DailyTech - EU Court to Hear Case Granting Human Status to Apes

This is a joke right?

By FITCamaro on 5/23/2008 10:58:41 AM , Rating: 5

While I do not deny the genetic similarity of apes and other monkeys to humans, nor their intelligence, they are not human beings and as such, do not and should not have the rights of one. Yes they should have the same rights as animals like don't torture them and such, but the right to vote? Since thats what the thing would get if this case were successful.

This is nothing more than a guy who doesn't want to loose his pet. Deal with it buddy.

RE: This is a joke right?

By BMFPitt on 5/23/2008 11:04:43 AM , Rating: 5

quote:
Yes they should have the same rights as animals like don't torture them and such, but the right to vote? Since thats what the thing would get if this case were successful.

If voters in the EU are as intelligent as those here (judging by their track record I's say yes) then they might was well let apes vote. Free bananas for everyone is a much cheaper pander than the Farm Bill.

Parent

RE: This is a joke right?

By snownpaint on 5/23/2008 1:48:08 PM , Rating: 1

"get your damn paws of me, you stinkin' apes!"

So lets say they have Ape Rights, not Human but Ape rights.. Does that mean we have to protect their homes/area of living? How about their pursuit of happiness?

Parent

RE: This is a joke right?

By Bonesdad on 5/23/2008 3:37:18 PM , Rating: 5

It's actually "Get your stinkin paws off me, you damn dirty ape!"

Parent

RE: This is a joke right?

By Strunf on 5/23/08, Rating: 0

RE: This is a joke right?

By B3an on 5/23/08, Rating: 0

RE: This is a joke right?

By Hawkido on 5/23/08, Rating: -1

RE: This is a joke right?

By Hawkido on 5/23/2008 5:20:32 PM , Rating: 4

Yeah only a true Ape would be responsible for the 2 greatest wars on the planet, then make fun of the country that saved your collective asses both times. Wanna try for the third?

Socialism at its best:
"Lets tear everything down to the same level so we are all equal, 'cept me of course..." - Socialist Liberal Mantra

Parent

RE: This is a joke right?

By Nik00117 on 5/23/2008 5:52:28 PM , Rating: 2

I'm german, and thats a low blow. Seriously I hear it all the time, you caused 2 two WWs extra blah blah.

Well we'll take blame for the 2nd one, that was entirely us.

1st one was far more complicated. It was like a diminona affect after the duke got killed. Countries took sides armed up and began fighting.

Its been over 60 years since Hilter was around, Germany has recovered fully along with the rest of the EU.

Now I suspect that poeple picking on bush is ok, why you ask? Cause thats not 60 years ago, shit its not even 60 minutes ago hes still in office. so seriously you don't need to be banging on something that happened over 60 years ago. Most germans weren't even alive back then. And a lot of the ones that were were very young at the time. I mean my great grandma is one of the few I can recall out of hundreds if not thousands of germans i've seen and talked too.

Parent

RE: This is a joke right?

By imperator3733 on 5/23/2008 6:18:36 PM , Rating: 2

World War I was the result of a lot of different things, two of them being extreme nationalism and alliances that involved all of Europe. The real blame for it is on the Austro-Hungarian Empire for not declaring war on Serbia sooner. If the AHE had declared war when the shock of the assassination was still fresh, most of the other countries would not have done anything -- they might have even supported it. Germany did give the AHE a blank check for support, so you could use that argument, but the war was because of the assassination and then a delay in a declaration war.

Parent

RE: This is a joke right?

By heeros1 on 5/24/2008 10:10:59 PM , Rating: 2

I have to agree that Germany isn't the same. I can't talk for all schools, but the school I attended in Germany (up to 10th grade) was pretty lenient compared to the American schools I attended afterward, but one thing they did not tolerate was "nazi" behavior. you could get into some big trouble if you drew the "hakenkreuz" or shouted "heil hitler" or similar things. I was very surprised how freely some of these expressions were being used in American schools.

Parent

RE: This is a joke right?

By B3an on 5/23/2008 6:01:39 PM , Rating: 1

quote:
Yeah only a true Ape would be responsible for the 2 greatest wars on the planet

Well your current Monkey has already started one war, so he's getting there himself...

I know education isn't one of most americans strong points... but the U.S had little to do with WW1. You also joined 3 years late aswell ... sounds familiar... infact it was almost over when the U.S joined in.

And the reason the U.S probably got involved in the WW2 was because you came to realise, that if the whole of Europre fell under Nazi control, it would be you yanks next... and back in them days you wasnt the power you are now, you wouldn't have stood a chance on your own.

And it's funny how some yank always brings up Germany in things like this... like the whole of Europe consists of Germany...

Parent

RE: This is a joke right?

By imperator3733 on 5/23/2008 6:27:05 PM , Rating: 2

World War I was almost over when the US joined -- Germany was about to win. After the Russians dropped out, Germany shifted all of the eastern front troops over to the western front. It was only American intervention that made the Allies win. So, the US had a lot to do with WWI.

The US got involved in World War II because of Pearl Harbor. That is the only reason at the time that the US entered the war. The US did not declare war on Germany (In fact, the US was the only country that Germany declared war on during WWII). I'm not saying that something would not have happened later on that would have brought the US into the war (like WWI), or that Americans weren't sympathetic to the Allies, but the US entry into the war did not have anything to do with Germany. It was because we were attacked.

Parent

RE: This is a joke right?

By heeros1 on 5/24/2008 10:16:31 PM , Rating: 2

I don't quite remember, but I believe some of the US involvement in W.W.II was the sinking of US ships by german submarines, and a letter from/to mexico and germany about plans to invade the US together, but that might have been later, like I said I don't really remember.

Parent

RE: This is a joke right?

By imperator3733 on 5/25/2008 1:40:13 PM , Rating: 2

The letter that you refer to was the Zimmermann Telegram (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimmermann_Telegram ), which was sent on 16 January 1917. This, along with German U-Boats sinking American ships, was one of the reasons that the US entered WWI .

I believe there were some incidents with German U-Boats before the US entered WWII, and some American ships were ordered to engage the Bismarck if encountered, but none of that was a reason for the US entering the war.

Parent

RE: This is a joke right?

By michael67 on 5/24/2008 6:28:45 AM , Rating: 1

I always wonder how any post about the EU comes down to that we are all "hart bleeding socialist idiots"

quote:
Yeah only a true Ape would be responsible for the 2 greatest wars on the planet, then make fun of the country that saved your collective asses both times. Wanna try for the third?

Yeah we should thank America for the rest of our lives on our hands and knees????

I grow up in Holland and when i was young, we ware thankful for the liberation and and food drops on Holland by the US and properly own my existence to them.

Now a days i see 90% of the problems in the world have there roots from the always short term and self interested US foreign policy's over the last 50+ years.

I give one example, but could give dozens more and all well documented.
Iran:
During the fifties Iran had a real Pro western leader that wanted Iran modeled after European/US model
During his term he wanted to renegotiate the contracts that Iran had whit British petroleum (BP) that ware made up before WOII to get a fair prize.
Brittan saw that this would cost them billions of pounds and went to the US because they ware still devastated after cost of WOII.
British MI6 and CIA set up plan under a "false flag"(1)
This plan was to get the Shah(2) in power as a puppet of the west.
This was done by terrorist bomb attacks and and under the claim of a non-terrorist group wanted separation from Iran.
And by supporting the troops loyal to the Shah.
(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag#Terrorism_...
(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Reza_Pahlavi...

There are dozens more examples ware CIA involvement was soul focus on the self interest of the US.

quote:
Socialism at its best:
"Lets tear everything down to the same level so we are all equal, 'cept me of course..." - Socialist Liberal Mantra

Capitalism on it best:
"Lets just think of my self and screw everyone else, its doggy dog, and put it all under a national sauce so my hands are clean"
Conservative capitalistic Mantra

Did this statement help you seeing my point of view?. no it just polarizes opinions and makes you feel its you against me, and makes you even less seeing my point of view!
Screaming that all people of the EU hart bleeding socialist is just nonsense.

I would strongly advice all fans of the capitalistic model to take a good look at the documentaries of Adam Curtis how American society is manipulated to adopt a extreme form of Capitalism by the the "captains of industry" because they ware scared shirtless they would loose there change to control society and make more money.

Hey analyses not only US but global history by the use of psychoanalysis, these documentaries are very powerful to open up eyes left and right, and are also not left ore right orientated as he is evenly harsh on left as on right wing party's

It will also show that for example one of America's greatest presidents, Roosevelt would even bin seen by current average EU standards as "EXTREEMLY LEFT"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Curtis
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=Adam+Curtis&...

quote:
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it;
Those who fail to learn history CORRECTLY.. are simply doomed.

Don't remember ware the quote comes from but it has a lot of truth in it

Parent

RE: This is a joke right?

By Reclaimer77 on 5/24/2008 7:52:31 AM , Rating: 5

quote:
I always wonder how any post about the EU comes down to that we are all "hart bleeding socialist idiots"

Not all of you. Just your government.

quote:
Yeah we should thank America for the rest of our lives on our hands and knees????

I don't think he was saying that. But a little respect would be nice once and a while.

quote:
Now a days i see 90% of the problems in the world have there roots from the always short term and self interested US foreign policy's over the last 50+ years.

Hey lets pull big numbers out of our ass to make our arguments look more solid. Also If you are going to accuse the CIA of funding terrorism you had better bring more proof then Wikipedia links!

quote:
There are dozens more examples ware CIA involvement was soul focus on the self interest of the US.

Who's interest should the CIA be focused on ? Other nations have well developed intelligence agencies too you know. Are you saying they aren't " self focused " as well ? Besides, whats good for the US is good for the world. Hate that fact all you want.

quote:
Hey analyses not only US but global history by the use of psychoanalysis, these documentaries are very powerful to open up eyes left and right, and are also not left ore right orientated as he is evenly harsh on left as on right wing party's

Have you ever heard of a spell checker ? I can barely read and understand this paragraph. So I guess I can't debate whatever point you are trying to make here.

Basically a bunch of EU snobs were bashing Bush, and he pointed out that because of European idiocy, the world was plunged into war not once, but twice. And yes, the United States was instrumental in those wars. By comparison the " Iraq War " was barely ever a war. And certainly not a World War. This argument is going to come up every time Europeans get on their high horse about things. Sorry your feelings got hurt though.

Parent

RE: This is a joke right?

By Strunf on 5/24/08, Rating: -1

RE: This is a joke right?

By michael67 on 5/24/08, Rating: -1

By michael67 on 5/24/2008 1:42:17 PM , Rating: -1

quote:
Not all of you. Just your government.

First of all we have government s because we are separate countries

And almost all European countries have multiple party’s that are governing there countries in a coalition.
We voted for those party’s and the coalitions have usually between 60 and 70% of there voters behind them, so saying that they are "hart bleeding socialist idiots" is the same as saying that we are also
In Europe a bout 80% on average of the people vote ware in the US this Nr only 60%

quote:
I don't think he was saying that. But a little respect would be nice once and a while.

I have all the respect for all those people that ware fighting in WOII American Canadian UK and all other soldiers that ware laying down there lives to free Europe during that time.
But the last 50+ years of track record gives current generations not the right of the same respect those man and woman earned then.

quote:
Hey lets pull big numbers out of our ass to make our arguments look more solid. Also If you are going to accuse the CIA of funding terrorism you had better bring more proof then Wikipedia links!

The proof is in the link to Adam Curtis documentaries, he works for the BBC whit’s is imho one of the most reliable independent state news/broadcast organizations in the world.
But I bed you dint watched them did you.

quote:
Who's interest should the CIA be focused on ? Other nations have well developed intelligence agencies too you know. Are you saying they aren't " self focused " as well ?

No, they all have a self interest in mind but non went as far as the CIA in bring down and keeping governments in power that ware for shore not beneficial for there people living in those countries. accept maybe KGB and MI6

quote:
Besides, whats good for the US is good for the world. Hate that fact all you want.

So you never had a thought why they attacked the US, again I would urge you to see the documentaries.

I would love that fact if it ware true, but it more a statement from some one living in a bubble that sees new only from one side, I working on the moment whit a colleague from Sweden that lived in San Francisco for the last 15 years and moved back 2 years a go back to Sweden and was saying new was so different in the US and one sided she dint really understand why the WTC was attacked till she came back to Sweden.

You live in a country that because of it size doesn’t have to cooperate whit other country’s if it doesn’t want to do so.
Ware in Europe all country’s have to cooperate whit others because no country is so big that it can lay down its will on a other, and by creating the EU making all other country’s dependent of eats other, it also makes that they listen to the others!
That also makes that the news have to look more to other country’s are doing and why.

And that the country's of the EU got powerful anouge together to say no to the US if it thinks it wrong, Hate that fact all you want. ;-)

quote:
Have you ever heard of a spell checker ? I can barely read and understand this paragraph. So I guess I can't debate whatever point you are trying to make here.

Yes heard of it and I used it, but English is not my main languish next to the other 4 foreign languishes I speak, so pardon my lack of grama expertise

quote:
Basically a bunch of EU snobs were bashing Bush,

Come on, your now saying he docent deserve some of it?
He doesnt even come close to presidents that came before him
Clinton, Carter, Kennedy, Nixon, Roosevelt, Truman, Johnson, Eisenhower, Ford, Reagan, Bush.
Even do I really dint like Reagan these ware real presidents Bush jr is just a puppet imho

quote:
and he pointed out that because of European idiocy, the world was plunged into war not once, but twice. And yes, the United States was instrumental in those wars.

WOI was pure a economical war ware Britain dint allow Germany bigger slice of the pie, If Germany had won WOI the world would arguably have bin a mouths better place, and WOII would never had happened, And US backed Britain because of economical ties and interests (not saying this was for good ore bad reasons

But saying the US rescued Europe twice from European idiocy, is just silly, the world was developing and a conflict that would 100 years earlier just bin war grew out to a world war (think napoleon)
Because boot's ware quicker trains and plains ware developed, the world was suddenly a lot smaller.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_war_1

quote:
By comparison the " Iraq War " was barely ever a war. And certainly not a World War.

The Iraq War is still going on only now it’s a guerrilla War, and it is creating a new War (muslims against the west) that’s even more dangerous then the cold War because there are no central leaders, and current US foreign policy is only creating more hate.
I hope that Obama wins the president seat not because I care if a (R) ore (D) gett’s in the Whitehouse because I think McCain would also be a descent president.
But I think he is the only one that can take away some of the anger that lives in the world.

quote:
This argument is going to come up every time Europeans get on their high horse about things. Sorry your feelings got hurt though.

No, my feelings don’t get hurt, its just a shame that a lot of Americans haven’t got a clue what’s happening in the EU and the World, and there lack of historical facts.
I work all over the world (oil) and meet lots of Americans my company got also a department in Texas ware after discussions and explaining the different systems in the EU most of them are agree that the system isn’t as bad as they ware thinking

Parent

RE: This is a joke right?

By Reclaimer77 on 5/24/2008 10:02:29 PM , Rating: 4

Ok so lets review.

1. Clinton was a better president than Bush. ( on what planet ? )
2. The CIA and the CIA alone is responsible for %90 of the worlds problems.
3. Germany plunged Europe into world war, so the fact that almost a dozen countries watched and did nothing while the German war machine was getting underway means...? Oh thats right, the CIA must have caused that one too.

4. Because the USA is big, it doesn't cooperate with other nations. So the trillions in foreign aid every year, being in the UN, and responding to EVERY natural disaster that happens in any country means .. uhh... yes clearly we're isolationist.

5. America is actually heavily INVESTED in other countries. So obviously we would love to ruin the world and spread misery. Maybe, if we try really hard, we can cause an even 100% of the worlds problems instead of only 90% !

6. If Obama wins, we'll be more " loved " and terrorist will go away. Oh did I say terrorist ? I meant those guys the CIA made.

quote:
No, my feelings don’t get hurt, its just a shame that a lot of Americans haven’t got a clue what’s happening in the EU and the World, and there lack of historical facts.

The coupe' de graz. Your " facts " have been disproved by about 4 posters on this thread. Your opinions are biased and skewed. And the only proof you bring are wikipedia links written by clueless Internet people just like you. Your historical facts are conspiracy theories mixed with revisionist history with a dash of unsupported wildly unfounded percentage based statements.

Parent

RE: This is a joke right?

By michael67 on 5/25/08, Rating: 0

By michael67 on 5/25/2008 6:04:58 AM , Rating: 0

quote:
1. Clinton was a better president than Bush. ( on what planet ? )

Hey that you really dint like Clinton docent mean he was a bad President, but at least even if McCain will be the next president there will be a man there that has at least a brain.

quote:
2. The CIA and the CIA alone is responsible for %90 of the worlds problems.

