Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 8/24/05 01:54 PM, The-Mage wrote: thats liberal political correctness for ya. No wonder doctors dont want to work anymore.. and the liberal media just keeps covering this @%#$

It has nothing to do with liberalism. The political correctness craze comes from both sides.

After all, both of them complain when you say "fuck" on TV.

At 7/10/07 10:06 PM, Der-Lowe wrote:

1. Themselves. The majority of the states have refused to become more technologically, economically, and socially advanced.

BINGO!!!

African states "refuse" to become more economically/socially/technologically advanced in the same sense that a sick man refuses to stop having cancer.

In this case the "cancer" is the government/poverty. Continuing with the analogy the government would probably best be described as an extremely faulty/broken immune system (one with AIDS, i guess you could say if you wanted to be ironic), and the poverty would be the cancer itself.

Africa needs immune-system strengthening drugs; in other words, the governments need to reform into free democratic states. The problem is that a lack of democracy often leads to poverty and poverty often leads to a lack of democracy, so it's a very hard cycle to break out of. Most of it could probably be blamed on European colonialism (contributing to the poverty/ lack of societal progression), and did I mention the massive widespread disease, war, and genocide?

Either way, Africa needs a combination of outside help (private or not) and massive governmental reform. This could helped be achieved with a stronger AU and other regional organizations.

I can't wait untill my post count is over a certain number so I can make a terrible joke that everyone will hate me for.

Unfortunately right now it's only over 900

At 7/9/07 04:35 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 7/9/07 02:29 AM, 0peth wrote: to help Zimbabwe or anyone in economic crisis for that matter?

I have to be honest, I know absolutely jackshit about whatever situation in Zimbabwe you're talking about. What makes them more in risk of an economic crisis than any other African nation?

Well, for one, their inflation rate is over $1000....

i wonder if it'll actually get to OVER 9000!!! It's sad but true.

I think it has something to do with Mugabe's failed reforms. There are probably a few articles on Wikinews you can check out to learn about the situation.

At 7/8/07 06:24 PM, Ravariel wrote:

At 7/8/07 04:27 PM, Grammer wrote: Does anyone here actually believe the 2nd Amendment doesn't give us the right to bare arms? How odd

My arms are bare. It's like 90 fuckin' degrees out, no way I'm wearing a long-sleeved shirt in this weather. it's my constitutional right, dammit!!

I hear the right to bare arms was so important to women because during the reign of Victoria it was strictly not allowed. :)

At 7/8/07 07:18 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:

At 7/7/07 01:23 PM, 10over6 wrote:

Would not an African Union mean that such problems could be dealt with though? Pooling resources could potentially, at least partially, alleviate the problems.

But HOW do you deal with that? Remember, on an official basis, the massacres in Darfur are not being looked over by the Sudanese government, but Janjaweed militia's acting on their own accord.

Sure, and Hezbollah had no connection to the new govenrment forming in the Iranian revolution. Not. :P No, no, the Janjaweed is a government sponsored "militia" that commits murder on a massive scale.

At 7/8/07 07:23 PM, semaGdniM wrote: Look at the start of this post. One person gave their view and he was immediately attacked by multiple atheists.

I'd just like to point out that the topic starter was attacked by multiple atheists, because, well... he attacked multiple atheists himself. And I'm not even an atheist. :)

At 7/8/07 09:11 AM, D2Kvirus wrote:

At 7/8/07 04:44 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 7/7/07 07:39 AM, D2Kvirus wrote: Total nonsense

Cellar, by doing just that you proved what a troll you are.

In future, expect the same amount of respect I give to WolvenBear and Dre-Man...buyt at least they have a concept of what idiotic, clueless, neo-con trolls they are. So, who's delusional?

At least he gave a counter-argument. Would you rather him fill up the page with your previous arguments if he's just going to respond to them in general? :P It was sorta rude but at least he didn't fill up the page unecessarily that way.

But cellardoor6, I ask you a question: Don't you agree that one of the good arguments against gun control is that gun control takes power away from the citizens by making them more defenseless and therefore giving the government more power to walk all over its citizens?

At 7/8/07 03:01 PM, D2Kvirus wrote:

At 7/8/07 02:01 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote:

At 7/8/07 01:18 PM, D2Kvirus wrote:

At 7/8/07 01:06 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote:

At 7/8/07 12:01 PM, D2Kvirus wrote:

At 7/8/07 11:25 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 7/8/07 08:59 AM, D2Kvirus wrote:

Your interpretation misses that all-important comma following the word "militia."

