only me wrote:
Here you go, enjoy:
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/(Not that hard, was it?)
Wow. I usually refrain from calling someone stupid here on LRC but in your case it is difficult to avoid.
So, you look up some UN declaration of human rights and declare this the bottom line on the issue? If not, what exactly was your point.
Sorry, but you are truly, mightily stupid.
The United States has ratified the Universal Declaration of Human Rights meaning that it is the law in this country (although its torture laws violate it). So this is de facto and de jure what human rights are at this time in the world.
Local & Foreign wrote:
The Government shall not impose any laws, rules, and procedures upon any foreign land that it does not impose on it's own domestic citizens and inhabitants
So the inhabitants of the defeated Nazi Germany should have had, say, the right to bear arms?
Sure. Southerners were allowed to keep their arms after the civil war and things turned out ok.
An Historian wrote:
Local & Foreign wrote:The Government shall not impose any laws, rules, and procedures upon any foreign land that it does not impose on it's own domestic citizens and inhabitants
So the inhabitants of the defeated Nazi Germany should have had, say, the right to bear arms?
ADD: The Government shall NOT support facist, nationalistic, nor zionistic regimes.
The below definition of "Nazi Zionist" as contained in the online Urban Dictionary.
Nazi Zionist
1. a Nazi Zionist is a person who supports/expresses Zionism using Nazi fundamentals.
2. a prejudice person who claims Israel is the birth right of all followers of Judaism.
3. a person who denies the existence of Palestinians Muslims and Christians.
4. Nazi Zionism refers to the Israeli government which is currently committing a Genocide against the Palestinian population. -Ethnically cleansing the land of all Palestinians (as Hitler had done with the Jews)
5. Nazi Zionist commits crimes against humanity and gets away with and says the whole world is racist when questioned.
6. a delusional creature, might be schizophrenic, believes the whole world is out to get him when in fact he is out to get the whole world.
7. A Jew who brings pain to the Palestinian people/who makes them suffer and acts and commits the same acts of cruelty that Hitler committed on the Jewish population.
8. Nazi Zionist, clearly a hypocrite.
9. A person who oppresses Christian and Muslim Palestinians.
10. one who drops 1 million cluster bombs on an innocent population and gets away with it.
11. an ideology which goes unpunished with the highest # of UN violations.
12. group that controls AIPAC which essentially controls the United States.
13. Group that imprisons children in unbearable prisons and gets away with it.
14. is the best liar, cheat, murderer, manipulator, evil and inhumane person.
asdfasdfas wrote:
I am curious why you like the electoral college? The original was a disaster (Jefferson versus Burr) requiring the 12th amendment. The current one allows candidates to ignore huge numbers of voters (you ignore the states where you or you opponent have 55% of the vote) in favor of appealing to special interests in swing states.
gamecock wrote:I actually like the electoral college; I think it's one of Madison's greatest hits.
Well, I don't worry about the Burr situation, because the 12th amendment solved the problem. What I like about the EC is that it is one of the few areas left that still cares about what "the states" think. I like that it measures breadth of support across the several states instead of depth in a few key areas of population density. If you can imagine a scenario where a candidate wins 49 states by 10,000 votes and his opponent wins, say, Texas, by a million, I think you would agree with me that the guy with a half-million less votes overall still more deserves to be president. Even in the most recent example of Bush vs. Gore, Bush won 29 or 30 states. And if you remember the county-by-county map that ran the week after that election, the whole map was bright red except for dark blue streaks up and down both coasts and the Mississippi. (And that's not to say that Bush deserved to beat Gore by a lot... it was still terribly close, and if Gore had just won his home state, he would have won.)
I think that if we had a straight-majority popular vote system, what you would see is that nobody would ever run an ad in Wyoming, with less population than some neighborhoods in NYC. And simple math would necessitate getting the biggest possible vote among your base (who are generally the furthest right or left) and making minimal concessions toward the middle rather than now being forced to appeal to a diverse constituency nationwide. Furthermore, in a popular-vote system, what would we do about pluralities? If we had a runoff whenever there was no popular vote total over 50%, you probably wouldn't have had Bush, but you also almost certainly wouldn't have had Clinton, Woodrow Wilson, or Abe Lincoln (all of whom won when the other camp split their base). Not only does the EC work, it's amazing to me how well it has worked for so long.