NO, I was saying: Now a days i see 90% of the problems in the world have there roots from the always short term and self interested US foreign policy's over the last 50+ years
Didn’t say anything a bout 90% is the CIA fault

quote:
3. Germany plunged Europe into world war, so the fact that almost a dozen countries watched and did nothing while the German war machine was getting underway means...?.

1. First of all your living in a other age ware we have spy satellites and news agencies spread all over the world, Nazi Germany would never get away now a days whit what they did then building up in secret a army.
2. No one believed that a second world war would emerge after the “war to end all wars”
3. None could have predicted that Nazi Germany could have bin that powerful I suds a short time
4. Even modern Intelligence Agency’s can make big mistakes, example: the so quick fall of the USSR got al Intelligence Agency’s world wide whit there pants down and this was in the 80s ware Intelligence Agency’s ware mouths more developed, and all Agency’s had still there eyes on the USSR
5. Yes there ware properly sings but they ware idler ignored ore misinterpret remember this was in the 30s

quote:
4. Because the USA is big, it doesn't cooperate with other nations. So the trillions in foreign aid every year, being in the UN, and responding to EVERY natural disaster that happens in any country means .. uhh... yes clearly we're isolationist.

5. America is actually heavily INVESTED in other countries. So obviously we would love to ruin the world and spread misery. Maybe, if we try really hard, we can cause an even 100% of the worlds problems instead of only 90% !

Thank you for making my point that Americans haven’t got a clue what’s happening in the EU and the rest of the World, and there lack of (historical) facts.

You clearly have no clue that you live in a country ware the President will only give aid to countries and organizations that stop the free condoms programs and promote not having sex as the way of stopping the disease of spreading ?

http://www.sptimes.com/2003/10/12/Perspective/HIV_...

quote:
These are the real-life consequences in Bush's war of ideology. The PAI report puts Bush on notice; if changes aren't made we must presume that he cares more about gaining a political edge than African lives.

Yeah Bush cares really for Africa.

I would also suggest of reading this page: http://www.vox-populi.org/digest/faid_3.html

quote:

Overestimation

The feeling that the US spends too much on foreign aid seems to rest on an extreme overestimation of how much the US government spends on foreign aid. PIPA's July 2000 poll asked respondents to estimate how much of the federal budget goes to foreign aid. They were told that they could answer in fractions of a percent as well as whole percentage points, thus implying that the amount could be quite low. Nonetheless, the median estimate was 20% of the federal budget, 20 times the actual amount of approximately 1%.

quote:

when respondents were asked "to imagine the US economy and the European Union economy as if they were one big economy," and then to think about the relative shares of development aid to poor countries given by the US and Europe, the median respondent estimated that the US gives 60% and the European Union 40% (PIPA, February-April 1998). When asked what they thought it should be, the median respondent wanted a 50-50 split, with the US and Europe sharing the burden equally. (In reality, based on 1996 figures from the OECD, the US gave only 22% while the EU countries gave 78%.)

And this: http://www.vexen.co.uk/USA/foreign_aid.html

quote:
The USA is only the worlds' biggest giver because it is rich. In terms of generosity and altruism, the USA is the most stingy and self-interested giver in the developed world:

"[Americans] are regularly told by politicians and the media, that America is the world's most generous nation. This is one of the most conventional pieces of 'knowledgeable ignorance'. According to the OECD, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, the US gave between $6 and $15 billion in foreign aid in the period between 1995 and 1999. In absolute terms, Japan gives more than the US, between $9 and $15 billion in the same period. But the absolute figures are less significant than the proportion of gross domestic product (GDP, or national wealth) that a country devotes to foreign aid. On that league table, the US ranks twenty-second of the 22 most developed nations. As former President Jimmy Carter commented: 'We are the stingiest nation of all'. Denmark is top of the table, giving 1.01% of GDP, while the US manages just 0.1%. The United Nations has long established the target of 0.7% GDP for development assistance, although only four countries actually achieve this: Denmark, 1.01%; Norway, 0.91%; the Netherlands, 0.79%; Sweden, 0.7%. Apart from being the least generous nation, the US is highly selective in who receives its aid. Over 50% of its aid budget is spent on middle-income countries in the Middle East, with Israel being the recipient of the largest single share"

Oops the US isn’t generous as you think and the EU country’s even give 4 times more and my country even gives 7 times more.
And the only time the US paid his bill to the UN was when they tried to misinform the world whit falls information to make the invasion of Iraq legal!

quote:
6. If Obama wins, we'll be more " loved " and terrorist will go away. Oh did I say terrorist ? I meant those guys the CIA made.

No, if he wins the US will not be loved more just trusted more because it will appear to many people that the American people voted out a “greedy selfish bastard that only want there oil ore act in self interest”(1) and wants to change there role in the world.
(1) This is the perception of many people especially in the middle east, I will not go that far but there is some truth in it.
And I think he truly believes what he is doing is the best for the world but so did Lenin and so did the people following him.

quote:
The coupe' de graz. Your " facts " have been disproved by about 4 posters on this thread. Your opinions are biased and skewed.

I hope not but you properly right that some “bias” is in my post, but I hope it doesn’t extend to your level.

quote:
And the only proof you bring are wikipedia links written by clueless Internet people just like you. Your historical facts are conspiracy theories mixed with revisionist history with a dash of unsupported wildly unfounded percentage based statements.

I really advice to see Adam Curtis especially docu series “The Power of Nightmares” and “The Century of the self” and you will see that my history knowledge is based on fact.
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=Adam+Curtis&...
But you properly going to waver it away as not worth seeing ore be to lazy to see it because both are 4x 1 our sits.

But if you have seen these series of documentaries and you still want to discuses my “wrong” interpretation of history your welcome to contact me by mail ore msn at “michaelwesten # ho tmail co m”
Ps. My history knowledge is not only based on these series but its one of the best series that explain history very well whit out any or at least mouths bias.

Parent

RE: This is a joke right?

By Reclaimer77 on 5/25/2008 9:41:10 AM , Rating: 4

quote:
Hey that you really dint like Clinton docent mean he was a bad President, but at least even if McCain will be the next president there will be a man there that has at least a brain.

I actually did like Clinton. Because at the time I was younger, dumber, and liberal. But the fact that he purjured himself and was impeached in 1998 pretty much disqualifies him from being a " better prez than Bush ". So your wrong, its pretty safe to say any president who gets impeached is in fact a " bad " president.

quote:
NO, I was saying: Now a days i see 90% of the problems in the world have there roots from the always short term and self interested US foreign policy's over the last 50+ years

If you still believe that your too far gone debate with. America is the ultimate scapegoat. Its responsible for all the worlds problems, yet when it does anything good you give all the credit to someone else. You call the US selfish, I point out we do give, and you post articles saying we don't give ENOUGH. So tell me, is there a critical mass of giving that will start making a bigger difference ? How much should we lower the quality of life for the average American to give to other countries who never give to us or lift a finger when we need help ?

quote:
Thank you for making my point that Americans haven’t got a clue what’s happening in the EU and the rest of the World

Because we see things a different way and don't buy your spin we're all ignorant ? Frankly I don't think Americans should go around caring about what happens in the " EU ". Yet you people seem far too interested in what happens here.

quote:
Yeah Bush cares really for Africa.

Once again, ultimate scapegoat mindset. There are SOOOO many things wrong with that article you posted its not even funny. Liberalist slant to the extreme. America did not cause the African HIV epidemic. America is not the ONLY country that has condoms to donate. In fact, where is your precious EU on this one ? You just finished explaining to me the EU does 60% than the US in foreign aid. So why is it only Americas job to help Africa ?

quote:
Oops the US isn’t generous as you think and the EU country’s even give 4 times more and my country even gives 7 times more.

Ok so why is there a huge " condom crisis " in Africa ? Where is the EU ? Where is the UN ? Oh thats right, lets blame America.

quote:
No, if he wins the US will not be loved more just trusted more because it will appear to many people that the American people voted out a “greedy selfish bastard that only want there oil ore act in self interest”(1) and wants to change there role in the world.

Bush can't be " voted out " because hes already at his maximum second term. The most legally allowed. What hes doing isn't for popularity. And oil ? I want to ask people where all that oil is we " went to war for " given that our gas prices are nearing $5 a gallon. By the way it was a $2 when the Democrats took congress and promised a change for the better.

So I should have intimate knowledge about how European governments work, but you thought Bush was going to be " voted out " this year ?

Parent

RE: This is a joke right?

By michael67 on 5/25/08, Rating: -1

By michael67 on 5/25/2008 10:49:53 AM , Rating: -1

quote:
I actually did like Clinton. Because at the time I was younger, dumber, and liberal. But the fact that he purjured himself and was impeached in 1998 pretty much disqualifies him from being a " better prez than Bush ". So your wrong, its pretty safe to say any president who gets impeached is in fact a " bad " president.

Ok imho what he dose in his privet live his his own
That guy "star" i believe dint even had the right to ask those questions
This is compared what Nixon did a small white lie and don't seem to you say he was bad ore what Reagan did whit Iran gate also total different ball game

But like always Rep. have 2 par of glasses one black and whit and one pink one when it come to *kuch* mistakes by Rep.

quote:
If you still believe that your too far gone debate with. America is the ultimate scapegoat. Its responsible for all the worlds problems, yet when it does anything good you give all the credit to someone else. You call the US selfish, I point out we do give, and you post articles saying we don't give ENOUGH. So tell me, is there a critical mass of giving that will start making a bigger difference ? How much should we lower the quality of life for the average American to give to other countries who never give to us or lift a finger when we need help ?

what finger do they have to give?

quote:
Because we see things a different way and don't buy your spin we're all ignorant ? Frankly I don't think Americans should go around caring about what happens in the " EU ". Yet you people seem far too interested in what happens here.

Because American policy influence the rest of the word also mine, after the US started there war on terror and our government helped out the US, then when those pictures came of mistreatment of "POWs" out of that jail in Iraq attitude of muslims in our country started to be more radical.
So yes US foreign policy affect my country to.

quote:
Once again, ultimate scapegoat mindset. There are SOOOO many things wrong with that article you posted its not even funny. Liberalist slant to the extreme. America did not cause the African HIV epidemic.

I never even implied that but the policy of idler you stop distributing condoms ore you don't get help (because we are pro live) doesnt help solving the problem

quote:
America is not the ONLY country that has condoms to donate.

America is the ONLY country that doesnt distribute them, and even says if you keep doing it we stop our aid.

quote:
In fact, where is your precious EU on this one ? You just finished explaining to me the EU does 60% than the US in foreign aid. So why is it only Americas job to help Africa ?

Its not and we do our share yes we DO distributed condoms as a part of aid help.

quote:
Ok so why is there a huge " condom crisis " in Africa ? Where is the EU ? Where is the UN ? Oh that's right, lets blame America.

You haven't read the article from the link i provided whit id did you so here is it again i would say read it.
ps. its a US news paper
http://www.sptimes.com/2003/10/12/Perspective/HIV_...
And i don't blame most Americans but current government policy.

quote:
Bush can't be " voted out " because hes already at his maximum second term. The most legally allowed. What hes doing isn't for popularity. And oil ?

Ok i wrote that wrong i mean his policy is getting voted out, "A vote for change"

quote:
I want to ask people where all that oil is we " went to war for " given that our gas prices are nearing $5 a gallon. By the way it was a $2 when the Democrats took congress and promised a change for the better.

Ooo i new that oil was going to hit 100 200 300 dollar a barrel for over 10 years, it was un a voidable and made complete sens after i was reading a book about "peak oil" the guy predicting it was even wrong by 2~4 years he predicted 2010.
No one is going to park his car even if petrol going to be $25 I still going to drive my car.

Parent

RE: This is a joke right?

By MrPoletski on 5/26/08, Rating: -1

By MrPoletski on 5/26/2008 12:22:24 AM , Rating: -1

quote:
I actually did like Clinton. Because at the time I was younger, dumber, and liberal. But the fact that he purjured himself and was impeached in 1998 pretty much disqualifies him from being a " better prez than Bush ". So your wrong, its pretty safe to say any president who gets impeached is in fact a " bad " president.

woah woah woah woah WOOOAAAHHHHH

pull that bus over to the side of the bullshit turnpike.

They impeached Clinton for lying about a blowjob. Nobody ever asked the question of what the hell he was up in a court testifying under oath about his private life.

The impeachment failed because it was a bunch of crap. It was just the republicans/neoconservatives doing everything they could to get a democrat out of office.

They spent more money investigating him for that than was spent investigating 9/11.

But ultimately, Clinton didn't cause the deaths of millions by creating an unjust war, knowing DAMN WELL it was unjust.

But it's ok, they only forrin brown mulsim people they aren't as much of a human as an american citizen right? Or an Israeli for that matter.

Next stop for the USA: Iran, once again it will be on the flimsiest falsified evidence.

I'll never understand why you yanks complain so much about clinton. I mean (apart from the non-story of having an affair and lying about it) what did he do that was so bad?

Parent

RE: This is a joke right?

By onelittleindian on 5/27/2008 1:39:17 AM , Rating: 5

quote:
They impeached Clinton for lying about a blowjob

They impeached Clinton for lying under oath, in a sexual harrassment case which demonstrated he had a longstanding history of sexually harrassing and even abusing women who worked for him. Would you like for your mother, sister, or daughter to have a boss like that, a man who sends a state trooper to take them to his hotel room, and puts their career on the line for not "performing"?

Such things are against the law for good reason. So put your idiotic BS back where it belongs.

Parent

RE: This is a joke right?

By MrPoletski on 5/27/08, Rating: -1

By MrPoletski on 5/27/2008 5:36:20 AM , Rating: -1

What about illegally spying on citizens? What about lying to congress about a war? What about ho humming when the guy who destroyed one of their cases for war has his wives CIA identity revealed? What about passing legislation after legislation that bypasses a great amount of your constitution? What about suspending habeus corpus? what about the current lies and rhetoric about Iran?

Is that all 'ok' huh?

But having an AFFAIR with his intern (she never made any accusation, that was Paula Jones and her case was thrown out of court ) is so criminal he has to go?

Sure, I might not like my daughter around him, but at least he's not responsible for the needless deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, the destruction of your economy and the theft of your civil liberties.

Maaannn, do you guys have the slightest clue about what matters in this funny wibbly place called reality?

He boned his secretary, GOOD. Guys got a pair of balls.

So when are you going to impeach bush? his approval rating has been lower than clintons at the time of his impeachment for ages now. He's illegally got you into a war that is for the control of oil supplies...

And history is repeating itself in Venezuala. Operation Ajax all over again.

Parent

RE: This is a joke right?

By masher2

(blog) on 5/27/2008 3:23:44 PM , Rating: 4

> "that was Paula Jones and her case was thrown out of court "

Err, Paula Jones won a settlement against Clinton, and he was additionally disbarred for his actions as well.

And Paula Jones was hardly the only woman to accuse him. Don't forget Gennifer Flowers (sexual harrasment, intimidation), Juanita Broadrick (rape), Kathleen Wiley (harassment, sexual assault), Elizabeth Ward Gracen, Sally Perdue, and quite a few others.

You can quantify all this as him just "boning a secretary", but the fact remains that countless women suffered as as result of his crimes, and had their lives blighted as a result.

> "What about lying to congress about a war?"

Bush said nothing to Congress about Iraq that Clinton didn't also say...and he simply concurred with the conclusions of the US intelligence service (which agreed with those of the English and Germans, as well btw).

But continue with your fantasy that Bush simply made it all up. The facts certainly aren't going to sway you.

Parent

RE: This is a joke right?

By MrPoletski on 5/28/2008 9:39:56 AM , Rating: 1

What? Bush controlled what evidence went into the intelligence reports, cherry picking data, then claims he saw the same intelligence as congress. He lied. Colin powell went to the UN saying they know he is seeking ingerian yellowcake when that data was refuted by the CIA - but they left that data out and punished the agent when he blew the whistle.

Sadly, you don't get facts in the USA, you get fox news. I bet you think al qeada was involved with saddam and that WMD's were found too right?

Parent

RE: This is a joke right?

By Drexial on 5/27/2008 1:42:47 PM , Rating: 2

FTAA and NAFTA to give the shortest answer possible.

Parent

RE: This is a joke right?

By masher2

(blog) on 5/25/2008 2:03:44 PM , Rating: 5

> "Nazi Germany would never get away now a days whit what they did then building up in secret a army"

Err, there was nothing secret about the Third Reich's military buildup...all of Europe knew of it. The only thing they didn't know were Germany's intentions on how they planned to use it.

> "Hey that you really dint like Clinton docent mean he was a bad President"

The fact remains that the Clinton Administration was by far the least productive in recent memory. Clinton was certainly both a charismatic and a crafty individual...but he accomplished nearly nothing while in office.