Well that certainly explains why it seperates the sentence and uses the words "the people".

Anyone that can read would notice the phrase "the people" comes after the phrases "well regulated militia" and "necessary to the security of a free state." Catch up with our reading level.

Yes, but THE PEOPLE does not refer to the militia, it refers to the citizenry of the United States. Catch up with OUR reading level; the comma is there to separate the two dictations (1. there's gotta be a militia, man and 2. The people of the U.S. have the right to bear arms).

Catch up with OUR reading level - there's three dictations in that sentence:
There's got to be a militia.
It has to be necessary for the security of the Free State.
If you fulfill both these conditions, you may have a gun.

If it meant for you to have a gun only if you were in a militia it would have said this:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of those people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

But it says this:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It says the exact same thing. How are so many people blind to the English language on this issue?

You just need to read this part over and ovetr to get it: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State", because that's the important part. If it were meant for any Tom, Dick or Dirty Harry to arm themselves if and when they pleased, it would just read "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

If there's some sort of rule in English language that makes the first part of a sentence make the second part invalid you let me know. But until then the first part of the sentence does not change the fact that the second part says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It was also punctuated as so:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

See above, just substitute the last part.

Either way, it is talking about THE PEOPLE. Not the police. It says that since there's going to be a militia, people should be allowed to bear arms. In fact, the first part doesn't change the fact that it says

The police aren't a militia, simply put - where did you get the idea I was referring to the police, or did you just throw that in? But since we're heading that way don't you think that, as the United States has an army now - the sixth largest in the world, as well as the third largest air force - all of whom are equipped with enough firepower, there is little or no need to rely on a militia? Especially since, to put it bluntly, if you can't see a large invading force crossing the Atlantic or Pacific, you deserve to be conquered. But then, the US has the world's largest navy...

Tsk tsk tsk, you'd think someone who criticizes the government as much as you do would realize that defense against crime isn't the only thing the 2nd amendment is about. The people need arms to defend against the government. The government needs incentive to do its job, and if the people have no way to defend themselves against the government then it can just walk all over the people. When you see the Bush Administration fucking up so bad WHY ON EARTH do you want the people to be defenseless against the government? That is what is so odd about socialism, the same people who are socialists are the people protesting against the government, yet they always want it to have more power! And here you are saying that citizens shouldn't even have firearms so we're completely defenseless against tyranny! Holy shit!

"the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

That means that the People, not just the militia, have the right to keep and bear arms. If it had meant "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms" it would have said so.

So why does "the people" follow "well regulated militia" and "security of the Free State"? If you come after two other people in the 100m, you are the third most important runner in the race, and get a Bronze Medal. How comes the third condition gets promoted to the most important?

It's the most important part because it's the one that is supposed to keep the government from walking all over us, and for some reason you think that it doesn't count because a group of people is mentioned in the first part that isn't in the third. The first part is "since a militia is necessary", a reason. The second part says what we're going to do because we need that militia. That is, let people have the right to keep and bear arms. Regardless of the reason (the first part) IT STILL SAYS THE PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.

The wikipedia summary says as such:

"Amendment II (the Second Amendment) of the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, declares a well regulated militia as "being necessary to the security of a free State", and prohibits Congress from infringement of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

OK, you appear to be turning into a broken record here, so I will have to be so blunt as to be concave: HOW THE FUCK CAN ANY AVERAGE JOE BUYING A GUN MAKE THEM A MEMBER OF A WELL REGULATED MILITIA?!?

If they aren't a member of a well regulated militia (and the rest), they are NOT necessary to the security of the Free State, so therefore they have no right to bear arms.

Regardless of whether you disagree with it, the Second Amendment guarantees the right of the people of the United States to keep and bear arms. If you're going to argue for banning firearms you have to argue for the repealing of the Second Amendment.

They repealed the Eighteenth with little fuss, didn't they? And that one was actually quite clear: it prohibited the manufacturing, importing, and exporting of alcohol.

The 18th was fucking stupid. The second is necessary for the people of the United States to retain their freedoms by keeping the government in check.

If anything, the wording of the Second Amendment is asking to be interpreted any number of ways, that's the root cause of the problem. The NRA say it promises the right to bear arms, of course they aren't making any money out of it...

