• Britain to cut aid to African countries that persecute gays
    95 replies, posted
[QUOTE=JDK721;32723335]I'd also like to point out the defense of marriage act, which PROHIBITS the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act[/url] that shit needs to be repealed asap[/QUOTE] yes it does but the obama administration doesnt support it thats good
Kind of ironic because the British introduced homophobic laws to their colonies [URL]http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2093783,00.html[/URL] I know it has no relevance to today just something I thought was informative. I'm certainly glad they're doing something about it.
[QUOTE=GunFox;32722499]The US should do this as well. Also we should stop funding nations which persecute women and place a mandatory national embargo on them. See you later, middle east. Yeah we lose cheap oil, but we also cripple the oil companies. We also force innovation, which is beneficial in the long run.[/QUOTE] OPEC's 1973 oil embargo proves how much the US relies on them. It cost billions, turned their allies against Israel and brought them to the point where the prospect of military invasion seemed possible. [quote="All the Crises Reached a Concerted Crescendo" -The Arab Oil Embargo and Why the United States Was Unprepared for It]Once the embargo was in place, Japan and Western European nations scrambled to curry favor with the Arabs and secure their own oil supplies. Without their own plan for strategically allocating oil during an emergency shutoff, the U.S. tried to unilaterally convince the Arabs to lift the embargo. When that proved difficult and when the American public was forced to change their daily lives because of the embargo, the U.S. government entertained prospects for an invasion that just months before would have been deemed as ludicrous, all in an attempt to make up for their lack of preparation for dealing with an embargo.[/quote] [quote=Henry A. Kissinger]The oil embargo, coupled with OPEC price increases, cost Americans half a million jobs and over $10 billion in national output. It added at least 5 percentage points to the price index, contributing to the worst inflation since World War II. Partly because of their greater dependence on Middle East oil, our principal allies in Western Europe and Japan separated from us over Middle East policy in the most serious strain in our alliances since they were founded.[/quote] The situation hasn't changed much. The US needs them as much as they need the US, probably more. [url=http://digitalcommons.wku.edu/theses/144/]Source.[/url] Also relying on innovation to save you would be stupid. There are plenty of other less crippling ways to encourage innovation. The U.S tried to force innovation during the embargo and achieved nothing. [quote=Adam Jaffe]In the 1970s the United States undertook the “moral equivalent of war” to reduce its dependence on foreign oil; this effort petered out despite the investment of nontrivial sums of money (apparently more than for the Manhattan Project). ... Adjustment costs in the research enterprise are large, so that slow, steady increases in expenditure tend to be far more effective than rapid ones.[/quote] [url=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140988311000442]Source.[/url]
They should stop sending money to those countries period, what good has it done? They are still backwater underdeveloped nations and the money is gone to waste feeding corrupted power holders.
[QUOTE=flyschy;32723620]OPEC's 1973 oil embargo proves how much the US relies on them. It cost billions, turned their allies against Israel and brought them to the point where the prospect of military invasion seemed possible. The situation hasn't changed much. The US needs them as much as they need the US, probably more. [url=http://digitalcommons.wku.edu/theses/144/]Source.[/url] Also relying on innovation to save you would be stupid. There are plenty of other less crippling ways to encourage innovation. The U.S tried to force innovation during the embargo and achieved nothing. [/QUOTE] There are a wide variety of methods to encourage innovation, but they require specific paths, continued support, and a lot of care to foster them to fruition. It is something close to kindling a flame until it becomes proper fire. Unfortunately there are a whole lot of very rich folks involved with oil and a whole lot of human beings in positions that could help defeat oil reliance permanently. Human beings, being inherently selfish creatures, like all animals, are prone to accepting things which help them get ahead in life. Namely bribes. This has, thus far, effectively cock blocked proper alternatives. Meanwhile, by completely flipping the board upside down, we can fuck their entire game up and force innovation. Something akin to dumping gasoline all over the wood and lighting that bitch up. It would also, in general, serve to knock the American people down a peg or two in terms of baseless pride. Which needs to happen anyways. We NEED to suffer as a nation in order to move forward. Unfortunate, but true. We are locked in a stalemate that seems to have no end.
Hopefully they'll learn the lessons from the cuts; that civilisation will not accept their persecutionist evils. Also, I wonder if these cuts have another motive; to cut spending in order for the country to have a bit more coin to reinvigorate the economy?
Can't we just give the leaders the firing line and be done with it? What will they do? Throw spears?
[QUOTE=SSBMX;32726108]Can't we just give the leaders the firing line and be done with it? What will they do? Throw spears?[/QUOTE]Fire assault rifles is a more accurate phrase.