> "Oops the US isn’t generous as you think and the EU country’s even give 4 times more "

Wrong on a few counts. First of all, you're using a highly misleading metric that measures not total giving, but rather share of GDP. Secondly and much worse, you're ignoring by far the largest portion of US giving -- private contributions. The US has by far the largest amount of private contributions of any nation on earth, a sum which far outweighs governmental aid.

Parent

RE: This is a joke right?

By michael67 on 5/25/08, Rating: 0

By michael67 on 5/25/2008 10:34:35 PM , Rating: 0

quote:
Err, there was nothing secret about the Third Reich's military buildup...all of Europe knew of it. The only thing they didn't know were Germany's intentions on how they planned to use it.

Yes other countries new Germany was building up but the extend of it was not know as the largest part of the tanks ware hidden, also by the treaty Germany was forbidden to develop and have fighter airplanes those ware totally hidden and after/during the invasion of Poland Holland and France, Britain had to rush the Hurricane and spitfighter in to production and ware just in time in almost large enough Nr's to defend Britain and almost lost the battle if it wasn’t for German accidental bombing of London and the revenge of Britain by bombing Berlin and Hitler ordering the return bombing of London what relived the tactical more important bombing of airfields.

quote:
The fact remains that the Clinton Administration was by far the least productive in recent memory. Clinton was certainly both a charismatic and a crafty individual...but he accomplished nearly nothing while in office.

The fact is also that Republican party did everything in his power to block anything he was doing good and bad, and whit Republicans in both houses for the greatest part of his terms, they made his presidency impossible to function
(but you as a Rep. properly have a differnt view on this so its pointles to debade it imho)

quote:
Wrong on a few counts. First of all, you're using a highly misleading metric that measures not total giving, but rather share of GDP.

Imo that’s the right way as all other countries use that system as well
It shows how mouths money a country is willing to sacrifice of its total income to help out other countries that are in need.

quote:
Secondly and much worse, you're ignoring by far the largest portion of US giving -- private contributions. The US has by far the largest amount of private contributions of any nation on earth, a sum which far outweighs governmental aid.

That would be impossible to do for example in Holland given the amount the state is all ready is giving to aid, even do the amount given by private contributions and charity organizations in Holland is pretty large, but I cant give a Nr on that because its un none to me.
Also its mouths easier for private contributions to out spend US government do to the extreme low a mount that’s given by it, if they actual really do, because to get on the same level as EU spending even excluding private contributions from the EU zone,
Because private contributions in the US count for 2.3% (2005) of its GDP but that Nr include all types of donations

quote:
$253 billion in gifts supported more than 1.4 million charities including religious congregations, schools, clinics, arts groups, food banks, and more.

(forging aid isn’t even listed here) http://www.aafrc.org/press_releases/trustreleases/...

So what your saying is that next to the government forging aid about 15% of all American donations are given to foreign aid , just to be on par whit the EU, I really serious doubt that, and think that Americans that the aid that’s is given just as mouths is over estimated as what’s on the federal budget.

quote:
Nonetheless, the median estimate was 20% of the federal budget, 20 times the actual amount of approximately 1%

So on both acounts ihmo my vieuw of the Nr's are right.

Also the US aid that’s given comes very often whit ties and /ore conditions, ware (and I can only speak for 100% shore for Holland) the aid (ore at least most of it) from the EU zone comes unconditional.

Again I really advice to see Adam Curtis docu series especially “The Power of Nightmares” and “The Century of the self” I am pretty shore you would revise some of your opinions you are venting here, atleast look at the first part of “The Power of Nightmares” the worst that could happen is you wasted a hour and maybe you learn why I don’t agree whit you on so many point, and ad best you learn something about the word you dint know (there are worst things ;-)
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=Adam+Curtis&...

Parent

RE: This is a joke right?

By mindless1 on 5/26/08, Rating: -1

RE: This is a joke right?

By Justin Case on 5/24/08, Rating: -1

RE: This is a joke right?

By Ringold on 5/25/2008 4:07:54 AM , Rating: 4

quote:
1. There is no "European government".

The person you responded to was responding to a person who was said he was from Holland.

Besides, one could have a spirited debate about how much your assertion is even true after the Lisbon treaty.

quote:
2. The main countries in the EU are currently ruled by center-right parties or coalitions.

All of which are to the left of the American political center. Even the UK's Conservative's are slightly to the left of center here.

The Economist recently did a detailed analysis, and the only issue I can recall where they were to the right of us to any significant degree, I think, was their belief in trade. I could be wrong, though.

quote:
3. In Europe, the term "liberal" generally refers to right-wing parties (parties that favor free-market capitalism).

An American spoke using words that carried American definitions. My god. How horrible. Perhaps he should've translated it in to French, German, Spanish and Italian so more Europeans could've understood it with greater precision?

In business, the world 'liberal' also refers to free markets, etc, here in the US but it's hard to use it properly. If the person hearing it attachs the modern American political meaning to it, they might equate "market liberalization" with "government take-over,", so I at least never use the "proper" definition in mixed company.

quote:
Care to make more hilarious comments about the politics of continents you don't know?

Care to needlessly flame more, or was there anything actually constructive about your post?

Parent

RE: This is a joke right?

By Reclaimer77 on 5/25/2008 9:44:54 AM , Rating: 3

quote:
An American spoke using words that carried American definitions. My god. How horrible. Perhaps he should've translated it in to French, German, Spanish and Italian so more Europeans could've understood it with greater precision?

Of course. Its just more proof that I'm a typical ignorant, selfish, and self centered American.

Parent

RE: This is a joke right?

By Justin Case on 5/25/08, Rating: -1

By Justin Case on 5/25/2008 3:09:51 PM , Rating: -1

quote:
The person you responded to was responding to a person who was said he was from Holland.

The Dutch government coalition doesn't even include the socialist party, so if Holland was the basis for his enlightened comment about Europe's "bleeding heart socialist government", it was even more wrong than simply assuming there's a "European government". Want to dig deeper?

quote:
Besides, one could have a spirited debate about how much your assertion is even true after the Lisbon treaty.

The Lisbon Treaty establishes the internal workings of existing EU organs (from the parliament to the ECB). Each European country has its own (completely separate) government. Don't dig yourself into a bigger hole than you already have (though that seems to be a common trait with neocons - which wouldn't be so bad if they didn't drag others with them).

quote:
An American spoke using words that carried American definitions. My god. How horrible.

I am American, retard. I mentioned the difference in terminology precisely because some ignorants whose knowledge of the world comes from Fox News assume that if a European party is called "Liberal", that means it's left-wing. It isn't, it's right-wing.

What you don't have in Europe are right-wing religious parties. Europeans in general like to keep their politics and their religion separate (Northern Ireland excluded), and the ones who are religious tend not to be hypocrites, and realise that Christ pretty much fitted the definition of a "bleeding heart socialist".

So "Christian parties" in Europe are culturally conservative (no gays, no abortions, no sex ed, ignorance is bliss) but socially progressive (helping the poor, etc, all that stuff that Jesus preached about, ya know?).

quote:
All of which are to the left of the American political center. Even the UK's Conservative's are slightly to the left of center here.

I'm afraid the last big European party that was "right-wing enough" for your taste got axed in 1945.

Parent

RE: This is a joke right?

By William Gaatjes on 5/25/2008 8:48:16 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
Have you ever heard of a spell checker ? I can barely read and understand this paragraph. So I guess I can't debate whatever point you are trying to make here.

I used the translate function from word 2003 once. I had to laugh so much that i could not get my work done. I stopped using this feature from word after i nearly fell of my chair while laughing. Maybe he is using it too :)

quote:
So I guess I can't debate whatever point you are trying to make here.

And that is a statement purely about yourself.
You cannot interpret what he is is saying and therefore refuse to debate.
A sign of weakness or cheapness.

Is it not so that secret services/intelligence agencies where once cooked up with the thought to make sure long term stability is a reality by using means that a more publicly service like military cannot do ?

More and more people feel these days that for example the cia is just used to make easy money in short term.
No more long term thinking.

Parent

RE: This is a joke right?

By onelittleindian on 5/24/2008 10:37:07 AM , Rating: 5

quote:
Now a days i see 90% of the problems in the world have there roots from the always short term and self interested US foreign policy's over the last 50+ years.

Rofl, who paid you to make all Europeans sound like a bunch of blinkin' idiots?

Parent

RE: This is a joke right?

By MrPoletski on 5/27/08, Rating: -1

RE: This is a joke right?

By MrPoletski on 5/28/08, Rating: 0

RE: This is a joke right?

By masher2

(blog) on 5/24/2008 11:10:41 AM , Rating: 5

> "During the fifties Iran had a real Pro western leader...British MI6 and CIA set up plan...to get the Shah(2) in power"

Your history here is wrong in several places. First of all, the Shah of Iran was *already* in power long before the West got involved.

Mossadegh was Prime Minister -- a position below that of Shah -- and once elected, began attempting to assume dictatorial control over government and to rig elections to ensure retaining his position.

CIA involvement was limited to a minor propagadanda campaign, essentially no more than convincing the Shah to exercise the power he already had to dismiss Mossadegh.

As for the actual overthrow of Mossadegh, most scholars today attribute it to his radical policies causing loss of support among hardline Shia clerics-- the same people ultimately responsible for the deposing of the Shah.

Getting your history from Wikipedia is dicey at the best of times. For articles on controversial, politically charged topics such as this, it's no better than a conspiracy website.

Parent

RE: This is a joke right?

By Strunf on 5/24/08, Rating: -1

RE: This is a joke right?

By michael67 on 5/24/2008 2:06:48 PM , Rating: 1

Think you also should see the documentaries as it is a british docu how got more knowledge then the Brits a bout the middle east from that time.
btw i also seen a Dutch's and docu and read books a bout it.

Yes the Shah was in power just like our Queen is technical ruling my country doesn't mean she should have absolute power and have a secret police that reined terror

And if you call bombing "a minor propaganda campaign" then you properly right, otherwise I suggest learn more about the history of Iran

quote:
Getting your history from Wikipedia is dicey at the best of times. For articles on controversial, politically charged topics such as this, it's no better than a conspiracy website.

I now that wikipedia is not always reliable, but most tings written down in that article are are historical correct, even do it doesn't say anything about the bombings.

Parent

RE: This is a joke right?

By masher2

(blog) on 5/24/2008 2:32:40 PM , Rating: 5

> "Yes the Shah was in power ..."

Meaning the US and British didn't put him in power, nor did they "overthrow the government".

> "doesn't mean she should have absolute power and have a secret police that reined terror"

Both acts that Mossaddegh himself engaged him before being relieved of power by the Shah...something you conveniently forget to mention.

> "but most tings written down in that article are are historical correct"

And what does that article say the US and Britain did? Did they send troops to Iran? No. Weapons and military hardware? No. I'll quote from the article itself:

quote:
[Operation Ajax] centered around convincing Iran's monarch to use his constitutional authority to dismiss Mosaddeq from office

If trying to convince a world leader to exercise his constitional powers in a favorable manner is a crime, then every nation on earth is guilty every day of each year. That's the entire function of each and every diplomat on the planet.

Parent

RE: This is a joke right?

By michael67 on 5/24/08, Rating: 0

By michael67 on 5/24/2008 4:15:08 PM , Rating: 0

quote:
Meaning the US and British didn't put him in power, nor did they "overthrow the government".

Our Queen in power to that doesnt mean she can dismiss the siting elected government.
That's the same as overthrowing a government that WAS elected
(Your playing whit words and you now it by not mentioning rest of the sentence)

quote:
Both acts that Mossaddegh himself engaged him before being relieved of power by the Shah...something you conveniently forget to mention.

Hmmm could you show ware anything he did was even comparable whit what later happen when the Shah was in power.

quote:
And what does that article say the US and Britain did? Did they send troops to Iran? No. Weapons and military hardware? No. I'll quote from the article itself:

Ooo you really need US troops to play dirty if you can let other ore CIA man do it in secret, its mouths better to let someone else get his hands dirty for you. (and this dint get out till the 70s when it became a big CIA scandal)

quote:
If trying to convince a world leader to exercise his constitutional powers in a favorable manner is a crime, then every nation on earth is guilty every day of each year. That's the entire function of each and every diplomat on the planet.

Right following that line it would be completely ok the EU in 2004 would have contributed $100m John Kerry to get him elected as president and used any political means to get that done.
By for example dumping all dollars to crash the value of it to put Bush in a bad position.

Come on get real the UK and the US played a very dirty Grady game here ware we got in the 80s flashback from.

quote:
The overthrow of Mossadeq served as a rallying point in anti-US protests during the 1979 Iranian revolution and to this day is said to be one of the most popular figures in Iranian history. Despite this he is generally ignored by the government of the Islamic Republic because of his secularism and western manners.

And saying the US is not responsible for this mess is like sticking your fingers in ears and go "lalalala"

No having pro western leader in Iran would have bin mouths worse that came up for its rights.
Then having current president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei above him.

The last 50 years is full whit actions like this against governments that ware idler economical ore political in the way.
Ore leaders/governments that should be hanged ware supported by the US because they ware pro US

Parent

RE: This is a joke right?

By masher2

(blog) on 5/24/2008 4:23:29 PM , Rating: 4

> "Our Queen in power to that doesnt mean she can dismiss the siting elected government."

But the Shah did have the constitutional power to dismiss Mosaddegh.

> "could you show ware anything he did was even comparable whit what later happen when the Shah was in power"

That's just the point. What Mosaddegh did was worse than anything the Shah had done up to that point in history.

The Shah's later excesses are besides the point. No one can predict the future. In 1953, the US and Britain were supporting the legal government of Iran, a government was attempting to stop the dictatorial ambitions and human rights abuses of Mosaddegh.

> "Despite this he is generally ignored by the government of the Islamic Republic because of his secularism and western manners."

And that's the real reason Mosaddegh lost power. Not because of a few CIA pamphlets...but because his radical policies caused the real power center in Iran -- the Shia clerics and the landed gentry -- to rise up against him.

Parent

RE: This is a joke right?

By michael67 on 5/24/08, Rating: -1

RE: This is a joke right?

By grenableu on 5/24/2008 10:40:09 PM , Rating: 4

quote:
And Mosaddegh paranoia and actions had noting to do whit a man defending his presidency

So you're willing to excuse Mosadeq's tyranny but not the Shah's? They were both doing the same things for the same reasons, to defend their hold on the government. Seems clear your just looking for reasons to blame the US.

Parent

RE: This is a joke right?

By nofranchise on 5/25/2008 7:43:04 AM , Rating: 1

quote:
In 1953, the US and Britain were supporting the legal government of Iran, a government was attempting to stop the dictatorial ambitions and human rights abuses of Mosaddegh.

Haha - yeah. Of course that is always why the US intervenes. Like the last time the US and the UK tried to stop the dictatorial ambitions and human rights abuses of a middle east leader. You did it all for the people!

How nice of you - and you had no economic interest what so ever.

Silly robot.

Parent

RE: This is a joke right?

By MrPoletski on 5/27/08, Rating: -1

RE: This is a joke right?

By masher2

(blog) on 5/27/2008 3:30:17 PM , Rating: 3

> "Dude, go and read a history book. Britain paid for and the USA carried out a coup "

While it's difficult to argue with the compelling scholarly weight contained in the word "dude", the fact is that the USA did not "carry out a coup". The Shah was already the titular head of government long before the US or Britain became involved, and that involvement was itself extremely limited. Still worse, in 1953, the "brutal dictator" in Iran was Mossadegh, not the Shah, who was busily engaged in consolidating power, rigging elections, and beating and/or killing anyone who disagreed with his policies.

I suggest you read some of the prior posts in this thread, and learn a bit more about what actually happened in Iran in 1953.

Parent

RE: This is a joke right?

By MrPoletski on 5/28/2008 9:46:13 AM , Rating: 2

"The Shah was already the titular head of government long before the US or Britain became involved,"

Mossegedah reduced his power to virtually nil.

"and that involvement was itself extremely limited. Still worse, in 1953, the "brutal dictator" in Iran was Mossadegh, not the Shah, who was busily engaged in consolidating power, rigging elections, and beating and/or killing anyone who disagreed with his policies."

The guy was elected by a LANDSLIDE and riots and such were incited as part of the coup. Where the hell do you get this rubbish from?

"I suggest you read some of the prior posts in this thread, and learn a bit more about what actually happened in Iran in 1953."

I suggest you stop talking out your ass and READ SOME HISTORY. Here you go:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/latulippe/latulippe41.h...

"While I certainly don’t condone his socialistic tendencies or his seizure of the oilfields, it is undeniable that by the time of his elevation to prime minister, Mossadeq had the backing of the overwhelming majority of the Iranian population. For the first time in its long history, Iran had a democratically elected leader."

blah blah blah, here comes the 'that just liberal biased BS' reply I guess.

Parent

RE: This is a joke right?