Well, it does. It does promise the people the right to bear arms. That's exactly what it says. Seriously. "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.". Regardless of the first part, that's what the direct statement is. It could also say "the right of the people ot keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, a militia is necessary for the security of a Free State." But "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is directly stated. You can't change that fact; that's exactly what it says.

THE AVERAGE JOE DOES NOT HAVE TO BE A PART OF THE MILITIA TO BUY A GUN. You are misreading it. It does NOT say you have to be a part of the militia to buy a gun. The militia IS NOT THE ONLY REASON WE KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. We keep and bear arms so the government doesn't walk all over us, etc. etc. Do you totally trust the government so much that you think the people should be totally unarmed and defenseless?

At 7/8/07 01:51 PM, Deeyay wrote: Don't harras me for being nonamerican

And don't harass us for being American. :) We don't decide everything our government does; we didn't elect Bush the first time and more than half of us didn't elect him the second time. However I still side against the PLO on Israel, their violence has done nothing to help the Palestinian or Israeli people.

At 7/8/07 01:18 PM, D2Kvirus wrote:

At 7/8/07 01:06 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote:

At 7/8/07 12:01 PM, D2Kvirus wrote:

At 7/8/07 11:25 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 7/8/07 08:59 AM, D2Kvirus wrote:

Your interpretation misses that all-important comma following the word "militia."

Well that certainly explains why it seperates the sentence and uses the words "the people".

Anyone that can read would notice the phrase "the people" comes after the phrases "well regulated militia" and "necessary to the security of a free state." Catch up with our reading level.

Yes, but THE PEOPLE does not refer to the militia, it refers to the citizenry of the United States. Catch up with OUR reading level; the comma is there to separate the two dictations (1. there's gotta be a militia, man and 2. The people of the U.S. have the right to bear arms).

Catch up with OUR reading level - there's three dictations in that sentence:
There's got to be a militia.
It has to be necessary for the security of the Free State.
If you fulfill both these conditions, you may have a gun.

If it meant for you to have a gun only if you were in a militia it would have said this:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of those people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

But it says this:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It was also punctuated as so:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Either way, it is talking about THE PEOPLE. Not the police. It says that since there's going to be a militia, people should be allowed to bear arms. In fact, the first part doesn't change the fact that it says

"the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

That means that the People, not just the militia, have the right to keep and bear arms. If it had meant "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms" it would have said so.

The wikipedia summary says as such:

"Amendment II (the Second Amendment) of the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, declares a well regulated militia as "being necessary to the security of a free State", and prohibits Congress from infringement of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

It is two parts.

So it is clear that the Second Amendment guarantees the people of the United States the right to keep and bear arms. Instead of trying to deny that it would be more wise to point out why we should repeal the amendment. I don't think we should, but regardless- the Second Amendment gives the people to keep and bear arms, not just the police. It says so very clearly.

In fact, the Supreme Court used it in the Dred Scott case because they were afraid that it would allow black people to carry arms.

""More especially, it cannot be believed that the large slaveholding States regarded them as included in the word citizens, or would have consented to a Constitution which might compel them to receive them in that character from another State. For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went." "

So it is clear that keeping and bearing arms is and was considered a right of the people; they didn't want black people to become citizens because they knew they would have those rights. Regardless of the ridiculous amount of racism in the Supreme Court, the case illustrates that keeping and bearing arms was considered one of the rights that citizens have.

Regardless of whether you disagree with it, the Second Amendment guarantees the right of the people of the United States to keep and bear arms. If you're going to argue for banning firearms you have to argue for the repealing of the Second Amendment.

At 7/8/07 09:09 AM, SlithVampir wrote:

At 7/7/07 10:30 PM, Malachy wrote:
...man this place depresses me

I'm in Newark. Shut. Up.

Haha, living in a city only synonymous with its airport wins on the depression level.

So, how is Newark really?

At 7/8/07 12:01 PM, D2Kvirus wrote:

At 7/8/07 11:25 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 7/8/07 08:59 AM, D2Kvirus wrote:

Your interpretation misses that all-important comma following the word "militia."

Well that certainly explains why it seperates the sentence and uses the words "the people".

Anyone that can read would notice the phrase "the people" comes after the phrases "well regulated militia" and "necessary to the security of a free state." Catch up with our reading level.

Yes, but THE PEOPLE does not refer to the militia, it refers to the citizenry of the United States. Catch up with OUR reading level; the comma is there to separate the two dictations (1. there's gotta be a militia, man and 2. The people of the U.S. have the right to bear arms).

