I guess Bush got some scientists to claim that womens rights don't actually exist

[afronaut]

From the Metro:

"George Bush refused to sign a United Nations plan guaranteeing women's rights yesterday- despite it being backed by 250 world leaders.

The US was among 179 nations which originally backed the Cairo plan 10 years ago, which enshrines every woman's right to education, healthcare and to make choices about having a child.

It also includes a pledge to alleviate poverty and protect the environment. The new statement calls on nations to fund and implement those goals.

Among the 250 signatories are 85 heads of state and government leaders, including those from Europe, China, Japan, Indonesia, Pakistan and more than a dozen African countries.

Others to sign include 22 former world leaders, notably former US presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton plus 24 Nobel prize winners.

Since Mr bush became president in 2000, the US has refused to sign several treaties, including the 1997 Kyoto Protocol intended to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

Washington also refused to ratify the Comprehensive test ban treaty outlawing nuclear tests, and UN measures upholding children's rights and curbing the illegal weapons trade."


Wow, Bush sure is working to increase freedom across the world.

I mean, it sure is progressive to snub women's rights.

Oh, thats right, I almost forgot, "progressive" is a dirty word to Bush supporters. I mean, who wants societal progress towards a more equal, free, utopian global society? The only way I'll support those things is if we achieve them by violence!

[QueenAdrock]

God damn, I hate him.

[BlimpieBluffin]

I hope he gets assainated.

He can go live on a fucking farm in texas and ride horses and his wife with the help of viagra. He just shouldn't be in any political office whatsoever.

[infidel]

The bushites are anti-woman's rights for one reason, more newborns to pay off massive deficits.

Either that or they just can't shake off the taste for baby flesh.

[laserx54]

Just another reason to vote against this asshole


God, I hope he burns in hell

[100% ILL]

God damn, I hate him.


Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

Exodus 20:7

[Documad]

Makes complete sense to me. USA and Iran are about the only countries that execute juveniles, so who cares what moral values other countries value?

What I can't figure is that Bush is really proud of the fact that he ignores extremely popular worldwide platforms. During two of the debates he proudly stressed that Kerry would have the USA join the world court but HE would NEVER do that! First, I wondered why Bush thinks voters care about the world court. Second, I wondered whether this is just part of his pretending to be common and stupid--like continually pointing out that he loves crappy all-American food. (I know I'm in the minority, but I think he's smart and sincere in his beliefs--I just think his ideas are completely wrong and dangerous for me and my country).

And hasn't Bush continually pointed out how what we are doing in the mid east is in part to help the situation of women?

[Vladimir]

Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

Exodus 20:7

Now there's a contribution to the conversation. Good Work. (n)

Bush is such a hypocrite, it amazes me that he isn't called out on this stuff.

[ASsman]

Meh, good thing this is on the news and not Cheney's dike(or dyke?) daughter.

Next time post up a link to the article. :rolleyes:

[ProfJIM]

Well, I've been sitting on the fence, but this just pushed me onto Kerry's side.

[afronaut]

kinda funny how no bush supporters replied to this.

[100% ILL]

I would imagine that he didn't sign it because he doesn't support abortion or the politically correct "pro choice"

[little j]

there is more to womens rights than the right to abortion.

[100% ILL]

I see what you are saying...we all know Bush's stance on abortion...comes as no surprise.

But one should not use ther own personal agendas/beliefs when it comes to the civil liberties of over half the world's population. Drastic and wrong. (n)


How could you expect somone to turn agianst their beliefs to support something they feel is wrong or flawed? Convictions do not change with public opinion.

[Ace42]

They are not elected to further their own agenda, but to represent majority opinion, irrespective of their personal feelings.

[100% ILL]

They are not elected to further their own agenda, but to represent majority opinion, irrespective of their personal feelings.

Bush is a conservative. Conservatives as a general rule do not believe in abortion. So he represents the Conservative majority.

[QueenAdrock]

Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

Exodus 20:7

Bush isn't lord, you wacko.

Oh wait, you mean me saying "God damn". Well, next time you should be more god damn specific!

[Ace42]

Bush is a conservative. Conservatives as a general rule do not believe in abortion. So he represents the Conservative majority.

Until there is a fair and open referendum with 100% voter turnout, assuming that represents a majority view is close-minded in the extreme. If 90% of the country was pro-abortion, but were spread evenly between 12 different parties (7.5% each) - the 10% majority party would NOT mean that anti-abortionists were in the majority, and should NOT mean that the president is responsible for furthering interests of the 10% MINORITY.

And the fact that Bush is a conservative should not come into it. He might be a harmonica player, that doesn't mean that he has a responsibility to promote the use of harmonicas throughout America. If he removed all taxes on individuals who can play "hail to the chief" on the mouth-organ, that would not be "ok, because he is following his beliefs, and as he was elected the president, that makes it a majority belief"

I know that in your country, this is often what politics boils down to, but that is the failing of your system, not the core of it.

[100% ILL]

Bush isn't lord, you wacko.

Oh wait, you mean me saying "God damn". Well, next time you should be more god damn specific!


A wise man feareth, and departeth from evil: but the fool rageth and is confident.
Proverbs 14:16

Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O Lord, my strength and my redeemer.
Psalms 19:14

[100% ILL]

Excellent point, I'm sure you're right. I still don't believe in abortion though

[STANKY808]

A wise man feareth, and departeth from evil: but the fool rageth and is confident.
Proverbs 14:16

Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O Lord, my strength and my redeemer.
Psalms 19:14


BLAH BLAH FUCKIN' BLAH.