By MrPoletski on 5/27/08, Rating: -1

RE: This is a joke right?

By Justin Case on 5/24/08, Rating: -1

By Justin Case on 5/24/2008 3:38:27 PM , Rating: -1

For the record, the US did not save Europe from the nazis. The soviets saved Europe from the nazis. The US saved Europe from the soviets.

The US only truly commited to WWII in Europe when it became obvious that Stalin was going to take half the continent as payment for beating the nazis, and the US had to race them to Berlin. Until then, some Americans were too busy profiting from the war.

In fact, the USSR was also the reason why we dropped two nukes on Japan: to show our new toys to Stalin and to make sure Japan surrendered to us before they even had a chance to surrender to them. While obviously a nasty thing to do to the civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it was probably a good thing for Japan in the long run.

The fact that we managed to go late into a world war and still (sort of) win it on two separate fronts, despite not having nearly as much of a technological superiority as we do today, shows how our standards have dropped recently.

If Bush had been our president in those days, we'd probably still be fighting over that beach in Normandy (and his buddies would be making billions from the inflated price of sand, of course).

Parent

RE: This is a joke right?

By masher2

(blog) on 5/24/2008 4:32:55 PM , Rating: 5

> "The US only truly commited to WWII in Europe when it became obvious that Stalin was going to take half the continent as payment for beating the nazis"

Did they stop teaching history entirely in public schools? Until the battle of Stalingrad (which occurred over a year after the US entered the war) the Soviets hadn't won a single major battle against the war, and had done nothing but lose ground continuously.

The notion that the Axis would have been defeated without US involvement is sheer nonsense.

> "In fact, the USSR was also the reason why we dropped two nukes on Japan: to show our new toys to Stalin and to make sure Japan surrendered to us before they even had a chance to surrender to them"

This is the most ridiculous thing I've yet heard. The Soviets hadn't even declared war on Japan until *after* Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The attacks were designed to force Japanese surrender without an invasion of the mainland being required, an attack that would have killed far more civilians than the explosions themselves.

Parent

RE: This is a joke right?

By michael67 on 5/24/08, Rating: -1

RE: This is a joke right?

By masher2

(blog) on 5/24/2008 10:45:36 PM , Rating: 5

quote:
Truman pushed the dropping of bomb 2 just to get the USSR to fear the US, and almost costed him a cabinet crises over it, because after bomb 1 Japan had tried to surrender

What nonsense is this? Even after the second nuclear bomb, Japan didn't surrender. The Supreme War council voted almost unanimously against it, and even drew up plans to execute officers who disagreed. It wasn't until after the US threatened continued bombings, and the Soviets officially declared war that Hirohito went on the radio to make a public appeal to the people for surrender.

And even THEN it very nearly didn't happen -- a group of officers stormed the Imperial Palace, attempting to stop the surrender from taking place. Had they been succesful, Japan would have continued to fight on.

Parent

RE: This is a joke right?

By Justin Case on 5/26/08, Rating: -1

By Justin Case on 5/26/2008 8:54:03 PM , Rating: -1

quote:
What nonsense is this? Even after the second nuclear bomb, Japan didn't surrender.

Sigh... Looks like you need to read Truman's diary and spend less time watching "enhanced historical documentaries" produced by Fox.

Japan had been trying to surrender since before the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. They simply didn't accept an unconditional surrender. They had one condition: their emperor was sacred and had to remain in his post. We used that clause as an "excuse" to drop the bombs and impress Stalin.

Eventually Hirohito himself asked for that clause to be removed, so the treaty could be signed. And what did we do? We agreed to keep him in place. As a puppet, of course, but that was obvious either way. In other words, the final terms of surrender were exactly the ones Japan had proposed before Hiroshima.

The bombs were dropped on Japan, but they were really aimed at the USSR. Truman is quite clear about that in his diary and his memoirs.

Parent

RE: This is a joke right?

By onelittleindian on 5/27/2008 1:41:27 AM , Rating: 3

Lol, where did you hear such crap? Japan wasn't trying to surrender before we dropped the bomb. They were training civilians to fight invading US soldiers. This is well known history chap, look it up.

Parent

RE: This is a joke right?

By michael67 on 5/28/2008 7:00:27 PM , Rating: 2

Yes, what your saying is completely true.

But you also maybe have heard of the concept plan A and backup plan B ?
One doesnt exclude the other, and also maybe they ware trying to keep the spirits up from people in the country and/ore try to keep them busy ?

Parent

RE: This is a joke right?

By Justin Case on 5/24/08, Rating: -1

RE: This is a joke right?

By William Gaatjes on 5/24/2008 9:00:03 PM , Rating: 3

Some war tactics :

I remember from history that the sovjets at that time had a lot easier time to win by letting Germany gain ground. Simple use of terrain and weather made sure that Germany was loosing heavenly against the sovjets even when the Germans had more advanced weapons. Oldest trick in the book.

Way more back in time Genghis Khan used similair tricks.
Genghis Khan used horses and yaks. But yaks came in very handy when the weather was bad and to cold for horses.

I do believe that the US would have engaged the world war sooner or later. The US has a lot of geological riches.
If europa was turned in one unified nation with hitlers way of thinking then the US would have been an interesting target.

One more thing ,
The reason the us and the eu could have a sustainable economy on their own without sacrificing too much is because of sheere size.

The problem always is that if you want to make more money and not find an equilibrium you have to keep expanding. This is the primary reason why we will always have wars. Good politics is about maintaning financial balance.

If you cannot do that , it is easier to take some one elses money. If that may be pure cash or resources, take your pick.

An American friend of mine showed me one of his "treasures",
an original copy of a book written around 1900 i think. He wanted me to read a few passages. This book was from a financial historical expert. What he wrote was pretty basic. To sum it up, with our way life, war will never end cause we have to keep on expanding.

Afcourse this can change but alas, the technological breakthroughs we make are holded back by greed.

We already have the means to solve for example the energy problems but "we" find it to expensive sigh....

War is always about having control. In our western sociëty, money controls people. In other sociëty, religion controls people.

And to all :

Don't go anti eu or anti us or even anti afghanistan.
Lot's of good humble people just working while a few cause all the problems.

Parent

RE: This is a joke right?

By Justin Case on 5/24/2008 9:21:05 PM , Rating: 1

quote:
Did they stop teaching history entirely in public schools?

No idea, I went to a private one. I also had a grandfather who was more involved in our role in the war than he was really comfortable with. And no, his name wasn't Prescott.

Parent

RE: This is a joke right?

By MrPoletski on 5/26/08, Rating: 0

RE: This is a joke right?

By PhoenixKnight on 5/23/08, Rating: -1

RE: This is a joke right?

By Justin Case on 5/24/08, Rating: -1

RE: This is a joke right?

By MrPoletski on 5/25/2008 11:50:24 PM , Rating: 1

Judging by the EU voting track record we should let apes vote?

You're a yank yeah?

Look at your president, I rest my case.

Parent

RE: This is a joke right?

By spuddyt on 5/23/2008 11:29:32 AM , Rating: 4

actually, based on some psychological studies, certain types of apes, can in fact be taught language, to the degree that they can more or less hold a conversation, but even then, they never did get past the level of a 5 year old girl.....
yes this is madness (but then again, what about Humans who have mental issues and can't go out to work, shoud they get human rights?)
(pls don't flame me, I think this is stupid as well, its just food for thought)

Parent

RE: This is a joke right?

By amanojaku on 5/23/2008 11:54:04 AM , Rating: 5

quote:
but then again, what about Humans who have mental issues and can't go out to work, shoud they get human rights?

Humans with mental issues have jobs. They're called CEOs and politicians.

Parent

RE: This is a joke right?

By Kamea Networks on 5/23/08, Rating: -1

RE: This is a joke right?

By FITCamaro on 5/23/2008 1:45:56 PM , Rating: 5

You went past the line. Yes, there are bad police out there. But the vast majority of them are heroes who deserve your respect and cooperation. I have a complete disgust for anyone who mistreats or gives a hard time to an officer. Appropriate responses to a law enforcement office are "Yes sir." and "No sir".

If you don't like dealing with the cops, don't do anything the f*ck wrong. There will always be bad eggs out there in any profession. That doesn't give you the right to treat all of them like sh*t.

Parent

RE: This is a joke right?

By snownpaint on 5/23/08, Rating: -1

RE: This is a joke right?

By Samus on 5/23/2008 3:47:39 PM , Rating: 3

I'm sorry but I have family relatives and friends that are police officers, and they all share one similarity...they are all dumb as a deer.

The position of a politician or police officer doesn't require an intelligent person, so naturally the jobs attract people who lack just that. Here in Chicago, they recently just started requiring new;y recruited officers to have a 2-year college education (community college, etc) which means for the past 150 years, Chicago Police have had to have no more than a high school diploma, if that.

For someone who represents the law and holds the peace, they should have much better education than this. And that is just why most of them are terrible at performing their job well.

Parent

RE: This is a joke right?

By 91TTZ on 5/23/2008 5:32:07 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
The position of a politician or police officer doesn't require an intelligent person, so naturally the jobs attract people who lack just that. Here in Chicago, they recently just started requiring new;y recruited officers to have a 2-year college education (community college, etc) which means for the past 150 years, Chicago Police have had to have no more than a high school diploma, if that.

You're fooling yourself if you really think that an extra 2-4 years of school is going to make the cops much better. They should already know basic things like "don't beat the crap out of a handcuffed guy", yet cops still get caught doing it. Do you really think that school is going to stop these kind of things?

Parent

RE: This is a joke right?

By borismkv on 5/23/2008 7:33:57 PM , Rating: 5

Okay, you know, I really hate this whole condescending attitude that "intelligent" people have towards people who aren't "intelligent." A lack of education does not determine a person's value to society, and I consider the man willing to place his life in harm's way to protect innocent people much more valuable to society as a whole than the person who sits in coffee houses typing out diatribes on their Macs against those awful uneducated people out there who are ruining everything for "intelligent" people. Get your damn priorities straight and start looking at how much value *you* have before you even think to judge another person's worth.

Parent

RE: This is a joke right?

By RogueSpear on 5/23/2008 8:50:24 PM , Rating: 5

quote:
Here in Chicago, they recently just started requiring new;y recruited officers to have a 2-year college education (community college, etc) which means for the past 150 years, Chicago Police have had to have no more than a high school diploma, if that.

Perhaps in Chicago. I am a police officer and where I work a 2 year college degree has been required since the 80's. I cannot think of a single police officer in my department with less than 20 years of service that does not have BA or BS. We also have many officers with masters degrees, some who are practicing lawyers. Beyond that, I would estimate that at least a full quarter are volunteer fireman, many of them paramedics. At least a quarter are military reservists - one in particular has been sent to Iraq during each war there in addition to be activated and sent to Bosnia. We have officers who are certified to teach K - 12, which in New York is no small accomplishment. There are those who are licensed master electricians, master plumbers, commercial pilots. Our technical services officer makes MacGyver look like an amateur. Without going into too much detail, there have been episodes of a fictional television series that were based on the work done by our forensic lab.

On the flip side we do have some people who are clearly not worthy of badge. There are hot heads, loose cannons, bigots, and plain old jerks. But I think that you'll find that in almost any given population of people. So as whole, we are not perfect. We try our best and on some days we try harder than others.

Last year we had a natural disaster of sorts with snow, ice, and extreme wind. Nearly everyone worked 16+ hour days for a week. Directing traffic, answering thousands of calls for help, pumping the water out of basements while there own was submerged, not to mention being cold and wet the entire week. So the police officers in New Orleans that ditched the city get all of the attention, while the ones who stayed get none. Sometimes it takes an awful lot to keep on caring, believe me.

Parent

RE: This is a joke right?

By charlieee on 5/23/2008 10:31:11 PM , Rating: 2

I am in support of hearing this good news. CNN should make more stories like this available when disaster comes around.

Parent

RE: This is a joke right?

By FITCamaro on 5/24/2008 2:19:47 AM , Rating: 1

They're not as juicy. Screw the hero. Glamorize the inept.

Parent

RE: This is a joke right?

By jvillaro on 5/25/2008 1:37:14 AM , Rating: 2

Well after reading all the stupidity wrote oin this thread im kinda liking the idea of an ape as presidents all world wide... I actually think it would avoid all of us killing each other.

Parent

RE: This is a joke right?

By Xerstead on 5/23/2008 1:42:27 PM , Rating: 2

Disabled people already have 'Human Rights'
I only hope they are hearing the case to set the precident of Animals are Not Human.
If they are foolish enough to let this through then expect to see them swinging in for state benefits, housing, child support and care allowance.
And with all the anti-descrimination laws you could be working with one soon...

Parent

RE: This is a joke right?

By masher2

(blog) on 5/23/2008 2:45:10 PM , Rating: 3

> "I only hope they are hearing the case to set the precident of Animals are Not Human."

That precedent already exists, however. A decision to hear the case means they're willing to at least consider the possiblility that the plaintiff's case has merit.

Parent

RE: This is a joke right?

By snownpaint on 5/23/08, Rating: -1

RE: This is a joke right?

By Hawkido on 5/23/2008 5:52:01 PM , Rating: 2

Funny that they both earn more than you...

and you pay both their saleries...

Parent

RE: This is a joke right?

By HOOfan 1 on 5/23/2008 11:54:04 AM , Rating: 2

to be human you have to be of the genus Homo. Chimps are of the genus Pan therefore they are not human no matter how intelligent they are.

Parent

RE: This is a joke right?

By Justin Case on 5/23/2008 12:38:01 PM , Rating: 4

You do realize that's a classification determined by humans, right? I mean, for all you know, chimps may think they're just as homo as you.

Parent

RE: This is a joke right?

By HOOfan 1 on 5/23/2008 1:19:19 PM , Rating: 4

You do realize that the court ruling will be made by humans right?

Parent

RE: This is a joke right?

By marsbound2024 on 5/23/2008 2:57:18 PM , Rating: 2

This is straight out of the movie "Planet of the Apes." You know, the great movie from 1968, not the new movie. Except it was on the other end of the spectrum with the human in court and the ape scientists trying to prove that he was intelligent and not an abomination. The court ruling was of course made by apes.

In my opinion, while I do respect the intentions, there should certainly be no human rights given to a species that is clearly not human. This is not to say they cannot have rights, but the rights they are given should certainly be different on many levels than our rights. It has already been stated here... no right to vote is one of them.

Parent

RE: This is a joke right?

By Justin Case on 5/23/2008 3:50:27 PM , Rating: 2

Now I could say "actually it'll be made by washing machines", but that reference would be too geeky for this site. :^)

Parent

RE: This is a joke right?

By 91TTZ on 5/23/2008 1:24:48 PM , Rating: 3

quote:
to be human you have to be of the genus Homo. Chimps are of the genus Pan therefore they are not human no matter how intelligent they are.

What about gay chimps?

Parent

RE: This is a joke right?

By MAIA on 5/23/2008 12:01:02 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
actually, based on some psychological studies, certain types of apes, can in fact be taught language, to the degree that they can more or less hold a conversation, but even then, they never did get past the level of a 5 year old girl

That's easy then. Give them the rights of a five 5 year old ...
Anyway, they can understand and comunicate with us. They look like us (well, some...). they can hold a degree of social interaction and they can be taught. They can become hollywood actors and fly bombers (lol).

Anyway we share the same grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand fathers. That must mean something....

Parent

RE: This is a joke right?

By MrBungle123 on 5/23/2008 12:11:34 PM , Rating: 2

If we started adjusting everyones rights based on their mental age then everyone in congress would lose their jobs... some how i don't see that getting signed into law.

Parent

RE: This is a joke right?

By geddarkstorm on 5/23/2008 12:56:23 PM , Rating: 4

Humans are Homo sapians. I'm pretty sure you need to be one to get counted as one :P. We can give them "chimp" rights, or "ape" rights, or "fairly intelligent and rather amusing animal" rights, but one thing they aren't is human, and they shouldn't get human rights.

Parent

RE: This is a joke right?

By glitchc on 5/23/2008 4:48:38 PM , Rating: 2

Remove one grand and you and I are almost relatives.

Parent

RE: This is a joke right?

By i3arracuda on 5/23/2008 12:21:47 PM , Rating: 5

quote:
yes this is madness

Madness?

This! Is! Austria!

Parent

RE: This is a joke right?

By masher2

(blog) on 5/23/2008 12:39:09 PM , Rating: 2

> "actually, based on some psychological studies, certain types of apes, can in fact be taught language"

I've seen a few such reports, and followup studies normally indicate the researchers in question at least partially fell prey to their own bias and desire to believe, attributing the chimps a much higher level of communication than they were actually displaying.

Parent

RE: This is a joke right?

By MozeeToby on 5/23/2008 2:43:39 PM , Rating: 2

There's a few things wrong with your statement, more the fault of a misleading article than any fault of yours.

