 |
|
 PoliticsForum for discussing local and world politics and issues. All views are welcomed. Let your opinions be heard on current news and politics. All standard guidelines apply to this board, No Flaming, No Taunting, No Foul Language,No sexual innuendos,etc.. As politics can be a volatile subject, please consider how you would feel if your comment were directed toward yourself. Any post deemed to be in violation of guidelines will be deleted or edited without warning or notification. Any continued misbehavior will result in a ban or hidden status, so please play nice!!! *"Moderators are here for a reason. If a moderator (or Global Moderator or Fencer) requests that a discussion on a certain subject to cease - for whatever reason - please respect these wishes. Failure to do so may result in being hidden, or banned." You are not allowed to post messages to this board. Minimum level of membership required for posting on this board is Brain Pawn. Mode: Everyone can post
<< < 1 2 3 4 5 6 > >> 7. May 2009, 02:50:54 Subject: Re: Czuch  Artful Dodger: Actually, there's more.  The "Youth in Asia" was only a part of a discussion on medical ethics. Diapers on!  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UST26RjBXvo&feature=related 7. May 2009, 01:02:28 Subject: Re: Czuch 5. May 2009, 11:00:24 Aren't there some fellowships designated for flamewars? The "discussion" below has nothing to do with politics, let alone serious argumentation. 19. April 2009, 15:42:14 Subject: Re: Czuch: I don't quite understand what's so funny about it. 19. April 2009, 02:23:40 Subject: Re: 18. April 2009, 20:39:22 Subject: Re: Czuch: I admire your deduction abilities. You should be working for CIA as a clairvoyant. 18. April 2009, 20:28:11 Subject: Re: Czuch: OK, but who cares about your Police Country in this particular case. This happened in the UK, where non-compliance with a request of a police officer (no matter if the officer requests you to move faster or to jump out of a window or to quack while jumping on your left leg) is not a crime and it's not against the law. Why would he think about some twisted US laws when walking home from work? 18. April 2009, 19:07:19 Subject: Re: Modified by Pedro Martínez (18. April 2009, 19:08:03) Czuch: He was non compliant to a request from a police officer.... that is illegal That is illegal only in countries where the Police are above the law, just as (V) aptly pointed out. In democratic countries, however, even the Police have to obey the rules. 11. April 2009, 23:37:08 Subject: Re: Hooray for the Frency Artful Dodger: With the exception of the last sentence, I totally agree.  11. April 2009, 18:27:35 Subject: Re: Hooray for the Frency Artful Dodger: There is a comando group of sorts. It's called Combined Task Force 150. However, the take-no-prisoners approach is not feasible. International law, you know... :) But now when we have a US hostage, I can imagine a change in this respect - as the US has proven not to worry much about the international law in the past few years.  11. April 2009, 18:07:19 Subject: Re: Hooray for the Frency Modified by Pedro Martínez (11. April 2009, 18:09:11) Artful Dodger: Yes, they have. And I actually think the international forces (including the US) have been doing a good job fighting against them. There were victims, there were ransoms paid, but the number of successful pirate acts has a decreasing tendency. I especially welcomed the recent incident involving FGS Spessart. 11. April 2009, 16:32:00 Subject: Re: Hooray for the Frency Czuch: Well, they won't rescue the captain without talking to the pirates, I can tell you that. 11. April 2009, 16:30:55 Subject: Re: Hooray for the Frency Vikings: How about USS Cape St. George, USS Gonzalez, MV Seabourn Spirit (not a US-registered vessel, but owned by an American corporation) or MS Nautica (again, not registered in the US, but owned by a US-based corporation)? For further information on the Somali piracy problem, read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somali_piracy 11. April 2009, 14:41:27 Subject: Re: Hooray for the Frency Artful Dodger: Bush would NEVER have tolerated this crap! So you're saying the pirates were waiting for Obama to get elected. There had been no piracy off the Somali coast before . 