International trade agreements being affected by what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom.
[QUOTE=JDK721;32723255]it's 90% of the US, and it's taking far too long for a country that is supposed to be "land of the free"[/QUOTE] When it's a decision that needs to be made in 50 different states, it's gonna take a while. The wheels are moving, albeit slowly, but they're moving. Many countries didn't start changing their tune until the last decade or so. These things don't happen overnight. [QUOTE=Raidyr;32726559]International trade agreements being affected by what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom.[/QUOTE] [I]Obviously, the state's responsibility should be to legislate rules for a well-ordered society. It has no right or duty to creep into the bedrooms of the nation.[/I] - Pierre Trudeau And he said that in '67. When Canada was debating whether homosexuality should be made legal!
[QUOTE=JDK721;32723255]it's 90% of the US, and it's taking far too long for a country that is supposed to be "land of the free"[/QUOTE] "I want change mommy, I want it now!" You have no idea how hard it fucking is to pass one insignificant law and yet you demand change on something so large. Sure, it's something we all agree as a good thing, but it comes about slowly and eventually we will get there. I find it disgraceful to be so ignorant of these facts; you can't just change things so drastically without setback.
[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;32726778]"I want change mommy, I want it now!" You have no idea how hard it fucking is to pass one insignificant law and yet you demand change on something so large. Sure, it's something we all agree as a good thing, but it comes about slowly and eventually we will get there. I find it disgraceful to be so ignorant of these facts; you can't just change things so drastically without setback.[/QUOTE] Easy solution; Make it a federal law that all states must enforce. Done. Why not take the easiest path? America seems hell-bent on staying archaic and homophobic.
[QUOTE=Miskav;32727761]Easy solution; Make it a federal law that all states must enforce. Done. Why not take the easiest path? America seems hell-bent on staying archaic and homophobic.[/QUOTE] We are not a nation that is broken into states. We are, as the name implies, a group of united states. The federal government doesn't technically have the authority to enact this. Our design intentionally includes certain limitations in order to minimize the damage that can be done by our federal government and maximize the power of local government. This can lead to certain concepts being extremely slow to move forward. Take, for instance, the imperial system vs metric. The federal government told imperial to go fuck itself a long time ago and switched various federal agencies over. The problem lies in the fact that they don't have the authority to force that on the states. So the states don't particularly want to make the change, because it would be extremely difficult to have one state operating entirely in metric, while the rest do not. Of course to say that we use imperial exclusively, is a bit of a misnomer in itself, we actually use both for different things. So really you should probably focus on Russia's problem with the matter: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Russia[/url]
[img]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3087/2874933678_287cb4edb0.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=MasterG;32728753]I have to admit, I think this is a bit hypocritical seeing as how homosexuals are only allowed civil partnerships in the UK and not full marriage...[/QUOTE] It's not hypocritical considering how the UK doesn't put gays in prison just because they are.
[QUOTE=MasterG;32728753]I have to admit, I think this is a bit hypocritical seeing as how homosexuals are only allowed civil partnerships in the UK and not full marriage...[/QUOTE] That is changing pretty soon. Still, not the same thing.
[QUOTE=GunFox;32728449]We are not a nation that is broken into states. We are, as the name implies, a group of united states. The federal government doesn't technically have the authority to enact this. Our design intentionally includes certain limitations in order to minimize the damage that can be done by our federal government and maximize the power of local government. This can lead to certain concepts being extremely slow to move forward. Take, for instance, the imperial system vs metric. The federal government told imperial to go fuck itself a long time ago and switched various federal agencies over. The problem lies in the fact that they don't have the authority to force that on the states. So the states don't particularly want to make the change, because it would be extremely difficult to have one state operating entirely in metric, while the rest do not. Of course to say that we use imperial exclusively, is a bit of a misnomer in itself, we actually use both for different things. So really you should probably focus on Russia's problem with the matter: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Russia[/url][/QUOTE] So basically the entire "It's up to the states" - system is detrimental to your society and holding progress back socially and probably on other issues as well. Seems like as good a time as ever for a change in the way your country works then.
[QUOTE=Miskav;32729247]So basically the entire "It's up to the states" - system is detrimental to your society and holding progress back socially and probably on other issues as well. Seems like as good a time as ever for a change in the way your country works then.[/QUOTE] It is a limitation of the design in order to limit the effects of corruption and maximize the ability of the states to govern the people. Rather than having a bunch of people in New York govern the laws of people in Montana, we try to operate on a state or local level as much as possible to ensure that the voters retain more power over their environment. Sluggish change seems like a small price to pay for more democratic power in the long run.
