Very interesting discussions on world events and recent history. My only comment is the hope that one would try for brevity. Perhaps one would consider not discussing multiple subjects in a single post. Returning to the main thread; The Constitution of the United States.Question: How many amendments to the Constitution focus upon a person's "Rights"?Hint: The answer is not ten.
8 out of 27?
Very interesting discussions on world events and recent history. My only comment is the hope that one would try for brevity. Perhaps one would consider not discussing multiple subjects in a single post. Returning to the main thread; The Constitution of the United States.Question: How many amendments to the Constitution focus upon a person's "Rights"?Hint: The answer is not ten.
8 out of 27?
Interesting but not right. Most people automatically answer 10, which is not correct, but you eliminated 2 of the 10. Which two do you feel do not refer to "Rights"?
Very interesting discussions on world events and recent history. My only comment is the hope that one would try for brevity. Perhaps one would consider not discussing multiple subjects in a single post. Returning to the main thread; The Constitution of the United States.Question: How many amendments to the Constitution focus upon a person's "Rights"?Hint: The answer is not ten.
8 out of 27?
Interesting but not right. Most people automatically answer 10, which is not correct, but you eliminated 2 of the 10. Which two do you feel do not refer to "Rights"?
1. Amendment 1-"right of the people to peaceably assemble"
2. Amendment 2-"right of the people to keep and bear arms"
3. Amendment 4- "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses...."
4. Amendment 6- "right to speedy and public trial"
5. Amendment 7- In suits at common law..."right of trial by jury shall be preserved"
6. Amendment 14- "right" of male inhabitant to vote for choice of electors for Pres and VP
7. Amendment 15- "right of citizens"...to vote not abridged on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude
8. Amendment 19-"right of citizens" to vote not denied/abridged on account of sex
9. Amendment 24-"right of citizens" to vote for Pres/VP/electors/Senator/Rep not denied/abridged for failure to pay poll or other tax
10. Amendment 26-"right of citizens" 18 or older to vote
That was out of all amendments, not just the Bill of Rights. If looking at the Bill of Rights, that number would become 5 that are specifically mentioned.
I did read it, I just skimmed over some of the minutia-the details of the Iran-Iraq war. Due to the length, I'm guessing a lot of people, as you wrote, zoned out.Things that happened between 1945 & 1990 must be viewed in the context of the Cold War and the implications that Communist rule would have over the world. To view those actions in the context of the post-Cold War era, rather than in their true context is intellectually dishonest; it;s just a diversion from dealing with realities of the world we now live in.Did the USA deal with dirty players? Yes, of course we did. Did we seek to assure that we were a dominant player over the Soviets? Absolutely. Have we always preached the benefits of freedom? Yes. But it is silly to assume that we can either force all of the dictatorships in the world to be democracies, or not deal with them at all and the Communists would play fair or stay away. That wasn't the realities of the world.
Except that the Cold War was really a hoax invented by the Anglo-US axis to stifle Russia, exert US control over western Europe and keep Germany divided and conquered. In other words the US (and its British cohorts) were the aggressors.
The "international communist conspiracy" never was. Just like there is no international islamic terrorist conspiracy today.
I never really understood the fixation with Communism otherwise. Communism is so 50 years ago. Now, it's "Islamic terrorist", or should I say, "Islamofascist"....
after NATO killed 50,000 Libyans to overthrow a government that it didn't like. In the process destroying Africa's wealthiest country and empowering Salaffist mercenaries on its payroll.History doesn't start just when you want it to.
May also depend on who was behind the bombing (either former Libyan govt/sympathizers, or Muslim extremists)...Were there any new leads in that?
We do have to keep in mind the outcomes of a Danish cartoon of Muhammad, along with this film. Then there was a French cartoon of Muhammad that brought some issues.
So it's the free expression of ideas and opinions that is to blame for terrorist activity? Really?
Everyone should adjust their actions so that nobody offends Islam?I never said that, but just implying that these things may not have helped when it came to the bombings. Let's not complain of others twisting words, and then do the same, since I've never spoken of my feelings/thoughts toward freedom of expression and possible causes of terrorist activity. I do NOT condone such an outburst, while at the same time I understand the impact that it will have. In short, no, actions shouldn't be adjusted. I may go ahead and watch this film and see what was being said and how these things were presented.
DJ,I'm not trying to twist your words-but look at how you structured them. Mine is a logical conclusion. Especially in light of the way some people tend to place blame.
"No Islamist conspiracy....so our embassies in Libya and Egypt were attacked on the same day-just by sheer coincidence? Oh-yes, it was because of a movie trailer on Youtube that had 300 views before the Obama administration began to promote it.
Have you ever heard of al Qaida? What are they? Freedom fighters? Just a happy band of Gypsies saving the world from oppression?"
"We do have to keep in mind the outcomes of a Danish cartoon of Muhammad, along with this film. Then there was a French cartoon of Muhammad that brought some issues."
I was bringing this up because of the coincidence part. There were several protests going on at that time in places, and these alone couldn't be coincidence. On the same note, what happened in Libya may have been connected to the film. It is possible, so I can't rule it out. There's also that animosity over the US involvement, which is why I had also brought up the possibility of former Libyan govt/sympathizers/extremists in another post.
"Al Qaeda" has been decimated by the Obama administration. Most of their leaders killed and gone to ground. Something Bush couldn't or wouldn't do. But I'm sure that Bruce would never acknowledge that fact. The contempt, disdain, and superior attitude that he maintains when he is seriously intellectually out-gunned seems to me the height of irony. Like a smug, small town librarian.
Actions
Back to TopicsReply to TopicShare this topic
Get paid just by sending us users/traffic.
Signup takes seconds, start now!
Signup as an affiliate!