7. April 2009, 22:53:08 Subject: Re: Bernice: I was thinking exactly the same thing. I have a 42-inch TV and my budget is nowhere close to hers. 7. April 2009, 16:35:44 Subject: Re: Czuch: Tell me how "ineffectual" the UN was in the Persian Gulf War or the Korean War. 2. April 2009, 21:20:58 Subject: Re: Thoughts on this? Artful Dodger: Shhh! They will ban you for posting names! 1. April 2009, 23:35:42 Subject: Re: got this in email today LOL Bernice: 26. March 2009, 23:52:38 Subject: Re: Modified by Pedro Martínez (26. March 2009, 23:56:37) (V): Sure, but what I mean is that if the anti-missile system is efficient as it should be, the EMP bomb would not even come close. But I might be wrong in this, as I'm no "bomb expert". :) 26. March 2009, 23:50:19 Subject: Re: The US economic policy is the road to hell." (V): I can imagine that could be the impression you had. I had quite the opposite feeling. The problem lies with the interpreters and translators in Strasbourg and Brussels. :) 26. March 2009, 23:45:11 Subject: Re: (V): True, but I guess it would not be so easy to deliver such EMP bomb to the radar site. 26. March 2009, 23:40:02 Subject: Re: The US economic policy is the road to hell." (V): I watched the speech live, and that was exactly what he said. Of course, some of his fellow partymen (like Vondra) tried to downplay the meaning of his words, being shocked by their openness and afraid of the consequences. And by the way, I don't see it as a blunder at all. That's just a wish of the socialists. 26. March 2009, 23:31:27 Subject: Re: Czuch: Some bunkhouses are actually being built here for operators of the American anti-missile radar, the construction of which will soon begin as well, so I'm sure you'd be more than welcome there. If you insist on a bunkhouse, that is...:)))26. March 2009, 03:20:26 Subject: Re: Czuch: That's not him, Chuck. :) The guy who's the avid fighter against the global warming hoax is Václav Klaus, the Czech President. 26. March 2009, 02:32:11 Warning! Quote follows! Read at your own risk! "The US economic policy is the road to hell." (Mirek Topolánek, Czech Prime Minister and EU President) Finally someone who said it loud. 11. March 2009, 16:41:40 Subject: Re: The Larger Issue Czuch: Điện Biên Phủ 7. March 2009, 04:52:22 Subject: Re: Bernice: "Canceled" (or "canceling", "cancelable", "canceler") is proper American spelling. The rest of the English-speaking world spells it with double L. 5. March 2009, 03:50:10 Subject: Re: buckaroos Tuesday: I'm afraid he's not kidding us indeed, read this. "$1.7 million for "Swine Odor and Manure Management Research" ...  5. March 2009, 03:30:08 Subject: Re: Tuesday: I'm not blaming your son for taking the money, I'm sure he's a good person (he's your son after all ), I'm blaming the government for giving it to him.5. March 2009, 03:27:04 Subject: Re: buckaroos Artful Dodger: Now it's you who's jesting, no doubt. 5. March 2009, 03:26:35 Subject: Re: Tuesday: I think it's just wasted money. Too few and too scattered to be able to help the plants reopen or to help corporations in general, yet too much if you count it altogether. I can imagine a number of better ways how to stimulate the economy. Bernice: I can agree with that. Wrong people, wrong reasons.  5. March 2009, 03:18:08 Subject: Re: Tuesday: Oh, I see. Not a good idea, if you asked me. :) 5. March 2009, 03:17:29 Subject: Re: buckaroos The Usurper: It's an awesome word. I had quite a blast when I first read it. :)) 5. March 2009, 03:14:01 Subject: Re: ScarletRose: OK, that I get, but how is the extra money a "stimulus"? A stimulus stimulates you to do something. This seems to me to be nothing more than just a generous gift from the government. 5. March 2009, 03:03:23 Subject: Re: Tuesday: I don't quite get the point of this stimulation. Will the extra 25 buckaroos (I love this word, thank you ) stimulate him to exercise more effort in finding a job?3. March 2009, 04:25:31 Subject: Re: anastasia: What is so confusing to me about it? Go back to my previous post. You might notice two words there that I, for some reason, wrote in bold. Now begin to ask yourself: "Why did he write them in bold?" and you may find the answer. 