Go watch the Penn and Teller: Bullshit! episode on gun control, if you can. :) It makes that very clear.

At 7/8/07 12:50 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 7/7/07 11:39 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote:

Not quite; non-religious can apply both to atheists, agnostics, or even theists who believe in a god or gods but don't take any religion.

Yes, but still, the word "christianity" is used to cover a very wide range of christian religions. It's a broad term.

But you can still classify the world into 3 parts. Religous (theist/deist), non-religous, atheist.
-Belief of the existance of a God.
-Unsure of the existance of a God.
-Rejection of the existance of a God.

Besides. Even those who aren't really religous will usually answer "yes" if they do believe in a God.

Theism is NOT a religion. Theism is a philosophy, a concept. After all, there is such a thing as agnostic theism; believing in a god but not knowing what kind of god it is. Theism does not guarantee religiosity; I was theist without being religious for a while myself.

By the way, I wouldn't call all the divisions of Christianity religions in themselves, they're more really sects of a religion than separate religions themselves. Maybe I'm just screwing up my terminology, but I do know that you don't have to be religious to be a theist.

At 7/8/07 12:47 PM, RedGlare wrote:

At 7/8/07 12:40 PM, Drakim wrote: Correct. Then people started accusing him of making generalisations over all Christians, out of the blue.

Out of the Blue my arse. The fact he asked such a question with no basis on fact to support such a query. Shows that he was at the very least implying that all Christians where like this. Given that you don't seem to be able to see that. Seems to suggest your not very good at reading the subtext or motives behind text.

No he wasn't; he wasn't implying that all Christians were like this- he was implying that mainstream Christianity has serious problems, not all Christians. He was asking if this was the norm for Christianity, not saying that ALL Christians are like the nutty televangelist types. I don't think most Christians are like Pat Robertson, but that sect makes up way too big of the mainstream chunk, just as mainstream Islam is too conservative. The "mainstream" is a term for the average views of the group, not a term to describe everyone in the group.

At 7/7/07 08:22 PM, Memorize wrote: Atheist is a different group than "non religion". Non religion is just another way of saying "agnostic", who make up a higher percentage than atheists.

Not quite; non-religious can apply both to atheists, agnostics, or even theists who believe in a god or gods but don't take any religion.

At 7/7/07 11:31 PM, Malachy wrote: I'm not talking about the cans the trash men pick up (and ours leave them upright and in tack since technically what we have is their property. either way, the can out on the Hick Family's lawn is typical indoor kitchen garbage can

Actually, when I'm at home they usually are upright most of the time, but at where I'm staying at now they just throw them on their side most of the time.

At 7/7/07 11:32 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 7/7/07 11:15 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote: "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book, 1774-1776

This quote leads me to believe the founding fathers weren't so infallible as we all like to believe. Hell, we all know how many times people have quoted the founding fathers, and expect it to be the end all authority of what's right for America.

No, however quotes from the Founding Fathers in relation to the Constitution would be the end all source on what they meant by what they wrote, yes? I think James Madison the "Father of the Constitution" knew more what he meant by the Constitution than us, right?

At 7/7/07 11:04 PM, Der-Lowe wrote:

At 7/7/07 10:30 PM, Malachy wrote: the bears are smart around here. they sneak around all quiet like around town; don't even knock the cans over either, and pad away with the bag in their mouth.

That's what poor people do here.

The trashmen that come to pick up the trash here have turned giving back your trash can into a fine art. Many times will you see the fine art of their work, as they carefully take your trash can and throw it on its side in your yard, while varying the positions they throw the other cans on their sides on other people's yard to create a complete visual masterpiece.

At 7/7/07 11:04 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Undermining the constitution is sort of subjective.

Undermining; It basically means secretly trying to destroy something from within. [According to dictionary.com]

So Generally if you interpret a law or bill that liberals support as a way to dismantle the constitution then you would think that they are undermining it.

Liberals and conservatives have both tried to undermine the constitution, or at least have tried to pass laws that completely ignore it.

See: PATRIOT Act (conservatives), reviving the Fairness Doctrine (liberals)

At 7/7/07 10:51 PM, TheBlueNeck wrote:

At 7/7/07 10:37 PM, Me-Patch wrote: Thats a matter of interpretation.

How I interpret is that the amendment only applies to the militia not the citizens. And it reads exactly as so.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It does NOT only apply to the Militia. It says "the right of the PEOPLE" to keep and bear arms, not just the militia. It does not read "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State has the right to keep and bear arms", it says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". It says both will not be infringed, there must be both a well regulated Militia AND the people must have the right to keep and bear arms.