First, a Chimpanzee is an advanced primate, but it is not an ape. There are big differences of body and mind between a chimp and an ape. To the best of my knowledge no significant language has been taught to chimps, only apes. Then again, I am not a linguist or animal rights activist so my knowledge is limited.

Second and most important, the court is deciding if the chimp can be legally considered a person, not if the chimp is human. This is much the same way that a corporation is considered a person. It would give the chimp certain rights and responsiblities, including the right to have a gardian which is what the case is really about. This whole thing got blown way out of proportion by people who didn't understand the purpose of the case.

Third and least important, why a five year old girl ? It seems vaguely sexist that you would single out one sex over the other.

Parent

RE: This is a joke right?

By masher2

(blog) on 5/23/2008 2:54:39 PM , Rating: 3

> "First, a Chimpanzee is an advanced primate, but it is not an ape"

No. The chimpanzee, pan troglodytes, is an ape of the family hominoidea. They are sometimes referred to as monkeys (which are not apes) but this is incorrect.

> "the court is deciding if the chimp can be legally considered a person, not if the chimp is human"

The court is considering whether a chimp is entitled to the same human rights as a human being. I believe that article made that fairly clear, but if it didn't, I apologize.

For a legal and social perspective, the difference between a chimp who IS human and one who merely has the same rights as a human is essentially nil.

Parent

RE: This is a joke right?

By Strunf on 5/23/2008 3:42:57 PM , Rating: 3

Dogs have the same rights as cats, yet dogs aren't cats.

Parent

RE: This is a joke right?

By masher2

(blog) on 5/24/2008 11:11:59 AM , Rating: 2

In social and legal rights, a dog and a cat are identical...which was the point I was making.

Parent

RE: This is a joke right?

By PrinceGaz on 5/23/2008 4:23:47 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
This is nothing more than a guy who doesn't want to loose his pet. Deal with it buddy.

Did you mean to say that? It's the chimp that is male and its human owner is female. I suppose what you said could still make sense though :)

Parent

RE: This is a joke right?

By djkrypplephite on 5/24/2008 6:55:14 PM , Rating: 2

That's true. Ecofreaks can just import chimps and use them and extra votes. They don't know any better.

Regardless of that, this is ridiculous. Europe of course, being as stupid as it is, will likely pass this.

Parent

RE: This is a joke right?

By Moishe on 5/27/2008 8:19:37 AM , Rating: 2

If apes are humans, if human isn't the genetic code... then anything can be human.

Easily the vast majority of humans can take care of themselves for far, far less than $8k/month. I suggest letting "Matthew" go free and see how human he appears then.

Just because you dress an animal up and it does stuff doesn't mean it's a freakin human. This is absurd.

Parent

...

By AmazighQ on 5/23/2008 11:54:49 AM , Rating: 2

How about let the scientist find the missing link between humans and apes. And not go to court solely based on a theory. There is not justification to go to court to give an ape a status of a human. While there is no proof that apes and humans have the same ancestors. Yes yes 3% DNA difference is huge! The intelligence of a monkey is that of a 2-3 year old human. They do not need more to survive in the wild. And the evolution theory says the strongest survive. So why empower the weak. when you give apes right what will there contribution be to the society. we don't need leeching monkey that will live for free.
I just hope I don't wake up someday and see monkey have more right that people in Africa of Asia.

RE: ...

By MrBungle123 on 5/23/2008 12:04:59 PM , Rating: 1

quote:
While there is no proof that apes and humans have the same ancestors. Yes yes 3% DNA difference is huge!

You really have no idea how evolution works do you?

quote:

The intelligence of a monkey is that of a 2-3 year old human. They do not need more to survive in the wild. And the evolution theory says the strongest survive. So why empower the weak.

"It is not the strongest species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the ones most responsive to change."
- Charles Darwin

Parent

RE: ...

By RMSe17 on 5/23/2008 3:34:32 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
You really have no idea how evolution works do you?

Macro evolution is a bunch of bull, no one can prove it, no one got anything but fantasy about it. If you think Darwin is so great, why dont you go look up his precondition about finding fossils of "in-between" kinds... and then see how many they found (not counting the fakes that were shown as such)

Parent

RE: ...

By mikefarinha on 5/23/2008 4:23:54 PM , Rating: 2

*Sigh*

I used to think like you until I took an intro to Anthropology class.

True to form, there is no *proof* of human evolution in the fossil record... the statistics of bones surviving decay are against us on that one.

If you took an intro to Antho you'd be surprised to learn just how much forensics we can do on the various extinct Hominid and Australopithecus fossils that we have found.

There will never be a complete record to verify against. Scientists do their best to try and paint a picture of a puzzle with out having all the pieces. The result is a surprisingly logical and fantastic, yet incomplete, tapestry of evolution.

Could evolution be disproved? Sure it can, but with our current evidence and understanding it doesn't look likely it ever will be.

Parent

RE: ...

By Ringold on 5/23/2008 4:59:42 PM , Rating: 1

quote:
If you took an intro to Antho you'd be surprised to learn just how much forensics we can do on the various extinct Hominid and Australopithecus fossils that we have found.

There will never be a complete record to verify against.

I don't understand the problem some have -- beyond ideology, anyway. If you put the following series of numbers in front of someone, they can probably guess the blank values:

1 2 _ 4 5 _ _ 8 9 10

Right? That's something I'd expect in a Pre-K class.

But show them a series of fossils that progressively resemble us more and more, and they refuse to connect the dots?

quote:
*Sigh*

Indeed.

Parent

RE: ...

By Duwelon on 5/23/2008 11:12:13 PM , Rating: 2

You've been lied to by the so called intellectual elite. Macro-evolution is a theory for a reason because there is no way to prove it. None. You can try to simplify things to missing links between numbers 1 through 10 but it's more like 1 _ 9_ 981 _ 908928390182031741123890809890123.

THen you have Cosmic evolution. We've never seen stars form but that doesn't the science books from telling us all about how it happens as if it were fact. You've been lied to by people who hate all things "God" and will do anything including lie and cheat to convince themselves and others of it.

Then there's the whole problem of the "big bang" which if you believe evolution, you have to also believe in something like the big bang, which is a very popular theory because of how the universe seems to be expanding. Where does matter come from? Where did space and time come from? These questions are not answerable by science and anyone who claims to know is lying. Evolution and everything tied to it is a religion as much as any other. The difference is is that Evolution has a lightshow with smoke and mirrors where they use real science to pretend their conclusion is also real science.

Parent

RE: ...

By SlyNine on 5/23/08, Rating: 0

By SlyNine on 5/23/2008 11:29:24 PM , Rating: 0

quote:
THen you have Cosmic evolution. We've never seen stars form but that doesn't the science books from telling us all about how it happens as if it were fact. You've been lied to by people who hate all things "God" and will do anything including lie and cheat to convince themselves and others of it.

So because we don't believe in your "god" we are the bad guys, I see where you are going with this. Good vs Evil. The church says, if you don't believe in us you are evil and will go to hell. Fear us and every thing is fine. Isn't that easier anyways. Besides we are not smart enough to understand god so we shouldn't try, Right Isn't that what you are trying to tell us, Life is out of our control so why try, just hope theirs a god ready to catch us on our way out.

quote:
Evolution and everything tied to it is a religion as much as any other. The difference is is that Evolution has a lightshow with smoke and mirrors where they use real science to pretend their conclusion is also real science.

Do you turn on a switch and have light. That's not a theory, It was figured out by Scientists with THEORIES about how it works. Evolution is not a religion, its based on empirical evidence, The same kinds of scientific studies that allowed us to discover, understand, and manipulate electricity, We have developed tools and ways to test our theory's

Take for instance Cosmic theory, we predict something by brainstorming then provided a theory about it, how much energy does it have in what spectrum. Then we develop a new tool to see if we are correct or not. Often we are correct.

The atom bomb was a theory, hell the atom was a theory, but we have used it and know it exists.

Tell me what in your religion has ever proved anything that it previously theorized. Earth being flat ? Center of the universe. The fundamental ways of religious thinking is why every thing religion people believe ended up being proved wrong in the past. Witch are don't question us, Don't try to understand us. You are wrong and that's that.

Science is based on proof, and until you can PROVE it wrong, or have some evidence of another THEORY, don't give us that old rhetoric.

Parent

RE: ...

By Duwelon on 5/23/2008 11:46:27 PM , Rating: 2

You're so far off topic it's not funny. You started off throwing out a bunch of assumptions about me to support your point. WHich is exactly what text books and professors do. They throw out "some" empirical evidence that shows animals change in slight ways from their parents and use it as "proof" of macro-evolution.

Tell me, what empirical evidence do you have that shows rocks produced organic matter on their own?

Parent

RE: ...

By masher2

(blog) on 5/23/2008 11:51:13 PM , Rating: 2

> "They throw out "some" empirical evidence that shows animals change in slight ways from their parents and use it as "proof" of macro-evolution"

Err, that empirical evidence is just the first of dozens of distinct justifications for evolutionary theory. Molecular biology alone provides far more direct and compelling evidence...but, of course, the creationists know nothing of it, and continue to cling to their comfortable beliefs.

Parent

RE: ...

By Duwelon on 5/23/2008 11:59:01 PM , Rating: 2

Dozens of distinct justifications that are full of unprovable assumptions.

Parent

RE: ...

By Duwelon on 5/24/2008 12:03:06 AM , Rating: 2

Despite what Obama and other far left extremist liberals think, people do not cling to religion for "comfort".

Parent

RE: ...

By AlmostExAMD on 5/24/2008 1:15:52 AM , Rating: 2

Pixies and Fairies live in your backyard too, Of course they only come out at night when no one is around to see them,LOL.
If your god apparently created everything then please tell me who created him/her/it?
Science does not try to dismiss the fact that there either is or isn't a god but it tries to find answers to these sorts of questions.
Religion on the other hand dismisses any/everything that conflicts with its belief system and when science finds something to add to there theories religions alter there bible and beliefs to make it work.

Either side your on it's virtually impossible to prove either, Does god live in the sun perhaps? After all a lot of cultures in the past worshipped the sun did they know something we don't? Prove to me that god does not live in the sun(good luck sending a probe inside there). Its all to easy to believe in something without ever trying to question it.

If you truly have a belief in something, then you don't need to waste you're time in defending it for the sake of somebody elses view point unless your a scientist.
If you're deity(s) or whatever you believe in are real, then they are more than capable of defending themselves, they don't need your help.

Parent

RE: ...

By MrBungle123 on 5/23/2008 8:23:57 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
Macro evolution is a bunch of bull, no one can prove it, no one got anything but fantasy about it. If you think Darwin is so great, why dont you go look up his precondition about finding fossils of "in-between" kinds... and then see how many they found (not counting the fakes that were shown as such)

I'm going to assume by your statements that you are a religious person?... and that your "evidence" that we were all created is that there are holes in the Theory of Evolution? how am i doing so far?

Parent

RE: ...

By Duwelon on 5/23/2008 11:00:00 PM , Rating: 2

You're belief in the missing links being "yet to be discovered" is not a religion in what way?

Parent

RE: ...

By SlyNine on 5/23/2008 11:12:51 PM , Rating: 1

That's the problem with creationists, They never have a good argument against evolution, Only that the data is not 100% complete. Because evolutionists are the only people that really care for PROOF, they can use that against us and we cannot use it against them.

Because if they allowed us to they would realize that their beliefs are based on nothing but speculation and fantasy.

Parent

RE: ...

By Duwelon on 5/23/2008 11:25:35 PM , Rating: 3

If you had proof it wouldn't be called a theory, smart guy.

Parent

RE: ...

By SlyNine on 5/23/2008 11:31:46 PM , Rating: 2

People just choose to ignore the proof so they can go on living with their beliefs. Genius.

Parent

RE: ...

By Duwelon on 5/23/2008 11:39:16 PM , Rating: 3

Oh this is fun, i wanna play too:

No, people use an observation of true science to pretend something else isn't true, so they can go about feeling better that there is nothing to believe in.

Parent

RE: ...

By masher2

(blog) on 5/23/08, Rating: 0

RE: ...

By Reclaimer77 on 5/24/2008 1:25:35 AM , Rating: 3

quote:
Everything in science is a theory, from the theory of gravity to the "theory" that the sun warms the earth.

Really ? I'm pretty sure gravity has been upgraded to a scientific LAW. Not just a theory anymore.

Parent

RE: ...

By michael67 on 5/24/2008 7:17:37 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
Really ? I'm pretty sure gravity has been upgraded to a scientific LAW. Not just a theory anymore.

No Newtons law is after Einstein's theory bin proven right downgraded to a formula to calculate how gravity works on earth but Einstein's theory is still not complete

Newtons law is roughly the same as what you do when calculating circles you use 3.1415 instead of using the complete pi Nr, and it will giving you big anouge margin of error for normal use.

But Einstein's theory is still a theory, and properly will also be proven wrong over time as whit Newtons law, even do both are/ware still brilliant steps forward in understanding how the universe works.

A easy to read book about the universe and gravity is simon singh's book "big bang" its easy to read book over the theory but also gives a good insight how science theory and believes works and evolves from the first time people looked up to the sky and wondered what it was.
http://www.amazon.com/Big-Bang-Origin-Universe-P-S...

Parent

RE: ...

By sqrt1 on 5/24/2008 12:47:02 AM , Rating: 2

I wonder, have you actually spent any time studying what creationists believe?

It might surprise you that they have always believed in:
1) Natural selection
2) Mutations
3) New species form as a result of 1 and 2

Their main argument is that Mutations (along with Natural Selection) are purely destructive forces. This is not to say that mutations cannot be beneficial, just that information/functionality cannot be created via such means.

Parent

RE: ...

By Reclaimer77 on 5/24/2008 1:22:57 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
I'm going to assume by your statements that you are a religious person?...

I'm not religious and I also believe macro-evolution is a crock. Wales that " evolve " into birds ? Birds that become a monkey that becomes a man ? Just.. please.

Darwin was a true scientist. Not the dogmatic masses that cling to his theory in light of ever increasing evidence and proof that life is more than bones. There are hundreds and thousands of complex biological, biochemical, electrical, and biomechanical systems in place that make us and other animals what we are. And they all could not have simply fallen into place or mutually " evolved " together into one consistent working unit all at the same time and in the exact right order. Had Darwin been alive today, he would be the FIRST one to revise his theory.

Also a scientific majority accepting a theory does not make it a fact. Remember there was a scientific majority that supported global warming as well. And 30 years before that, the scientific majority accepted the " fact " that we were on the verge of a major population threatening new Ice Age.

Scientist are human too. Nobody wants to believe their lifespan is but a meager speck in the hourglass of time. And yet they constantly seek to quantify mysteries that are millions and millions of years before our comprehension. Frankly I rather see where were going then struggle to see our past.

I grow weary of these debates. To quote some guy more famous than me " why can't a man just be a man ? "

Parent

RE: ...

By MrBungle123 on 5/25/2008 10:37:47 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
I'm not religious and I also believe macro-evolution is a crock. Wales that " evolve " into birds ? Birds that become a monkey that becomes a man ? Just.. please.

Nothing in the theory of evolution suggests that birds are descended from whales, nor are humans descended from monkeys. Thank you for further exposing your ignorance on the topic.

Parent

RE: ...

By Reclaimer77 on 5/26/2008 2:19:53 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
Nothing in the theory of evolution suggests that

Thats fine because I wasn't speaking about the " theory of evolution " was I ? I said MACRO evolution.

quote:
Thank you for further exposing your ignorance on the topic.

Thank you for being another dillweed who blindly calls anyone who doesn't agree with you 'ignorant'.

Parent

RE: ...

By michael67 on 5/26/2008 11:08:08 AM , Rating: 1

Resent studies about birds suggest strongly that they are descendants from dinosauruses.

Edonky file: ed2k://|file|BBC.Horizon.-.2007-03-13.-.My.Pet. Dinosaur.DVB.XviD-MVGroup.[tvu.org.ru].avi|78250393 6|0B365FDD55F40C4E09878DE8A9F18028|/

But you my dear sir imho your a complete ignorant idiot and doesnt have the faintest idea how science is working.
And using words like complex biological, biochemical, electrical, and biomechanical systems doesn't make you any smarter not even on the surface.

quote:
Had Darwin been alive today, he would be the FIRST one to revise his theory.

Yeah he would have had to ad devolution to his theory

Parent

RE: ...

By Reclaimer77 on 5/26/2008 2:30:09 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
Resent studies about birds suggest strongly that they are descendants from dinosauruses.

So now " strongly suggests " is good enough to call it a fact ?

quote:
But you my dear sir imho your a complete ignorant idiot and doesnt have the faintest idea how science is working.

Besides there were flying dinosaurs. We know that for a fact. For species of dinosaurs to become present day birds is entirely possible, dare I say probable. How am I being ignorant ? This is not an example of MACRO evolution.

I'm getting tired of your bigotry on this topic sir. You have already labeled everyone in my country a selfish warmonger who causes all of the worlds problems. Now you go out of your way to make billigrent claims about my beliefs and intelligence. If I was from Holland or somewhere else in Europe, you would not behave this way to me. Your a bigot.

quote:
And using words like complex biological, biochemical, electrical, and biomechanical systems doesn't make you any smarter not even on the surface.

And using words like idiot and 'dinosauruses' doesn't make you look especially smarter either.

Parent

RE: ...

By michael67 on 5/26/08, Rating: 0

By michael67 on 5/26/2008 4:05:58 PM , Rating: 0

quote:
I'm getting tired of your bigotry on this topic sir. You have already labeled everyone in my country a selfish warmonger who causes all of the worlds problems. Now you go out of your way to make billigrent claims about my beliefs and intelligence. If I was from Holland or somewhere else in Europe, you would not behave this way to me. Your a bigot.

So saying i should just kill my self because i live in a part of the world ware human and animal rights are respected and even debated, ware a animal that has the potential of 5 year old is considered worth having ruling about is reason to kill my self.
"IF" this go's to trail the outcome is properly not that they get the same rights as humans but properly idler not going to be granted ore they going to classified between humans and and other animals.

quote:
That rated me down, and tried to back up your stupid little Unions position, suck it. Suck it long, and suck it hard.

This is, without a doubt, the most INSANE story I have ever read that wasn't in a National Enquirer or such rag. If I lived in Europe I would either move out or eat a cyanide pill after hearing about this.

This quote was also the reason for my words even do i properly should have toned them down a bit.

quote:
So now " strongly suggests " is good enough to call it a fact ?

Lets say if it was a court case you would have gotten convicted on indirect evidence

quote:
You have already labeled everyone in my country a selfish warmonger who causes all of the worlds problems.

No i called your foreign policy and i will ad the neo-con. the root of most mayor problems in the world ware the US are involved.

quote:
And using words like idiot and 'dinosauruses' doesn't make you look especially smarter either

Your right on the idiot part, but i will still call you miss guided but that's mostly the fault of US education system and lack of proper news that only brings the US sided news

Parent

RE: ...

By onelittleindian on 5/27/2008 1:43:03 AM , Rating: 3

quote:
ware a animal that has the potential of 5 year old is considered worth having

A chimp doesn't have the potential of a five year old. A kid can grow up -- but a monkey stays a monkey all its life.

They're ANIMALS. Get a freakin' clue.

Parent

Now if only...

By Justin Case on 5/23/2008 12:41:39 PM , Rating: 5

Now if only the majority of humans in the world had the same status and the same quality of life as European chimps...

RE: Now if only...

By geddarkstorm on 5/23/2008 12:59:26 PM , Rating: 2

So sadly true.

Parent

RE: Now if only...

By Ringold on 5/23/2008 5:07:35 PM , Rating: 2

$8000 / $30 = 267

Allow me the assumption that another 100m people get thrown back to living on less than $1/day due to global commodity inflation, since 100m already have been.

That means the average European ape enjoys monthly spending 267 times the average buying power of a billion human beings. Not allowing me the above assumptions, it's still 800 million or so people. (Well, assuming 8k is the average upkeep for European apes and not just 'Matthew')

What a wonderful world!

Parent

RE: Now if only...

By MrBungle123 on 5/23/2008 8:30:16 PM , Rating: 2

You know if Barack Obama sees this he'll propose a tax on rich monkeys and promise to put the procedes toward free veterinary coverage for empoverished zoo animals...

Parent

RE: Now if only...

By Justin Case on 5/23/08, Rating: 0

RE: Now if only...

By Justin Case on 5/23/2008 9:30:54 PM , Rating: 2

Before someone calls me a racist, I'm talking about this monkey:

http://www.popular-pics.com/pictures.aspx?photoid=...

Parent

RE: Now if only...

By Ringold on 5/24/2008 3:07:49 AM , Rating: 4

You whine about inequality in the world, and then whine about the US President who has done more for Africa than probably any previous President, and who's commitment to free trade, which is the most effective way to pull a country up from poverty, is one of his few good consistent qualities?

No, I won't call you a racist, just extremely inconsistent. :P

Parent

RE: Now if only...

By Justin Case on 5/24/2008 2:43:48 PM , Rating: 1

Are the walls of your reality distortion field getting close enough for you to touch them yet?

Parent

RE: Now if only...

By masher2

(blog) on 5/24/2008 3:01:58 PM , Rating: 5

Ringold is correct. Read this article by Bob Geldof, who points out some of the many ways Bush has done far more to benefit the African people than another other president of the past 50 years:

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1717...

quote:
It is some story. And I have always wondered why it was never told properly to the American people...It was, for example, Bush who initiated the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief...The U.S. also contributes one-third of the money for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria...It contributes 50% of all food aid...On a seven-day trip through Africa, Bush announced a fantastic new $350 million fund for other neglected tropical diseases that can be easily eradicated; a program to distribute 5.2 million mosquito nets to Tanzanian kids; and contracts worth around $1.2 billion in Tanzania and Ghana from the Millennium Challenge Account, another initiative of the Bush Administration.

Parent

RE: Now if only...

By Justin Case on 5/24/2008 9:00:20 PM , Rating: 2

He's certainly made them a lot richer when their wealth is measured in dollars. He should also take credit for doubling the wealth of everyone with a bank account in euros.

I had no idea you were such a fan of Bob Geldof. Note taken. In any case, what does that article have to do with free trade?

Considering that just about every president in the past 50 years actually funded proxy wars in Africa (sometimes both sides, after the USSR went bankrupt), simply doing nothing would "help them more". And "nothing" is pretty close to what he did (Darfur, anyone?), probably because he was too busy screwing up other parts of the world, such as Iraq and... the US.

Parent

RE: Now if only...

By Ringold on 5/25/2008 4:37:59 AM , Rating: 3

quote:
He's certainly made them a lot richer when their wealth is measured in dollars. He should also take credit for doubling the wealth of everyone with a bank account in euros.

Such things are indicated using purchasing power parity, which largely eliminates the importance of currency values.

Second of all, the Euro is a new-born currency. It's also a rather bad time to do comparisons; we lead the EU business cycle on average by six months. Therefore, we have cut rates while their own remain high. That's one source of devaluation. A second is that the Federal Reserve has a dual mandate; it must protect employment as well as battle inflation. The ECB has a single primary mandate: price stability. There are pros and cons to both approaches, but your mischaraterization of the whole thing so far leads me to suspect I'd be wasting my time there.

Further, just in case other liberals have some misunderstanding of how it works: The President has nothing to do with the dollar. The dollar theoretically is in the hands of Treasury, but in reality it is the Federal Reserve who influences rates and thus, to a large degree, exchange rates. The Federal Reserve is an non-partisan independent agency. Bernanke does not consult Bush, Republicans, or anyone else before making any decision.

quote:
In any case, what does that article have to do with free trade?

He said nothing about free trade, that was only one element of my post. Free trade should be a non-issue; it's been established as a positive since at least 1776, if not earlier by pre-classical writers. At the latest, Ricardo. Go ahead though, argue the Earth is flat while you're at it if you want to take on free trade.

quote:
(Darfur, anyone?)

Some of things Saddam did make Darfur look like Disneyland. That you would even bring up Darfur while other atrocities take place around the continent of arguably much greater scale also indicate possible lack of knowledge about what is even going on over there. We did, at least, push some sanctions on Sudan, though a lot of Security Council resolutions were blocked by China and Russia. Meanwhile, European firms seem to be doing business as usual with Sudan. Our pressure on Sudan has probably been the strongest of any nation in the world. What would you have us do further? Send in the Marine corps?

Let me tell you what would happen after we sent in the Marines. Iraq 2.0. Chaos. Squabbling ethnic groups, political affiliations, and then Al Qaeda would swarm in, happy as could be to have a third front.

Just about everything that can be done about Darfur has been done.

quote:
Considering that just about every president in the past 50 years actually funded proxy wars in Africa

So you bring up past alledged crimes. Thats deflecting the point.

Indeed, thats what your entire post was. Smoke screen.

Parent

RE: Now if only...

By Justin Case on 5/25/2008 2:41:52 PM , Rating: 2

Is that what you're smoking? Screen? Must be powerful stuff, to give you such a, shall we say, neoconic view of reality.

Unless you're posting from a different planet, of course. But even then, it seems that the SETI has to go on...

Parent

RE: Now if only...

By michael67 on 5/25/2008 2:33:19 AM , Rating: 2

Are you talking a bout same President that will only give aid to countries and organizations that stop the free condoms programs and promote not having sex as the way of stopping the disease of spreading ?

http://www.sptimes.com/2003/10/12/Perspective/HIV_...

quote:
These are the real-life consequences in Bush's war of ideology. The PAI report puts Bush on notice; if changes aren't made we must presume that he cares more about gaining a political edge than African lives.

Yeah Bush cares really for Africa.

I would also gugest of reading this page: http://www.vexen.co.uk/USA/foreign_aid.html

quote:
The USA is only the worlds' biggest giver because it is rich. In terms of generosity and altruism, the USA is the most stingy and self-interested giver in the developed world:

"[Americans] are regularly told by politicians and the media, that America is the world's most generous nation. This is one of the most conventional pieces of 'knowledgeable ignorance'. According to the OECD, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, the US gave between $6 and $15 billion in foreign aid in the period between 1995 and 1999. In absolute terms, Japan gives more than the US, between $9 and $15 billion in the same period. But the absolute figures are less significant than the proportion of gross domestic product (GDP, or national wealth) that a country devotes to foreign aid. On that league table, the US ranks twenty-second of the 22 most developed nations. As former President Jimmy Carter commented: 'We are the stingiest nation of all'. Denmark is top of the table, giving 1.01% of GDP, while the US manages just 0.1%. The United Nations has long established the target of 0.7% GDP for development assistance, although only four countries actually achieve this: Denmark, 1.01%; Norway, 0.91%; the Netherlands, 0.79%; Sweden, 0.7%. Apart from being the least generous nation, the US is highly selective in who receives its aid. Over 50% of its aid budget is spent on middle-income countries in the Middle East, with Israel being the recipient of the largest single share"

Parent

RE: Now if only...

By michael67 on 5/25/2008 3:32:52 AM , Rating: 2

Also some information to think about: http://www.vox-populi.org/digest/faid_3.html

quote:
Overestimation

The feeling that the US spends too much on foreign aid seems to rest on an extreme overestimation of how much the US government spends on foreign aid. PIPA's July 2000 poll asked respondents to estimate how much of the federal budget goes to foreign aid. They were told that they could answer in fractions of a percent as well as whole percentage points, thus implying that the amount could be quite low. Nonetheless, the median estimate was 20% of the federal budget, 20 times the actual amount of approximately 1%.

quote:
when respondents were asked "to imagine the US economy and the European Union economy as if they were one big economy," and then to think about the relative shares of development aid to poor countries given by the US and Europe, the median respondent estimated that the US gives 60% and the European Union 40% (PIPA, February-April 1998). When asked what they thought it should be, the median respondent wanted a 50-50 split, with the US and Europe sharing the burden equally. (In reality, based on 1996 figures from the OECD, the US gave only 22% while the EU countries gave 78%.)

Parent

RE: Now if only...

By Ringold on 5/25/2008 4:48:38 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
The USA is only the worlds' biggest giver because it is rich. In terms of generosity and altruism, the USA is the most stingy and self-interested giver in the developed world:

Thank you for providing worthless links that admit that the United States gives more than any other nation and yet still manages to bitch about it.

Attitudes like yours are precisely why people like me think our foreign aid budget should be roughly this big: $0.

America is so hated by some trolls, Catch 22 applies to everything.

Parent

RE: Now if only...

By michael67 on 5/25/2008 6:31:17 AM , Rating: 1

Yeah your country gives more then mine a bout 2x more only there lives about 15 times more people in yours.
So how gives the US more, based on there GDP

If GDP is calculated to the federal budget the foreign aid budget would go up from 1% to 10% if they would pay as mouths as my country "Holland"

And my intention was really not to troll ore offend you but to show the numbers and the miss conception that the US gives loads of money to aid

Parent

RE: Now if only...

By Strunf on 5/24/08, Rating: 0

RE: Now if only...

By Justin Case on 5/24/2008 3:44:47 PM , Rating: 1

The obvious solution is for the people in those places to start eating obese Americans.

Parent

riiiight

By FingerMeElmo87 on 5/23/08, Rating: 0

RE: riiiight

By FingerMeElmo87 on 5/23/2008 11:06:30 AM , Rating: 1

so that explains how Schwarzenegger became Goerner of California

Parent

RE: riiiight

By porkpie on 5/23/2008 12:03:35 PM , Rating: 2

It also explains the various spelling, grammar, and capitalization errors in your one-line post.

Parent

RE: riiiight

By FITCamaro on 5/23/2008 1:46:35 PM , Rating: 2

Owned.

Parent

RE: riiiight

By michael67 on 5/25/2008 6:49:00 AM , Rating: 2

No offence meant but have you ever tried posting in a other languages than your own.
Its always easy to criticise other peoples mistakes in a foreign languish if you properly cant do it your self in a other.

Parent

RE: riiiight

By mindless1 on 5/26/2008 7:48:35 AM , Rating: 2

Why no offense? If they make the comment intent on offense, they show that they feel it is an acceptible way to act.

I'd love to follow around one of the spelling Nazi some day and criticize the way they walk, the combing of their hair, their pronunciation, etc. Nitpicking about some imperfection is as pathetic as it gets, spelling errors included. It is rude, uncivilized, and disgustingly subjective.

Parent

RE: riiiight

By michael67 on 5/26/2008 12:23:50 PM , Rating: 2

Because that would lower me to there level, and i have learned if you talk to other people whit respect (even if they don't give it) they are more willing to learn ore hear you side of the argument, how rude they even ware.

And telling some one he is stupid hurts a lot less then showing them how are stupid and ignorant they are in a polite way.

Over at overclockers.com there was a nice 3 part peace over just this.
Lunatics Running The Asylum: a series on why people are such loons on the Internet
http://www.overclockers.com/tips01331/
http://www.overclockers.com/tips01332/
http://www.overclockers.com/tips01333/

Parent

RE: riiiight

By William Gaatjes on 5/27/2008 7:31:51 AM , Rating: 2

I enjoyed that article at overclockers very much. WYSIWYG indeed :)

How about : WYPIHYT

What You Post Is How You Think.

Shows much about the intelligence of some people...

No use of valid arguments just using foul language or dumb expressions.

I totally agree with you

:)

Parent

RE: riiiight

By mindless1 on 5/27/2008 4:55:50 PM , Rating: 2

While this is true, there is more than one thing that can be taught. Some people go around complaining about everything largely because they see no resistance to their juvenile behavior. Being patient with them is a good way to keep their attention on the topic, but a bad way to reinforce the idea that their behavior was accepted.

I don't necessarily feel that offending someone is lowering yourself, some people will be offended no matter what your goal might be and especially when someone has an illogical opinion on a topic, it is common to cause offense merely by stating what seem to be objective facts.

Consider a somewhat different, yet somewhat parallel scenario of a police officer and someone breaking the law (committing an offense). Until the law was broken, everything was civil. After the law is broken the police officer is, by our society's standards, empowered to forcibly, offensively apprehend the law breaker. The distinction is who deviates from the intellectual discourse and what needs to happen in order to reinforce the idea that it is not something that should happen.

Parent

RE: riiiight

By Justin Case on 5/23/2008 12:40:09 PM , Rating: 5

I can safely say that you don't share 100% of my DNA.

Parent

RE: riiiight

By geddarkstorm on 5/23/2008 12:57:55 PM , Rating: 2

Yeah, probably only 99.99%.

Parent

RE: riiiight

By FingerMeElmo87 on 5/23/2008 2:32:14 PM , Rating: 1

bastards

Parent

RE: riiiight

By Maximilian on 5/25/2008 8:39:52 AM , Rating: 2

Apes are not human.

Grammar nazis should be hung drawn and quartered then fed to the ape in question to help with its upkeep, noone will miss them, people may miss the ape.

Parent

RE: riiiight

By James Wood Carter on 5/25/2008 2:38:22 PM , Rating: 1

for your information no humans have 100% alike in DNA. everyone differs in its DNA construct. Human in my opinion no different from apes in the sense that they are all created by nature. They might not be human but they are species we share natures gift with (thats untill we eventually wipe them out.
Its obsurd how you cassify as human ... mute, disabled are humans aswell and therefore your comment is rather ignorant.
Human is just a definition for a species but they sure share similar human characteristics such as social structure and communication.

Parent

RE: riiiight

By William Gaatjes on 5/27/2008 7:44:10 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
for your information no humans have 100% alike in DNA. everyone differs in its DNA construct.

Indeed. If we where 100% alike in dna we would be called clones.

quote:
Its obsurd how you cassify as human ... mute, disabled are humans aswell and therefore your comment is rather ignorant. Human is just a definition for a species but they sure share similar human characteristics such as social structure and communication.

Indeed. Some humans define themselfs as human because they think altruistic behaviour is only found in humans.

EEEEEEEEEEEEEENNGG !

Altruistic behaviour is a common trait with animals.

However no animal in the world can be as cruel as a human being can be. Humans are the only beings that can enjoy hurting or destroying something. Not because of some prime instinct, no just because they can.

Would be fun if you would ask the chimp to be called human and the chimp would reply : "No thanks you guys are way too savage ! Let me and my fellow chimps just live in the forrest. Too bad you destroyed the forrest in your greed"

Parent

Heston is spinning in his grave.

By Desslok on 5/23/2008 10:49:27 AM , Rating: 5

"Get your hands off of her you DAMN dirty ape!!"

RE: Heston is spinning in his grave.

By BMFPitt on 5/23/2008 11:00:52 AM , Rating: 3

They're gonna take our jorbs!!!

Parent

RE: Heston is spinning in his grave.

By Brandon Hill

(blog) on 5/23/2008 11:06:00 AM , Rating: 5

Dey took er jerbs!

Parent

RE: Heston is spinning in his grave.

By therealnickdanger on 5/23/2008 11:17:00 AM , Rating: 3

DUK-AJAR!

Parent

RE: Heston is spinning in his grave.

By JarvisTheGray on 5/23/2008 11:25:03 AM , Rating: 3

..............oh...THEY TOOK YOUR JERB!!!

Parent

RE: Heston is spinning in his grave.

By mendocinosummit on 5/23/2008 9:19:51 PM , Rating: 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBOJH0-U-K0

Parent

RE: Heston is spinning in his grave.

By Starcub on 5/24/2008 1:16:42 AM , Rating: 2

Not in the US. The Europeans however, still need to create a local labor market that will work for peanuts and won't file tax returns for a few million more years.

Parent

EU = Eeediots United

By Machinegear on 5/23/2008 12:43:20 PM , Rating: 4

When a culture has time to contemplate the legal status of a monkey, that culture is over. It just hasn't realized it yet.

RE: EU = Eeediots United

By FITCamaro on 5/23/2008 1:48:55 PM , Rating: 5

You make a very astute observation....

I think the same logic applies to people watching shows about washed up celebrities dancing.

Parent

RE: EU = Eeediots United

By DASQ on 5/23/2008 2:44:27 PM , Rating: 5

I say bring back the colosseum.

Parent

RE: EU = Eeediots United

By Justin Case on 5/23/2008 9:35:27 PM , Rating: 1

For some reason that sentence reminded me of pre-Civil War US...

Parent

RE: EU = Eeediots United

By Ringold on 5/24/2008 3:01:19 AM , Rating: 2

Protip: The Civil War wasn't about slaves, and the view of blacks nationally and their quality of life in postbellum America looked strangely similar to antebellum America.

Parent

RE: EU = Eeediots United

By Nik00117 on 5/24/2008 3:19:29 AM , Rating: 2

I agree to even consider granting a ape or any animal for that matter remotely the same status of humans is crazy. We are humans, granted mamnals and a part of a animal group. And they are animals, difference is we made that choice.

Parent

RE: EU = Eeediots United

By michael67 on 5/24/2008 8:18:27 PM , Rating: 1

quote:
When a culture has time to contemplate the legal status of a monkey, that culture is over. It just hasn't realized it yet.

ROTFLOL that remark from some one out of a country that's almost bankrupt it self by greedy elite, that culture is over. It just hasn't realized it yet.
Ok sorry that was rude but so was your comment.

Even do i do think there is a argument to be made here even do its imo real thin.

The argument that can be made is that all animals are not equal
for example: a rat can be killed by anyone when ever they want, to kill a horse you need a a good reason ore even licensed to do so.
A chimp has the ability to use logic and have the intelligence of a 5 year old, so it clearly dissent fall in the same category as a horse.
argument pro chimp:
1. can animals teach? no but chimps can even do its basic, a chimp that has learned sinelaungish will try teach it to others
2. can animals making tools? no but chimps can.
3. can animals have sex for pleasure of it? No but chimps do.
4. do animals can go out and kill for the killing? No but chimps do and its documented that some times they go one the war path whit spears.
5. can animals be sad like humans? No but chimps do.
6. can animals recognize real sadness? No but chimps do and they will try to comfort that group member.
7 can animals use rezoning to solve a problem? No but chimps do.
There are more argument to be made in this list why chimps are not like other animals and that they are more like humans then like other animals.

The argument "I think there for I am" is even do weaker it still also can be made for chimps

Parent

Adoptive welfare mom?

By werepossum on 5/23/2008 3:06:43 PM , Rating: 2

Ms. Stibbe wants to have the ape declared human, adopt the ape, and apply for welfare for it. But hey, it's Austria; I'm just glad the chimp hasn't taken control of Germany and invaded Poland.

In other news, ever notice how comparing Barrack Hussein Obama to a chimp is a horrible racist personal attack which screams for investigation and punishment, whilst comparing George Walker Bush to a chimp is perfectly okay? Hmmm. reminds me of 2000 when the Democrats would derisively refer to Bush as Junior - when their candidate (Albert Gore Jr.) actually was a junior. Pardon, but your slip is slowing.

Hey, maybe the ape can immigrate to America and become a Democrat. I hear they're still looking for someone to explain ballots in Florida.

RE: Adoptive welfare mom?

By porkpie on 5/23/2008 3:18:53 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
Hmmm. reminds me of 2000 when the Democrats would derisively refer to Bush as Junior - when their candidate (Albert Gore Jr.) actually was a junior. Pardon, but your slip is slowing.

Those are the same idiots who made fun of Bush's intelligence, when he had about the same grades in college as Gore (and much higher grades than Kerry ever thought about)

Parent

RE: Adoptive welfare mom?

By Ringold on 5/23/2008 5:28:30 PM , Rating: 2

I think we have to take grades from elite families and Ivy League schools with a grain of salt regardless of who it is. They're known for grade inflation; I overheard a couple professors some time ago laughing about how Harvard was trying to "restore the respectability of the C."

I've got a sneaking suspicion if you've got a name, or money, then you have to try to get poor grades.

That said, I never quite got the absolute importance of intelligence in the White House. Some of our most intelligent presidents, such as the former engineers amongst them, also ended up being the worst leaders and generally disasterous for the country. Same with young inexperienced intellectuals; Kennedy put us in to Vietnam and looked a fool on the world stage the first time he sat down with Khruschev. But, Kennedy did beat the much older war-hero, Eisenhower...

... and people say history doesn't repeat? We'll see.

Parent

RE: Adoptive welfare mom?

By mindless1 on 5/26/2008 7:40:52 AM , Rating: 1

SURELY you are not foolish enough to think grades are even slightly related to intelligence? There are so many other variables involved and so many people who disprove that, it's as though we should say a parrot, parroting, is more intelligent than the chimp?

Parent

RE: Adoptive welfare mom?

By onelittleindian on 5/27/2008 1:45:22 AM , Rating: 3

Rofl, so even though Bush made better grades in college than Kerry, you still persist in believing he's not as smart?

Guess what kiddo? Public speaking ability doesn't equate to intelligence either. Bush isn't a great orator, but that says NOTHING about his intelligence.

Parent

RE: Adoptive welfare mom?

By mindless1 on 5/27/2008 5:16:34 PM , Rating: 2

Grades are meant as a method of measuring competency at a subject, but most subjects do not require someone to be especially intelligent, merely to apply oneself.

A person of low intelligence can still be quite competent at something, even better at it than a more intelligent person. That person might work harder at it, might have more time to devote to it, might have different professors and texts, any number of variables involved. One might say that having a professor who is more intelligent, skilled at teaching might be as significant, or that the professor and some students think in like ways so there is better understanding - not just of the subject taught but of the professor's expectations.

I never suggested that Bush was or wasn't as smart as Kerry. Do you always attribute ideas to someone who said nothing about [that] in order to further your illogical arguments? The subtopic was grades vs intelligence, not the exact IQ of our President.

Want more evidence? Go onto the typical college campus and you will find people barely able to walk and chew gum at the same time and yet many have good grades. Memorizing things is a skill, perhaps a vital one in our society but nevertheless a skill which some are better at than others while not necessarily indicating that person is overall any more or less intelligent than someone else. FWIW, I also knew plenty of fairly intelligent people in college who ended up with worse grades due to dropping out for various reasons whether those be financial, lack of discipline, change in career choice, etc.

I had to laugh when you wrote kiddo and ROFL as if that was dramatic in some way, as they're both signs you are most likely both physically and mentally younger than I. Maybe that's why you don't realize grades don't equal intelligence, perhaps you are still in school or recently graduated and one of your primary sources of identity is based around scoring higher on a test(s) than someone else? It's not how well you memorize something that matters, it's whether you can APPLY what you have learned in constructive ways - out in the real world.

Parent

RE: Adoptive welfare mom?

By Justin Case on 5/23/2008 9:57:15 PM , Rating: 1

quote:
ever notice how comparing Barrack Hussein Obama to a chimp is a horrible racist personal attack which screams for investigation and punishment, whilst comparing George Walker Bush to a chimp is perfectly okay?

If you don't understand the difference, this might be a good time to pick up some history books. Start at around 1780.

Parent

RE: Adoptive welfare mom?

By Ringold on 5/24/2008 3:15:12 AM , Rating: 2

1780; interesting year in the Revolution, but...?

I'm not sure how far I'll defend the OP's point, but I also wouldn't be quick to somehow defend hate targeted at one person and yet condone it targeted at another. One has racist overtones, one has political ones, both are ignorant. Indeed, even the political hate (targeted at Bush) could be, by some people, the reverse racism as well.

But of course, you already posted a link to insulting Bush pictures, so feel free to defend your hypocrisy.

Parent

RE: Adoptive welfare mom?

By Justin Case on 5/24/2008 3:43:20 PM , Rating: 2

Intelligence and competence are not (just) political issues. If an incompetent moron is in a position of political power, that does not make him (or her) exempt from criticism. On the contrary; if more people had figured that out eight years ago, we wouldn't be in this mess.

Parent

RE: Adoptive welfare mom?

By Ringold on 5/25/2008 4:57:35 AM , Rating: 3

quote:
that does not make him (or her) exempt from criticism.

You didn't criticize Bush with those pictures, you defamed him.

Nice try, but you've abandoned the moral and intellectual high ground.

Parent

Tried and true method of determining genetic compatibility...

By Hawkido on 5/23/2008 5:13:25 PM , Rating: 2

If a human has sex with an ape and one of the two becomes pregnant due to the coupling, then they are close enough to grant them similar rights.

As people have been having sex with apes for years now (see AIDS rumor) and no half ape/human offspring have developed as a result then they are seperate, and there is no need to even relate them.

A horse/donkey/zebra can breed with a horse/donkey/zebra and produce an offspring (hebra(is that correct?), zonkey, mule) they are similar, however all such offspring are born sterile, therefore, they cannot be called the same breed, only compatible.

RE: Tried and true method of determining genetic compatibility...

By Justin Case on 5/23/2008 9:52:57 PM , Rating: 2

So if a man and a woman are genetically incompatible and can't have viable children, does that mean they belong to different species?

You see, although it might be "obvious" that chimps aren't human, it all hinges on the exact definition of "human" or "person" (and there are degrees of that, too - younger people don't have the right to vote, for example). And what they're trying to do here is exploit a gray area in that definition to try to prevent the chimp from being "deported".

Unlike what the article says, though, any decision is unlikely to have "sweeping ramifications for the entire EU". Most European legal systems care very little about precedent, unlike the US. So unless the law is specifically changed to state that "chimps are humans" or "chimps aren't humans", that would be open to discussion in future cases, regardless of the conclusion reached in this one.

By the way, there have been several recorded cases of fertile mules and hinnies. It's rare, but it happens, though I think only with females.

Parent

RE: Tried and true method of determining genetic compatibility...

By masher2

(blog) on 5/23/2008 11:48:35 PM , Rating: 2

> "Most European legal systems care very little about precedent..."

This isn't true, as five minutes on Google should convince anyone. See this article on Civitas for some details:

quote:
Legal precedents established by the [European Court of Justice] have played a large role in shaping the development of EU...

http://www.civitas.org.uk/eufacts/OS/OS6.htm

Or this research paper for a more indepth view:

European Economic Community-Res Judicata and Precedent in the Court of Justice of the Common Market

http://www.jstor.org/pss/838897

Parent

RE: Tried and true method of determining genetic compatibility...

By Justin Case on 5/24/2008 1:49:07 AM , Rating: 2

Man, if only I had spent five minutes on Google instead of five years actually living in Europe...

"EU law" means the laws that govern the EU itself (mainly trade laws and laws related to EU organs). In other words, laws that must be coordinated between different countries. Not the laws that govern individual states.

Precedents aren't nearly as important in European courts as they are in the US. European laws and regulations are typically much longer and cover a lot more special cases. And if something isn't 100% clear, they're more liklely to spend years arguing about it than looking at similar cases for precedents. If you thought lawsuits in the US took a long time, you ain't seen nothing...

Parent

RE: Tried and true method of determining genetic compatibility...

By masher2

(blog) on 5/24/2008 11:30:21 AM , Rating: 2

> ""EU law" means the laws that govern the EU itself...Not the laws that govern individual states."

The point you're missing is that precedents set by the European Court of Human Rights can and do override the laws of those individual states. Take for instance the landmark case Dudgeon vs. UK, which forced Northern Ireland to decriminalize homosexual sex, or the Church of Scientology case, which forced European nations to continue to allow the church to operate.

Precedents set of the ECHR have enormous influence over all of Europe, regardless of variances in individual legal systems.

By the way, Court has jurisdiction not just over the European Union, but all 47 nations in the Council of Europe.

> "Man, if only I had spent five minutes on Google instead of five years actually living in Europe..."

Living in Europe doesn't mean you understand the legal systems therein.

Parent

RE: Tried and true method of determining genetic compatibility...

By Justin Case on 5/24/2008 3:12:40 PM , Rating: 1

quote:
The point you're missing is that precedents set by the European Court of Human Rights can and do override the laws of those individual states.

So first it was the Court of Justice, now it's the Human Rights Court? Are you just going to hop from court to court until you find a specific enough one that makes your original claims sort of true...?

I'm afraid 5 minutes on Google don't make you an expert on EU law, let alone the (very different) laws and legal systems of all its member states.

First, the Court of Human Rights only rules on very specific issues, and its authority inside the various states has nothing to do with the EU; it has authority over countries that have accepted its charter (like the Geneva convention or the international war crimes tribunal, for example - some countries sign on and then their rulers refuse to abide by those rules, BTW).

Just because two institutios originated in Europe that doesn't mean they're the same (most Americans don't seem to understand the difference between Europe, Eurozone, EU, European Comission and European Parliament, let alone the various courts - then again, I suspect a lot of Europeans don't, either).

Second, cases are only brought to the Court of Human Rights after going through the national legal system, so if you get a favourable decision at national level, you'd have no reason to go to the ECHR. In this case, a national decision is all they need.

Third, European legal systems simply do not treat precedents the same way the US does. When a law is found to be unclear, a landmark case will often be used as a starting point for a new draft of the law. In other words, the "precedent" can lead to an updated law, but it's not simply used as a "must-follow" refrence for future cases, as it usually is in the US. As long as the law itself remains ambiguous, judges are given freedom to adapt it to each case. This is usually a good thing, but creates obvious problems with international trade laws, which is why those are (nearly always) kept in sync between member states.

Parent

RE: Tried and true method of determining genetic compatibility...

By masher2

(blog) on 5/24/2008 4:51:09 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
cases are only brought to the Court of Human Rights after going through the national legal system, so if you get a favourable decision at national level, you'd have no reason to go to the ECHR. In this case, a national decision is all they need

However, cases that are brought before the ECHR do set a legal precedent for all member states.

The original statement was correct. The rulings of the ECHR have a clear and compelling effect on European law...which is, of course, the entire reason this animal rights activist group is funding the plaintiff's case in the first place.

Yes, precedent is even more respected in the US...but the notion that precedent means nothing in Europe is simply untrue.

quote:
"Are you just going to hop from court to court until you find a specific enough one that makes your original claims sort of true...?"

The claim is true for both courts, as you should very well know.

Parent

RE: Tried and true method of determining genetic compatibility...

By Justin Case on 5/24/2008 9:18:00 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
However, cases that are brought before the ECHR do set a legal precedent for all member states.