2. March 2009, 21:08:04 Subject: Re: anastasia: Yes, it IS your opinion, I do respect it, but I have every right to disagree and to let you know about it. As for the gender of your mother Earth, you keep confusing me. This is what you wrote: look at how the earh was BEFORE man had it's hand in destroying it..use to be a nice place untill we messed it all up 2. March 2009, 17:07:02 Subject: Re: anastasia: Move to Mars. Look how nice it (or is Mars "he"?) is without us. I'm sure you'd feel very comfortable there. No man around... what an awesome place to live. 25. February 2009, 02:45:54 Subject: Re: Tuesday: Try this or this one (the real Budweiser). Some of the best beer brands this Earth has ever seen. :) 25. February 2009, 02:34:01 Subject: Re: Tuesday: Yes, American beer IS quite disgusting. 20. February 2009, 14:11:17 Subject: Re: "free health care is a meaningless point" Modified by Pedro Martínez (20. February 2009, 14:11:37) Czuch: I've just had a good laugh over this post of yours, Chuck. Thanks for prolonging my life by a few minutes. 16. February 2009, 00:17:06 Subject: Re: Just to back up what Bwild said below about battered and abused men...... Bernice: Josef Stehlík, a Czech name, meaning Joseph the Goldfinch, LOL. 15. February 2009, 21:45:00 Subject: Re: Bernice: I'm not sure about the British laws but if that happened in this country, the girl would face a criminal charge for sexual abuse...:) 14. February 2009, 22:11:16 Subject: Re: I found this Modified by Pedro Martínez (14. February 2009, 22:12:13) Mousetrap: The most important part of the article: "The judgments of the courts have no basis in British law, and are therefore technically illegitimate - they are binding only in that those involved agree to comply." And I add: and will never have and will always be. 14. February 2009, 22:08:35 Subject: Re: Opress "GERRY": For the same reason women born in Peru and Australia do so. 14. February 2009, 22:03:05 Subject: Re: honor killings Mousetrap: That is certainly not true. 14. February 2009, 22:01:30 Subject: Re: Where's the irony? Artful Dodger: I think you're confusing two terms. Islam and Sharia. I believe most Muslims would condemn and do condemn such honor killings, and most Islamic countries have stopped pursuing the Sharia Law. Unfortunately, there are still lots of "conservative" and "traditionally" thinking people who think of those harsh punishments as the only way. 12. February 2009, 18:21:15 Subject: Re: Artful Dodger: There are a few conspiracy theories I do support (like this one). I believe it's not right to condemn a "theory" only because it's labeled a conspiracy one. The competent authorities should investigate every single possibility (in the case of conspiracies involving any criminal actions) and provide the results thereof. If they fail to do so, I think a common man has every right to believe that any such conspiracy theory might be true. 26. January 2009, 03:24:41 Subject: Re: Czuch: Of course, it is your right to challenge the correctness of the classification. I don't see any problem in that. If you do so, it's the State's job to prove that the classification is OK. I actually disagree that we have to agree that we disagree on the necessity of a new classification. We do agree on that! My point is that the new classification cannot be applied to people captured and detained before the adoption of such new classification. 26. January 2009, 03:13:48 Subject: Re: Even Though BBW won't respond, the idea that Bush lied is a radical left propaganda ploy Artful Dodger, Vikings: Good point. It would solve the problem indeed, but only temporarily (for reasons defined in the Third Geneva Convention) and they would have had to be given the POW status immediately after being captured. They can't be made POWs now, as they have already been interrogated. In my opinion, the best way out of this problem is to pass a constitutional-level law that would deal with these "enemy combatants". << < 1 2 3 4 5 6 > >> |
Date and time
Friends online
Favourite boards
Fellowships
Tip of the day
|
|
Copyright © 2002 - 2024 Filip Rachunek, all rights reserved. Back to the top |