So the people that don't represent the government, including the gay people in said nations have to starve because of the shit heads in power? That's not cool.
[QUOTE=GunFox;32729348]It is a limitation of the design in order to limit the effects of corruption and maximize the ability of the states to govern the people. Rather than having a bunch of people in New York govern the laws of people in Montana, we try to operate on a state or local level as much as possible to ensure that the voters retain more power over their environment. Sluggish change seems like a small price to pay for more democratic power in the long run.[/QUOTE] Doesn't your voting system work on a basis of "Majority goes, minority vote disappears"? So if one party gets 40%, then two others get 30% (I realize this'll never happen in your country because of the 2 "main" parties' popularity, but point still counts) the 60% of the votes will go completely to waste? It seems weird to try and proclaim any action taken after that point as striving for democratic power, seeing as your citizens give it up willingly.
[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;32726778]"I want change mommy, I want it now!" You have no idea how hard it fucking is to pass one insignificant law and yet you demand change on something so large. Sure, it's something we all agree as a good thing, but it comes about slowly and eventually we will get there. I find it disgraceful to be so ignorant of these facts; you can't just change things so drastically without setback.[/QUOTE] usually people impatient for change are the ones that drive it
[QUOTE=Conspiracy;32729435]So the people that don't represent the government, including the gay people in said nations have to starve because of the shit heads in power? That's not cool.[/QUOTE] That's on a more individual level. Anyone who's still shipping supplies over will probably be on that level anyway, knowing that there's a few good people worth saving. Whole governments don't work like that, they go by what the majority needs and aid the minority as a secondary priority. If anyone's job is to help people in that way, it isn't the government's. And if these people want aid, they're going to have to stop that shit.
I think we should also be targeting the missionaries that fed them these ideas in the first place and took advantage of their lack of education to force retarded values upon them
Sending money aid to 3rd world countries has turned out to be useless anyway. It has done nothing but made them dependent on us and made a few rich bastards richer.
[QUOTE=Miskav;32729442]Doesn't your voting system work on a basis of "Majority goes, minority vote disappears"? So if one party gets 40%, then two others get 30% (I realize this'll never happen in your country because of the 2 "main" parties' popularity, but point still counts) the 60% of the votes will go completely to waste? It seems weird to try and proclaim any action taken after that point as striving for democratic power, seeing as your citizens give it up willingly.[/QUOTE] Really a portion of the population is not going to be represented no matter how you design your system. Many states still break down how they allocate their votes in the electoral college by percentage of votes garnered in order to limit this in the federal electoral college. Ultimately we mitigate the impact of this by spreading the power out. So if your state votes for a presidential candidate who loses, you still have your state and local governments operating in your best interest and doing so with a solid portion of the power. You also have your local representative in the house, as well as your senators in the senate. Our entire system is designed to maximize voter power. It seems to me like you have been given a tiny fragment of the story at some point and are basing your opinions off of that. The truth of the matter is quite different. Surely by now you must have realized that the lion's share of information either of us receives about the other nation is being provided through a glass of decades of baseless hatred.
[QUOTE=GunFox;32729578]Really a portion of the population is not going to be represented no matter how you design your system. Many states still break down how they allocate their votes in the electoral college by percentage of votes garnered in order to limit this in the federal electoral college. Ultimately we mitigate the impact of this by spreading the power out. So if your state votes for a presidential candidate who loses, you still have your state and local governments operating in your best interest and doing so with a solid portion of the power. You also have your local representative in the house, as well as your senators in the senate. Our entire system is designed to maximize voter power. It seems to me like you have been given a tiny fragment of the story at some point and are basing your opinions off of that. The truth of the matter is quite different. Surely by now you must have realized that the lion's share of information either of us receives about the other nation is being provided through a glass of decades of baseless hatred.[/QUOTE] Fair enough, I wont bring up the uselessness of having only two parties that have any chance in getting in to power, thanks for educating me by the way.
Thank god. Good idea.
I was just on brink of enjoying one particular activity which involved certain themes when I opened this thread, and the picture popping into my face made me laugh out loud. I just know I will avoid Africa for quite some time.
What about the non-African countries that persecute gays? Oh right, they aren't poor and unable to retaliate like Africa. Carry on.
[QUOTE=Ultra Violence;32731993]What about the non-African countries that persecute gays? Oh right, they aren't poor and unable to retaliate like Africa. Carry on.[/QUOTE] Well, I can't really think of a place which would persecute gays and wouldn't be a shithole for different reasons anyway.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.