But you don't have to take my word for it; if you look at the founding father's other writings it is clear that that was what their wording meant.

"[W]here and when did freedom exist when the power of the sword and purse were given up from the people?" --Patrick Henry, Virginia's U.S. Constitution ratification convention, June 9,1788. Elliot, Debates of the Several State Conventions, 3:169

"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution, June, 1776

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book, 1774-1776

* "That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free state." -- Within Mason's declaration of "the essential and unalienable Rights of the People," --George Mason, later adopted by the Virginia ratification convention, 1788

(quotes from here)

So yeah. Saying that it says "only militia can bear arms lol" is a misreading. It's not something that can be interpreted in different ways in that respect- it does not say that only the militia can bear arms.

It is two separate statements. Penn and Teller did a bit on gun control and it includes this. That the Second Amendment is guaranteeing the right to bear arms to the milita only is way to o widespread a myth; it does not say that and if you look carefully at it that is clear.

At 7/6/07 09:03 AM, Lastin wrote: Americans, what do you expect from them? War, poverty and propaganda...

Stop bitching at us for what our government does already; when you have a president that the majority of the country doesn't approve of, and when you have elections tainted with fraud/a bullshit electoral college that causes the person the people electedto lose, you shouldn't get blamed for when the president does the stupid shit he does.

Damn.

At 7/7/07 03:48 PM, Bolo wrote:

At 7/7/07 01:17 PM, Grammer wrote: I'm just sick of "liberal" being thrown around as an insult. It's not an insult, and neither is conservative.

I agree. Political persuasion is not grounds for an insult, and only serves to dichotomize us further than we already are.

Sure, if you're a COMMUNIST.

At 7/4/07 03:08 PM, D2Kvirus wrote: Not being able to get hold of guns would've prevented Columbine very easily, actually. it's hard to shoot somebody when you can't get a gun, and don't have the nous to make a crossbow. And if it were just orginised crime and/or gangs with guns, then gun deaths would mostly be criminal-on-criminal.

Er, yeah, that's where you pro-gun banning people go wrong. Yes, if there were no guns then they wouldn't have been able to shoot people. But the million dollar question is: HOW WILL ILLEGALIZATION MAKE ALL THE GUNS IN CIRCULATION IN THE U.S.A. DISSAPPEAR? Seriously. Stop telling me how much gun ownership sucks and how many people die from guns, yadda yadda because all that (while good discussion) is irrelevant to the central issue of whether guns should be banned, etc. The question is if we do ban guns, will it really do us any good? Will all the criminals with guns just turn them in? How will we collect them all from citizens? How many deaths will occur from yokels who don't want to give up their guns? How many deaths will occur when you've just moved us one step closer to a police state? The government already is way too confident; they're not afraid of the people enough. The people are afraid of the government, and with an armed-populace (like in Switzerland) the government's going to act up less if you've got a well-armed populace.

So, in the end, it's more a matter of- do you want to occasionally be shot by someone who legally has a gun, or do you want to be executed by government death squad for being a dissident when you realize that the government has nothing to prevent it from walking all over its people.

I suppose that's somewhat of an exaggeration, but I think people are missing that in addition for self-defense, the 2nd amendment was put in place so the government would be kept in check by its people, as it should.

Anyways, please, again, explain how illegalization will prevent gun crime in a nation where there are already so many guns in circulation.

African Union Summit ends in Accra

--

July 4, 2007

The 9th summit of the Assembly of the African Union ended in Accra, Ghana just before midnight yesterday. The three day summit, which was scheduled to last until the afternoon of July 3 overran, ending just before midnight.

The main issue discussed was the call for the setting up of a Pan-African government. The Libyan leader, Muamar al-Gaddafi, and the Senegalese President, Abdoulaye Wade were advocates for its establishment as soon as possible. Gaddafi was in favor of a single African army, foreign policy and government. Others such as Robert Mugabe and Thabo Mbeki were more inclined to a more gradual process of integration. Yoweri Museveni , of Uganda preferred more economic integration to political union, as he felt Africa was too diverse to be under one government.

The African leaders put out a unanimous declaration agreeing to set up a Ministerial Committee to examine the relationship between an African Union government and the various national governments. The committee would also be expected to look at the impact on the sovereignty of member states and to provide a time frame and road map for the process.

The idea of a continental government was first advocated by Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana in the mid fifties and sixties when he was the Ghanaian president. It however received very little support at the time.

The host of the summit, John Kufuor of Ghana, Chairman of the Union, said there had been no winners or losers and that the debate had been characterised by tolerance and mutual respect. He said Africa's union was not being modelled on that of the USA nor the European Union but rather on model that would be unique to the continent. He was also keen on the rationalization of the various Regional Economic Commissions towards the realization of an African Economic Commission.

The next summit is scheduled for Addis Ababa, Ethiopia in 2008.

So, what do you think Kufuor means when he said that the AU won't be like the U.S.A. and EU. Do you think that they can really form a stable alliance at least somewhat like the EU?

I've heard thoughts that after so much of Africa went through the Second Congo War that those African nations involved may be inclined to work together after going through such a war; similar to Europe after World War II.

What do you guys think?

At 7/7/07 12:25 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 7/6/07 11:15 PM, ForkRobotik wrote: I say take "GOD" off the dollar bill. Who has a problem with that and why?(i'm talking to you memorize).

I don't have a problem with it.

I just find it a pointless and meaningless issue.

Agreed, is it really worth all the time and money to screw up the printing process just to remove that?

At 7/5/07 06:17 PM, ForkRobotik wrote: That's bullshit. Women still have no rights in India. A husband can beat his wife all day long and she has no recourse. And because India isn't a gender equal nation, it's even harder for a woman to leave her husband. There is some serious messed up shit going on in India. Not too mention how you people are towards muslims.

You really don't see your irony? It's ironic how you only complain when India is abusive towards women but you continue to glorifly oppressive Muslim regimes that have no problem stoning women either. After all, in Iran a young woman was stoned for "crimes against chastity." And how often do you think you're going to see a woman walking around in jeans and a t-shirt in Yemen without getting the shit beat out of her? Is it okay for women to be repressed there because it's "part of their culture"? In India the brutal caste system is "part of their culture" yet you speak out against that and not the repressive theocracies in the Arab world? I agree that the caste system is severely and terribly fucked up, but if you can recognize the wrong in that you should be able to recognize the wrong in how the Islamic theocracies treat women/anybodywhodoesn'tfollowtheirspecificfor mofIslam in the Arab world as well.

I think my post here at the top of the page might make a good response to this thread. It's somewhat a defense against how people say that when people protest the government they "hate America" or the like. It can go for both liberals or conservatives, really. It's just in this case it's the liberal side that protests the government more often, since we have a conservative regime at the time. However,both extremist liberalism and conservatism are silly, in my opinion. :)

At 7/7/07 12:10 AM, Der-Lowe wrote: The games I installed turned out to be boring.

Perhaps these games might be more your cuppa tea?

Luckily for Mac dudes like me there are OS X ports as well for at least some of those. They're pretty interesting games though, if you can get through all the Japanese they're fun shoot 'em ups. I heard Tumiki Fighters might be getting on Xbox Live or something.

At 7/6/07 10:59 PM, ForkRobotik wrote:

At 7/6/07 10:46 PM, Truth wrote: Just recently, I started learning about Islam.
A Muslim friend told me, that it would be impossible to find a contradiction or any kind of scientific error in the Koran.
Came across this video today.

That video is interesting. I find it incredibly interesting that Islam says, use reason to find god, whereas christianity doesn't really say anything but "BELIEVE!"

Then again, christianity is the predecessor to Islam. If anything Islam perfected monotheism and took it to it's logical conclusion.

Once again, christinsanity is a shown to be a scourge that must be wiped off the map!

Islam can be abused just as much as Christianity is, and it is certainly being abused more. You'd think a forward-thinking liberal would able to see the contradiction between a love for civil rights, equal rights for women and promotion of system that promote just the opposite in the name of Islam.

The problem is that people see how badly Christianity is abused and assume that Islam has to be better because the state of Christianity is so bad in some cases. Alas, that is not true, and no matter how much you're pissed about the drug prohibition it won't change the fact that you have less civil rights in China than you do in the U.S., and likewise modern Islam is still not developed enough to be as progressive as mainstream Christianity. As hard as it is to believe that could be the current state of affairs, mainstream Christianity is definitely not as repressive as mainstream Islam. But either religion can be made repressive or progressive- neither one in itself is that much different in the ways it can be abused.

So honestly, for every nutty Pat Robertson-esque preacher there is a just as nutty backwards Imam to be just as regressive in terms of civil rights.