Take it elsewhere god-boy!

[100% ILL]

BLAH BLAH FUCKIN' BLAH.

Take it elsewhere god-boy!

Yes, I should go I suppose seeing as how your argument is so convincing.

*shudder*

[Ace42]

I think he meant you were totally off topic. There is a private-message feature for off-topic personal discourse.

[100% ILL]

I think he meant you were totally off topic. There is a private-message feature for off-topic personal discourse.

He doesn't accept private messages. I think he meant he needed a clear presentation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but I guess it doesn't matter what we think until he comes back with a response.

[ClifRa JOnes]

They are not elected to further their own agenda, but to represent majority opinion, irrespective of their personal feelings.

Go read the Constitution, this is not a democracy, majority rule does not exist here. They are not elected to represent the majority opinion and thank any gods you believe in that that is the case.

Example: Civil rights. the majority did not want blacks to have them but the majority in Congress (Republicans by the way)knew it was not only the right thing to do but the constitutional thing to do.

Be very careful what you ask for because some day you just might get it.

[Ace42]

I have read chunks of the constitution - to which point are you referring? Or is the US not a democracy when the democrats are not in power? However, considering you say the US is not a democracy (I certainly agree on that point) - what do you think gives the country the right to export democracy to the rest of the world? Doesn't that strike you as being more than a little hypocritical? What am I saying, of course it doesn't...

And by "majority" - the most represented people in the media seldom reflect a "majority"

[ClifRa JOnes]

Until there is a fair and open referendum with 100% voter turnout, assuming that represents a majority view is close-minded in the extreme. If 90% of the country was pro-abortion, but were spread evenly between 12 different parties (7.5% each) - the 10% majority party would NOT mean that anti-abortionists were in the majority, and should NOT mean that the president is responsible for furthering interests of the 10% MINORITY.

And the fact that Bush is a conservative should not come into it. He might be a harmonica player, that doesn't mean that he has a responsibility to promote the use of harmonicas throughout America. If he removed all taxes on individuals who can play "hail to the chief" on the mouth-organ, that would not be "ok, because he is following his beliefs, and as he was elected the president, that makes it a majority belief"

Fact is this issue is split 50-50 across the nation. A referendum would probably be so close that it would rival the 2000 election in terms of contraversy.

I personally think abortion is an abomination, not for religous reasons but for basic moral ones, BUT, it has been legal for going on 2 generations and when something is legal for a long time it is a very troubling prospect to make it illegal again no matter what the reasons. Planned Parenthood already has contingency plans for clandestine abortion clinics. What will we do create the Life Enforcement Agency(LEA)? Do we make criminals out of people who truly believe they have this right and have had it for 30+ years?

I hate this issue because it takes away from all the positives that the Republicans can bring to the America citizen.

Internationally this is just a stupid argument. Telling poor Africans that they have a choice of abstanance, birth control or abortion is fine by me. They are the ones who have to make the choice and live with it. Fact is, African men will not put a condom on to save themselves from AIDS were going to get women not to have sex or use the pill? Good luck.

Here is my take on the issue and I would love to see it on the next Republican platform.

Abortion is an abomination.
Abortion is legal in America and making it illegal is a very bad idea.
Propose funding to create safe, effective, permanant but reversable contraception.

If we can put a man on the moon with technology that by todays standards is no better than "stone knives and bear skins" we can solve this problem.

Oh, and yes, if welfare momma is pumping out puppies every 12 months she gets the shot or she loses her welfare AND her kids.


I know that in your country, this is often what politics boils down to, but that is the failing of your system, not the core of it.

Oh yes, and parlamentary democracies are just so great. At least some nutcases can't completely take over our government with a minority in parlament like the Nazis did in Germany and the Facists in Italy. Look at Isreal where Sharon has to make nice to the Religous cooks just to form a government. In our country unless you have a majority in the House and 60 votes in the Senate and the White House you cannot dictate policy. The opposition can stifle any measure in the Senate as we have seen the Democrats to the last 4 years. That's not a slam on the Democrats, they have very right to do this (except with judges because that is unconstitutional).

[Ace42]

Oh yes, and parlamentary democracies are just so great. At least some nutcases can't completely take over our government with a minority

What about a minority of one man? George Bush. He wasn't even properly elected FFS. He has engaged in a war that is against international and US law. The guy is a moron, he talks gibberish frequently. You shouldn't criticise superior systems of government, Mr Glass-house man.

Look at Isreal where Sharon has to make nice to the Religous cooks just to form a government.

The holy order of the wooden ladle? I heard they are among the world's most progressive chefs.

In our country unless you have a majority in the House and 60 votes in the Senate and the White House you cannot dictate policy.

Unless you disregard all your laws and fundamental constitutional obligations, in which case it is a piece of piss and happens all the time.

11. President Bush usurped the Constitutional power of Congress as a means of securing power to commit crimes against peace, war crimes, and other high crimes. (...) The conduct violates the Constitution and laws of the United States, all committed to engage in the other impeachable offenses set forth in this Complaint.

http://www.deoxy.org/wc/warcrim2.htm#11

The opposition can stifle any measure in the Senate as we have seen the Democrats to the last 4 years. That's not a slam on the Democrats, they have very right to do this (except with judges because that is unconstitutional).

And the fact that they have failed to protect the fundamental laws of the US is not slam worthy? Like all American politics - it is a nice STORY. But in actual fact, it is all mouth and no trousers. Yes if your government actually followed (instead of ignoring and rewriting) the constitition you might have a point.

But, you don't.