No, they do not. For that to happen, the law in every member state would have to be changed every time the ECHR makes a decision, and it isn't.

People are free to appeal to the ECHR if they're unhappy with the decision of their national court, and as long as the ECHR's judges are the same, the decision is obviously likely to be similar to previous cases, but unless something is explicitly encoded into the actual law, it will always be subject to interpretation, and the interpretation of one court can be different from another.

The decision of a national judge may be influenced by previous decisions of the ECHR, but he or she must base it on the laws applicable within that country (including that country's Constitution, if it has one), not on the outcome of a case tried by the ECHR.

quote:
The rulings of the ECHR have a clear and compelling effect on European law

Again, depends on what you mean by "European law". A decision of the ECHR does not have any automatic effect on national laws, even if a given country has agreed to abide by the ECHR. That simply gives its citizens the right to appeal to that court (and, in specific matters, the decision of that court trumps the national courts').

Similarly, just because a country agrees to respect the International War Crimes Tribunal, that doesn't mean it must change its laws to match everything the tribunal decides. In fact, some rulers seem to think it's perfectly normal to pull out when it suits them (say, when they feel like invading some country), and then make inflamed speeches about civilization and international law and order. But that's a different issue.

quote:
the notion that precedent means nothing in Europe is simply untrue.

Staw man argument. Read what I wrote, stop replying to your own distorted (mis)interpretation.

quote:
The rulings of the ECHR have a clear and compelling effect on European law...which is, of course, the entire reason this animal rights activist group is funding the plaintiff's case in the first place.

They are using this case to get free publicity, for this specific situation and for themselves. No one really expects chimps to be granted citizen status. Not even the chimps.

Parent

RE: Tried and true method of determining genetic compatibility...

By DKWinsor on 5/25/2008 6:35:12 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
> "Man, if only I had spent five minutes on Google instead of five years actually living in Europe..."

Living in Europe doesn't mean you understand the legal systems therein

That's a good point, but haven't you lived in Europe too Masher? If I were you I'd have said 'Oh yeah? Well I've lived in Europe 15 years, so there!' and be liked pwned!!1

Parent

RE: Tried and true method of determining genetic compatibility...

By michael67 on 5/26/2008 12:57:59 PM , Rating: 2

You apparently forgot to read those articles proper as it say in one of you links precise how European Court of Justice (ECJ) works

quote:
The current powers of the ECJ are laid down in the Maastricht Treaty. The ECJ uses three sources for interpreting EU law:
1. the EU treaties,
2. articles of those treaties,
3. and broader principles of law.

Noting there even suggest they are doing that now.
Quoting the wrong part is misleading at minst.

Ware in the American legal system "precedents" are used to interpret law, and even if a "precedents" is outdated by time its still used because its a "precedents"

Ware new rulings of the ECJ can be different because of the use of "broader principles of law"
So there is less of a problem of technical being right and being right.

How ever no legal system is perfect so properly there will also be mistakes made.

Parent

Doesn't the EU...

By mholler on 5/23/2008 10:57:24 AM , Rating: 3

Have something better to do with their time, like fining Microsoft or refining socialism? Honestly, the fact that a court has actually agreed to hear this case is absurd.

RE: Doesn't the EU...

By FITCamaro on 5/23/08, Rating: 0

RE: Doesn't the EU...

By MAIA on 5/23/2008 12:06:12 PM , Rating: 2

refining socialism ?

Hmmmm no, it's more like democratic comunism wannabe with a pinch of cultural elitism (It seems social classes hierarchy still prevail)

Parent

RE: Doesn't the EU...

By Strunf on 5/24/08, Rating: 0

RE: Doesn't the EU...

By Ringold on 5/25/2008 5:04:36 AM , Rating: 2

Wealth disparity can be lower while still allowing room for disctinct social classes.

As Sarkozy said, the net effect of keeping a few people in France from becoming more rich has been to make everybody more poor. In more specific language, they've kept the wealth disparity lower by sacrificing their sustainable long term rate of growth, thus making everyone less well off than they could of been. A comparison of unemployment rates over the last couple decades is one good way in which this has shown itself.

Nice red herring, though.

Parent

RE: Doesn't the EU...

By Strunf on 5/25/2008 7:45:40 AM , Rating: 2

Social classes are the result of wealth disparity, if everyone is making around the same money then there's no hierarchy.

Sarkozy is just a monkey like many others he also says plenty of dumb stuff.

The unemployment rate in the EU is of 6.7 (7.8 in France) and it's decreasing... in the US it's 5.1.

Parent

RE: Doesn't the EU...

By mholler on 5/23/2008 3:08:36 PM , Rating: 2

My first zero...:)

Parent

by that logic...

By Oxonium on 5/23/2008 1:20:53 PM , Rating: 2

My cat has no family and is totally dependent upon me. Does that make him human too?

RE: by that logic...

By arazok on 5/23/2008 1:44:53 PM , Rating: 2

No, your cat is clearly an immigrant.

Parent

RE: by that logic...

By glitchc on 5/23/2008 4:51:52 PM , Rating: 3

Don't you mean a native?

Parent

RE: by that logic...

By jahinoz on 5/24/2008 2:01:53 AM , Rating: 2

Nah, he's human once he starts eating $8,000 in bananas a month.

Parent

This is insane.

By MrBungle123 on 5/23/2008 10:58:03 AM , Rating: 5

I understand that people can really grow attached to their animals, but until the animals get smart enough to take care of themselves by getting a job and paying bills and are capible of holding a converstation about some abstract topic (not to be confused by a chimp that knows how to sign "feed me") they do not deserve "human status".

RE: This is insane.

By Justin Case on 5/23/2008 9:37:44 PM , Rating: 2

To be honest about 30% of legal humans don't meet those requirements, either.

Parent

To Everyone In the EU vs MS article...

By Reclaimer77 on 5/23/2008 9:17:12 PM , Rating: 4

That rated me down, and tried to back up your stupid little Unions position, suck it. Suck it long, and suck it hard.

This is, without a doubt, the most INSANE story I have ever read that wasn't in a National Enquirer or such rag. If I lived in Europe I would either move out or eat a cyanide pill after hearing about this.

RE: To Everyone In the EU vs MS article...

By Strunf on 5/24/2008 2:03:17 PM , Rating: 1

I think so too, Europe doesn't need people like you... actually not even the world so if you have troubles finding your cyanide pill tell me and I'll fetch you one in no time... I always do my best to make this world a better place.

Parent

RE: To Everyone In the EU vs MS article...

By nofranchise on 5/25/2008 8:18:17 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
If I lived in Europe I would either move out or eat a cyanide pill after hearing about this.

*chuckles*

You almost have me wishing you did live in Europe.

Parent

He can speak!

By JasonMick

(blog) on 5/23/2008 11:34:36 AM , Rating: 1

He can speak he can speak he can speak!
I can SINGGGGG!!!

http://video.aol.com/partner/hulu/the-simpsons-mcc...

RE: He can speak!

By dice1111 on 5/23/2008 2:54:33 PM , Rating: 2

dr. zaius, dr. zaius, doc doc doc... dr. zaius!

Parent

RE: He can speak!

By cmontyburns on 5/23/2008 6:56:59 PM , Rating: 2

two questions. since you brought up the simpsons here:

* since Troy McLure has fantasies with marine animals, why hasnt anybody campaigned to elevate their status to human, then, he'll be "out of the WOODS"?

* if chimps wrote on this blog, would they get rated 5?

Parent

What's next?

By mikefarinha on 5/23/2008 11:24:14 AM , Rating: 1

I'm sure many of you heard that here in California four of our Supreme Emperors, er... I mean Court Justices, found somewhere in our constitution that it allows the rights for same-sex marriages...

So now if we all decide to give animals 'human' rights I can imagine what would be next...
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/woman-marries-...

RE: What's next?

By mcnabney on 5/23/08, Rating: 0

RE: What's next?

By kileil on 5/23/2008 12:03:22 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
Your an idiot.

No, you're an idiot!

//Not really. I love you man but I love ironic typos more.

Parent

Jerry was a man!

By slappy44 on 5/23/2008 10:55:07 AM , Rating: 2

Gawd! How truth follows fiction... years ago, Robert Heinlein wrote a story called "Jerry was a Man". It was a story detailing how a woman fought in a court of law to have an advanced, genetically engineered ape declared human. A great short story.

Ridiculous

By archcommus on 5/23/2008 11:54:26 AM , Rating: 2

"Who is a person according to the European Human Rights Charter?"

Oh, I don't know, maybe HUMANS? The name is right in the title you idiot.

Stibbe even SAYS the only way he not be transferred out of Austria is by obtaining official human status, basically admitting that that's the only reason they want it.

Sheesh...

Point of view

By AngerBob on 5/23/2008 1:53:40 PM , Rating: 2

I wish there were some aliens thinking same about us..

What! No missing link after all?

By mooncancook on 5/23/2008 5:13:59 PM , Rating: 2

so them apes are one of us after all? I guess now I'll have to add a new entry called "Ape" to my Ethnic Group lookup table.

The real question is

By rdeegvainl on 5/23/2008 8:06:33 PM , Rating: 2

Are they Raman, or are the Varelse?

Finally!

By soxfan on 5/23/2008 9:28:19 PM , Rating: 2

My life long dream to have sex with an ape is on the cusp of being fulfilled. Cause if their granted human status, it ain't beastiality. Am I right? huh? Am I right?

Domesticating Apes.

By teckytech9 on 5/23/2008 11:59:17 PM , Rating: 2

When humans attempt to domesticate wild animals into their own living environment problems will arise. This chimp should be set free into the wild or placed in a zoo. Why is it that in the affluent countries of the world, too much time and money is spent on domesticating animals? Instead, the focus should be on the needs of the average homeless person on the street. There is nothing wrong with having pets, but these animal advocacy groups are proposing very extreme measures.

Wrong chimp

By kyleb2112 on 5/24/2008 1:37:12 AM , Rating: 2

They should've chosen a gay Chimp. Fast track all the way.

I guess thats why lawyers get paid the big bucks

By senbassador on 5/24/2008 4:36:09 PM , Rating: 2

This is an interesting issue if you REALLY think about it. Being "a human" and being "a person" are two different things. A corporation can be considered "a person" as well. And who knows, one day maybe intelligent life from space or artificial intelligence will apply for their right "to personhood".

Off course theres so much gray area here. There are so many issues here. For one, negative rights, then there's positive rights, then citizenship.

Negative rights imply the right to own property, whatever that means, life liberty and the pursuit to happiness. Enter contracts, due process, among other rights. Positive rights means welfare, anti-job discrimination laws, among others. Citizenship means the right to vote, not fear getting deported, etc.

"Personhood" doesn't mean equal rights in every aspect. People under 18 can't vote, and under certain circumstances neither can mentally incapited people. Off course same goes for sexual consent and marriage rights. As for "owning property", and being able to do anything you want with it, another right GENERALLY granted to human beings--- well, corporations can own property. But ultiminatly human beings own the corporations, and make decisions about its actions. Also, Britney Spears is a human being, who owns property, etc, however got 5150ed, and is appointed a "conservator" who controls her assets, but doesn't actually own them. A HUGE distinction.

Off course, back in the "good ole days" when women could sort of own property, but not really (depending on the state)--- you would own the property but then a man would own you, so in a sense, the man would own the property, depending on the state. I guess same thing with slavery.

As far as citizenship is concerned, being "a person" doesn't mean the same thing as being a citizen. "Borderjumpers" for instance are human beings, as in can get arrested for committing crimes / have others get arrested for committing crimes against them, own property (even in the country they entered into illegally), due process, among other rights, but they still don't have all the rights full citizens have. Off course they're also criminals for crossing some border, which only persons can be criminals.

As for positive rights v negative rights: well, non-citizens/residents, depending on country and juridiction, don't always have the same rights to welfare, job protection, etc. I can see how the "right" to welfare for an ape might be objected to on the same grounds as the "right" for illegals to get welfare-- especially when poor human citizens need it. Thats if apes can be "persons" but not citizens. As for negative rights, as in people giving you THEIR OWN money instead of tax dollars, well, thats a different story. As for marriage, for whatever biological/moral reasons, society decided that same-sex humans can't marry--- likewise blood-related humans can't--- even though they're humans and citizens and persons. Likewise a human can't marry a corporation. So this passing wouldn't mean humans and apes marrying. Ditto for the right to vote.

Off course having personhood can backfire as well. With rights comes responsibilites. Mentally ill people don't have the same rights as non-mentally ill people in some aspects, however they can also mitigate their sentences if convicted. Dogs can get killed for just biting somone (for safty reasons), however they can also get off scott free for crapping on my frontyard.

Off course if a human being suddenly becomes a "borderjumper", they can get deported back to their home country. Birds, snakes, lizards, deer--- well, they jump / fly the border all the time. ;-)

Wait a sec...

By Kyanzes on 5/24/2008 6:46:25 PM , Rating: 2

Look... if the suit was written and filed personally by the ape then sure, the hearing has to be held.

Ape rights

By James Wood Carter on 5/25/2008 2:30:31 PM , Rating: 2

the article does say "hear" so its not even considered yet. Though it won't be such a bad thingh if apes did get human like rights. it would aid in preventing its extinction and would probably ensure its protection of its natural habitat. On the other hand, human rights should be for humans only as there are clear distiction between ape and humans, can't see pouchers/ ape eaters getting life sentences for killing apes

Masher, you seem to have misread the linked item

By Ajax9000 on 5/25/2008 9:16:40 PM , Rating: 2

Masher, you linked to http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/05/21/europe/E... whis has this:

quote:
[The lower court] did not directly address the issue of whether a chimpanzee can be considered a "person." Pan's supporters stress that they are not trying to get the chimp declared a human, just a person.

As senbassador notes in another comment, in law there is a difference between 'person' and 'human'.

Humans are apes???

By xLeo on 5/27/2008 5:17:01 PM , Rating: 1

Apes?

How can humans be apes? I mean, don't bull **** me that I don't know evolution. I've been taught evolution(since Junior high) and all I heard from my dick head professor in Sac State is natural selection somehow did the trick. I mean where is the proof. Just telling me that we, humans came from apes is bull ****. And don't tell me, "Our fossil records" prove that we have evolved from apes. "Yes boys and girls, we have evolved from apes" funny!!! lol

Science is NOT evolution. Evolution is an RELIGION. What does Science has to to with evolution??? Don't get me wrong, I love science. Tell me, what does Budwiser beer has to do with athletes? It's has nothing to do with athletes, but we see it all the time while watching super ball, basketball, etc... Same thing with evolution, it has nothing to do with science. It's pure Religion and it's supported by our government. Way to go congress! NOT.

If you believe in evolution, you have to believe that there is no God and you have to believe that you somehow evolved from a rock(There is not even a shred of evidence for the theory of evolution. Not even the "fossil record". Actually, fossil record proves that there was a world wide flood. (Google it if you need more info on that.)

If I can have a brave fellow to answer these questions???
Q1 CAN MATTER BE CREATED OR DESTROYED?
Q2 Where did all the laws of physics came from?

I have a lot more questions to ask, but these are the ones that my professors denied to answer.

Now, we need to define few things here. Both, Creation and Evolution are religions, but it's easier to believe that God created beautiful world and everything that's included. Now, if you want to believe that humans(including You) came from a rock, ape, neanderthal and etc, be my guest. Also some of you seriously need to get out to 'Nature' little bit, so you can see/explore how everything is designed.

Remember ONE thing in your mind, Our kids are being indoctrinated in our schools. One thing I want to mention, my professor would always say that humans are animals and there is no point in living, and etc... I could see some people in the class would take that seriously. These kind of things push young kids to commit suicide. I don't know what the suicide rate is, but it's increasing every second here in US. Where you think "Emo" came from? It's all devils plan to kill young teenagers. On the other hand, Jesus Son of God has a purpose for everyone. Also remember devil hates us, humans because we're an image of God.

By the way, Darwin himself said, evolution couldn't have happened. I don't know where exactly it's written in his book... I'll need some research on that.

DON'T READ BELOW. It gets more offensive.

Now, read this: Computer has evolved from Palm computer. Yes boys and girls it's been proven. They're are 97% identical and our fossil record prove that. NO, NO, NO... Computer hasn't been evolved from anything. It was designed and created. Computer design shows the patterns of creation. There is CPU(Processor), RAM, GPU etc... and they have they're own functions. And its creators are outside of it. Creators are not dependent on what they create. Same thing with us(humans) we have organs which have specific functions and they show signs of creation.

Just open your minds little bit to be able to think critically, and don't just trust professor/teachers. You as an unique human being have your rights to explore facts. Professor are just doing their jobs. They're being paid for what they're doing.

BTW there is a great movie called "Expelled:No Intelligence Allowed."

Don't just trust them(Professors/Teachers). SEEK THE TRUTH.