge in 1954-1963 siding with the US in 15 cases, would prove that the ICJ is biased? Or would that be evidence that one US judge was biased? If the latter, which of the two? Or could we not infer anything at all, because we don’t know what their legal reasoning was?

In general then:
1 – As a Permanent Member in the UN Security Council, the US has had a permanent judge present at the ICJ since 1960. From both articles one can thus conclude that the US judge(s) over the years are biased in favor of the US, in cases where the US was a plaintiff/defendant.

2 - The make up of the current Court is such that 6 (German, Japan, US, France, New Zealand, the UK) out of 15 judges are all from strong (parliamentary) democracies with well established rule of law systems. The articles claim to bias would thus entail that there is a strong likelihood that judges are biased towards these type of States when they are involved in disputes. In a way, the ICJ thus seems to favor (besides Great Powers) democracies with a strong rule of law and a capitalist economy, over small, weak or failed states, with a non-existing or weak parliamentary system, and underdeveloped economy.

Is this the ‘agenda’ and ‘politicization’ you were referring to?

3 - If we grant that ICJ judges are biased in advisory opinions - interpretations of the state of law – because of their identities, it would seem to favor democracies with a strong rule of law. In that case, advisory opinions would only 'reinforce', 'reflect' and possibly even 'promote' what their 'home nations' believe in. Human Rights in general, and more specifically fair trial and a commitment against torture, seem to rank high amongst those ideals.
 
Jul 23, 2009
1,120
2
0
Visit site
Bala Verde said:
It's not my definition of 'torture' that matters, it's the legal 'definition' (which is left vague intentionally because it would otherwise entice perpetrators to be creative in their cruel acts to avoid violations of clearly stated methods).

Sticking a needle in someone's arm to execute them for the video taped sexual assault, torture and eventual murder of over a dozen people. Eventually Ng was convicted of the sexual assault, torture and murder of six men, three women and two baby boys. The "vague" definition of torture somehow can be argued applies to a needle stick (something that occurs in hospitals around the world on a second to second basis) which ended up resulting a a delay of his extradition for six years.
 
Jul 23, 2009
1,120
2
0
Visit site
Bala Verde said:
The make up of the current Court is such that 6 (German, Japan, US, France, New Zealand, the UK) out of 15 judges are all from strong (parliamentary) democracies with well established rule of law systems. The articles claim to bias would thus entail that there is a strong likelihood that judges are biased towards these type of States when they are involved in disputes. In a way, the ICJ thus seems to favor (besides Great Powers) democracies with a strong rule of law and a capitalist economy, over small, weak or failed states, with a non-existing or weak parliamentary system, and underdeveloped economy.

Six out of fifteen leaves 9 - 9 is more than 6, apparently you are saying that the 6 judges have more voting power with the ICJ than the remaining 9. Also, consider who you listed in the voting block of six 6 - France seldom agrees with the United States, Germany or England on any particular issue.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
CentralCaliBike said:
Senator Graham has said it so much better - clearly he understands the criminal much better than our current Attorney General (unless the Attorney General is just following orders with the understanding that he is doing exactly what Senator Graham pointed out).

Absolutely no doubt this is Obama's decision. Surely Holder would anticipate this question to be asked - instead he stammers all over himself. Really unbelievable but less and less surprising. More evidence that this group is in way, way over their heads. I think this administration is well on it's way to burying itself.
 
Jul 23, 2009
1,120
2
0
Visit site
buckwheat said:
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"...The Communist motto. Funny how all the "Conservative Christians" who've perverted a whole religion, forget that it's derived from Acts 4:32-36 which was written by St. Luke, who also related the parables of the Good Samaritan, and the Prodigal Son.

The difference being that Christ did not suggest his followers force this on anyone - they were to follow this creed as a personal decision. Universal Health Care is not a personal decision but rather is financial blunder that is being forced on people regardless of their personal choice by a congress is not even planning on reading what they are voting on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS