PDA

View Full Version : US Endorses UN Gay Rights Text


Phlip
19-03-09, 10:50
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090318/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_gay_rights :jmp:

WASHINGTON – The Obama administration on Wednesday formally endorsed a U.N. statement calling for the worldwide decriminalization of homosexuality, a measure that former President George W. Bush had refused to sign.

The move was the administration's latest in reversing Bush-era decisions that have been heavily criticized by human rights and other groups. The United States was the only western nation not to sign onto the declaration when it came up at the U.N. General Assembly in December.

Voni
19-03-09, 10:53
YAY! And about bloody time too!

Johnnay
19-03-09, 11:01
so bascially anyone can marry same sex couples in the US now am i right or wrong about it

Punaxe
19-03-09, 11:04
What does this mean to the Californian ban?

raiderfun
19-03-09, 11:55
Congratulations to Americans then ;)

EmeraldFields
19-03-09, 12:28
Yay!:D

Progress!

Jo269976
19-03-09, 12:46
Ahh doesn't it feel good to have news about improvement from a president who deserves the title, unlike that other braindead monkey....

irjudd
19-03-09, 13:01
Interesting.

Elmer
19-03-09, 13:57
Yay!:) Great.
Down with intolerance!

interstellardave
19-03-09, 14:20
I don't know why GW didn't sign this... but, for the same reason, it's also next to meaningless that Obama did sign it. Homosexuality is not illegal in the US, so what does his opinion mean in regards to places in the world where it may be? Those countries are the offenders here.

Or am I missing something?

Nefertiti_89
19-03-09, 14:22
About bloody time!! :D

Nice to see America is finally getting its act together!

Andyroo
19-03-09, 14:46
X2 Nefertiti

Neteru
19-03-09, 14:48
I don't know why GW didn't sign this... but, for the same reason, it's also next to meaningless that Obama did sign it. Homosexuality is not illegal in the US, so what does his opinion mean in regards to places in the world where it may be? Those countries are the offenders here.

Or am I missing something?I think, Dave, as a unified, international stance it gives a stronger message to those countries who do not subscribe.

Draco
19-03-09, 14:48
Symbolic gesture, nothing more.

Mr.Burns
19-03-09, 14:48
It's symbolic more than anything. Regarding the right for homosexuals to marry, that's decided at the state level, not the federal.

violentblossom
19-03-09, 14:51
I love my new president. :hug:

Orionvalentine
19-03-09, 15:55
Yay! This is great news!

*Dances* I LOVE Obama!

TRhalloween
19-03-09, 16:00
Not sure if it really means anything but I guess I'm pleased. It's a symbolic thing, I suppose :)

rowanlim
19-03-09, 16:05
What does this mean to the Californian ban?

I think the answer is this:

It's symbolic more than anything. Regarding the right for homosexuals to marry, that's decided at the state level, not the federal.

Symbolic gesture, nothing more.

A symbolic gesture that means a lot, don't you think? :)

*I ain't chiding you :hug:

This is good news :tmb:

Forwen
19-03-09, 16:40
U who?

takamotosan
19-03-09, 16:43
This statement has nothing to do with marriage.
It's simply suggesting that gays not be bludgeoned to death for being gay.
And even at that, like Mr. Burns said, it's only symbolic. The U.N. doesn't actually have the power to control anything. They just set an example.

IceColdLaraCroft
19-03-09, 17:06
Yay! :)

TRfan23
19-03-09, 17:38
That's great :)

I'm a bit surprised George Bush didn't agree with it? Even though he was a complete idiot. I thought he supported LGBT rights? :confused:

Mad Tony
19-03-09, 17:50
I don't know why GW didn't sign this... but, for the same reason, it's also next to meaningless that Obama did sign it. Homosexuality is not illegal in the US, so what does his opinion mean in regards to places in the world where it may be? Those countries are the offenders here.

Or am I missing something?I agree. I don't really see the point in it really. What good is it when all of the countries who have signed it don't treat homosexuals as criminals anyway? I doubt this is gonna make countries like Saudi Arabia or Iran decriminalize homosexuality. As people have already said, it's merely symbolic.

Phys
19-03-09, 17:51
Awesome news :D

Mona Sax
19-03-09, 17:52
I thought he supported LGBT rights? :confused:
I wouldn't put it that way... more like 'couldn't afford to oppose them openly'. I couldn't mention a single thing Dubya has done for the LGBT community.

violentblossom
19-03-09, 17:55
I agree. I don't really see the point in it really. What good is it when all of the countries who have signed it don't treat homosexuals as criminals anyway? I doubt this is gonna make countries like Saudi Arabia or Iran decriminalize homosexuality. As people have already said, it's merely symbolic.

i agree. its setting an example, really, something like two parents showing a child how to share by doing it to one another openly and in front of the kid.

i'm still glad it was done, though.

Edsta
19-03-09, 18:04
The US still holds their "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" bull:cen: for the military.
Sort it out Obama.

violentblossom
19-03-09, 18:17
The US still holds their "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" bull:cen: for the military.
Sort it out Obama.

what has that got to do with this?

Orionvalentine
19-03-09, 18:18
what has that got to do with this?

Are you being serious? This is a thread about gay rights, don't gay people that want to be in the army get to be themselves?

violentblossom
19-03-09, 18:20
Are you being serious? This is a thread about gay rights, don't gay people that want to be in the army get to be themselves?

when he was talking about "don't ask, don't tell" i thought he meant the torture thing.

it was a misunderstanding, and i was asking him to clarify.

rude, much?

irjudd
19-03-09, 18:43
It's okay violentblossom, I'd rather not ask or be told either. :p

Edsta
19-03-09, 18:51
what has that got to do with this?

when he was talking about "don't ask, don't tell" i thought he meant the torture thing.

it was a misunderstanding, and i was asking him to clarify.


Torture thing?
Anyway what I meant before is that this news means nothing when America is still very much anti-gay. The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is just one example of this. In other words, Europe for the win. :D

Mad Tony
19-03-09, 18:54
Torture thing?
Anyway what I meant before is that this news means nothing when America is still very much anti-gay. The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is just one example of this. In other words, Europe for the win. :D:rolleyes:

Don't you mean, the government is very much anti-gay? Just because the government passes a law doesn't mean the people are for it. Besides, I wouldn't say they're anti-gay, just not pro-gay. Judging from this forum, Americans are quite the opposite. I know that's only a small selection of people but then again so is the government.

violentblossom
19-03-09, 18:55
Torture thing?
Anyway what I meant before is that this news means nothing when America is still very much anti-gay. The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is just one example of this. In other words, Europe for the win. :D

yes, torture is very "don't ask, don't tell" for America.

EDIT: AGREED, Mad Tony. I'm American and VERY pro-gay/lesbian/bi/transsexual.

Orionvalentine
19-03-09, 18:56
when he was talking about "don't ask, don't tell" i thought he meant the torture thing.

it was a misunderstanding, and i was asking him to clarify.

rude, much?

I wasn't being rude :o I'm sorry if it came across that way, I tend to do that a lot without realizing.

violentblossom
19-03-09, 18:57
I wasn't being rude :o I'm sorry if it came across that way, I tend to do that a lot without realizing.

don't we all sometimes? :hug:

SpArKy
19-03-09, 19:00
LOL just show's how far behind the states still...and will be for many years to come.

Mad Tony
19-03-09, 19:02
:rolleyes:

Don't you mean, the government is very much anti-gay? Just because the government passes a law doesn't mean the people are for it. Besides, I wouldn't say they're anti-gay, just not pro-gay. Judging from this forum, Americans are quite the opposite. I know that's only a small selection of people but then again so is the government.

LOL just show's how far behind the states still...and will be for many years to come.As I said, just because the government may not appear to be in favor of gay rights, that does not mean the people aren't.

When it comes to gay rights, the US as a whole is still ahead of all but a few of the world's countries.

Edsta
19-03-09, 19:03
Don't you mean, the government is very much anti-gay?

Yes.

Don't nitpick my posts. I did mean that :p

I'm having to clarify everything today.
Last time I post after revising all night. :)

TRfan23
19-03-09, 19:17
I looked on google awhile back, and found out that Britain is by far accepting LGBT's more then another two countries. One included Canada, but I can't find the source :(

EDIT:- I found something else which is interesting - http://news.scotsman.com/scotland/Homosexuality-ban-39no-reason-for.4582179.jp

SpArKy
19-03-09, 19:51
Well I would say London is, but not Britain.

The thing is, most British people including myself are very outspoken and don't really care. Too busy getting drunk and having laugh.

Atlantisfreak666
19-03-09, 19:56
Woooo! Obama rules!
:hug:

Bush sucks.

SamReeves
19-03-09, 20:00
Woooo! Obama rules!
:hug:

Bush sucks.

And don't ask, don't tell was developed by President Bill Clinton. :whi:

Where's the hatin' on Bill? :pi:

takamotosan
19-03-09, 20:13
And don't ask, don't tell was developed by President Bill Clinton. :whi:

Where's the hatin' on Bill? :pi:

Clinton did that as a compromise between pro and anti-gay factions.

Mad Tony
19-03-09, 20:19
I don't think it is, time will tell over the next decade.Some states have legalized civil unions for gay couples, that's much more than the most of the other countries in the world have done. Of course, this doesn't mean the US is a haven for homosexuals, but it isn't exactly behind most of the world either. Again though, this is to do with the government, not public opinion.

@Sam: He's a Democrat. Immune from criticism. :p

Reggie
19-03-09, 20:25
Rights are all very well but discrimination and bullying fuelled by homophobia still very much exists in those countries that have signed this rights bill except the Government no longer condones it by law (like my country the UK). Add on the fact that no countries where it is still illegal have signed this and it all becomes rather useless in the grand scheme of things.

SamReeves
19-03-09, 20:26
@Sam: He's a Democrat. Immune from criticism. :p

Oh pardon me! W upheld a Clinton doctrine. :whi:

Gladous
19-03-09, 21:36
Now he needs to fix the economy and the war in Iraq and several other things and we would be a pretty good country now! :whi:

Good job, Obama! :tmb: :D

raiderfun
19-03-09, 22:19
Well I would say London is, but not Britain.

The thing is, most British people including myself are very outspoken and don't really care. Too busy getting drunk and having laugh.

Well, your post made my day :vlol:

Now he needs to fix the economy and the war in Iraq and several other things and we would be a pretty good country now! :whi:

Good job, Obama! :tmb: :D

+1 :tmb:

Kittypower
19-03-09, 23:30
Oh pardon me! W upheld a Clinton doctrine. :whi:

at least it was better than what was in place before hand. Also, i do believe that bush did absolutely nothing to assist the gay and lesbian community.

knightgames
20-03-09, 00:36
at least it was better than what was in place before hand. Also, i do believe that bush did absolutely nothing to assist the gay and lesbian community.


The problem with the legislation (or lack of prior to Clinton) was the risk of personal attack against those who are gay. Don't ask, don't tell was a veil of anonimity to protect G/L servicemen from reprisal by their fellow soldiers.

No legislation will EVER really protect anyone. If that were the case there'd be no murders. You could legislate peoples feelings and morals and the world would be a better place.

But the fly in the ointment is that you CAN'T legislate morals or feelings in regard to social rights. It doesn't work like that. There will always be folks who are disgusted at homosexuality. Even in enlightened countries like the very ones who bash the U.S. in these forums have these idiots too.... so in essense we're ALL in the same canoe.

Signing the text sure feels good. pffffffft. But then again that blood pact I took with my buddy at 8 years old felt pretty good too.

Bush didn't DO anything for the GLBT community because those are STATE level decisions. That's why Massachusetts has gay marriage and not California. The people (no matter how ignorant or enlightened) voted it in or out. The office of the presidency ISN'T designed for such declarations.

So blaming Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Carter et al is useless.

AmericanAssassin
20-03-09, 03:14
This doesn't seem like it's going to make much of a difference, but I suppose it's a postive thing. I'm very supportive of gay rights. :tmb:

violentblossom
20-03-09, 03:18
Bush didn't DO anything for the GLBT community because those are STATE level decisions. That's why Massachusetts has gay marriage and not California. The people (no matter how ignorant or enlightened) voted it in or out. The office of the presidency ISN'T designed for such declarations.


Well, Bush just didn't seem to care for the GLBT community anyway just because of who he was.

Southerners are always slow to tolerance.

larafan25
20-03-09, 03:19
hmm...just wondering:)

but where exactly can gay people marry???


:)

knightgames
20-03-09, 03:21
Well, Bush just didn't seem to care for the GLBT community anyway just because of who he was.

Southerners are always slow to tolerance.


nevermind. I'm just floored at that answer. Seriously.

violentblossom
20-03-09, 03:22
Seriously? That's your answer? Stupid AND ignorant.

lmao.

i'm not saying that's why Bush was that way.. the second part was just an observation.

i'm southern, i'd know.

i'm sorry, i should have made that more clear.. don't pick me apart, *sigh*, i'm too tired to explain my statement.. i just observed Bush's comments on alot of things over time.. that's just him.

larafan25
20-03-09, 03:23
^I don't think they are trying to be prejaduce(sorry can't spell)

maybe just refering to the way things have been in the past ya know:)

violentblossom
20-03-09, 03:24
^I don't think they are trying to be prejaduce(sorry can't spell)

maybe just refering to the way things have been in the past ya know:)

exactly. :tmb:

knightgames
20-03-09, 03:25
hmm...just wondering:)

but where exactly can gay people marry???


:)


In the U.S.? Massachusetts, and Connecticut.

knightgames
20-03-09, 03:26
lmao.

i'm not saying that's why Bush was that way.. the second part was just an observation.

i'm southern, i'd know.

i'm sorry, i should have made that more clear.. don't pick me apart, *sigh*, i'm too tired to explain my statement.. i just observed Bush's comments on alot of things over time.. that's just him.

It's all good. I know this is a hot topic, and discussion forums sometimes lose stuff in the translation. :)



d'oh I didn't change my previous post fast enough. You weren't meant to see that. sorry?

larafan25
20-03-09, 03:26
what???^

sorry I don't understand:)

nevermind;)

violentblossom
20-03-09, 03:28
It's all good. I know this is a hot topic, and discussion forums sometimes lose stuff in the translation. :)

yeah, i know. don't worry about it, lol.

i should have read over my statement beforehand.

let's just say that Bush didn't get a lot of things right, much less break ground in the way of building bridges.

knightgames
20-03-09, 03:31
yeah, i know. don't worry about it, lol.

i should have read over my statement beforehand.

let's just say that Bush didn't get a lot of things right, much less break ground in the way of building bridges.


Even I can admit that to an extent. Onward to better things. We deserve it, I say!

larafan25
20-03-09, 03:32
Obama FTW!!1

I think he will do good things,and this is 1 of them:)

scoopy_loopy
20-03-09, 10:35
I find it funny that Australia signed it when it was originally proposed, considering homosexuality was still a crime in Tasmania as late as the 90's....

Wether it the law was enforced, I dont know.

The_Underworld
20-03-09, 17:57
http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/11/8/128706816411095218.jpg

Mad Tony
20-03-09, 18:31
Surely this thread should be about praising Obama and not about bashing Bush?

violentblossom
20-03-09, 18:31
Surely this thread should be about praising Obama and not about bashing Bush?

that's true.

The_Underworld
20-03-09, 18:33
Ok, ok, ok. But I have a feeling that Obama will be a great President

Mad Tony
20-03-09, 18:37
Ok, ok, ok. But I have a feeling that Obama will be a great Priminister:)President :p

To be honest I think it's too early to call. I don't like the man or his policies, but I still don't have an opinion on his presidency because he only took office two months ago.

The_Underworld
20-03-09, 18:56
President :p

To be honest I think it's too early to call. I don't like the man or his policies, but I still don't have an opinion on his presidency because he only took office two months ago.
Facepalm

I have a feeling that he will be a good President. But it's just a feeling:)

SamReeves
20-03-09, 19:43
Facepalm

I have a feeling that he will be a good President. But it's just a feeling:)

The guy's been a disaster so far. Look at his appointees. Half of them had problems with the law, and the ones that are there like Geithner are liars. He knew all about AIG and its bonuses.

Point is while Rome burns, Obama is busy getting his ego stroked on Jay Leno.

*ugh*

Mad Tony
20-03-09, 19:45
Give it time Sam. Hopefully after a while all this Obamania will fizzle down.

SamReeves
20-03-09, 19:48
Give it time Sam. Hopefully after a while all this Obamania will fizzle down.

I'm not giving him an inch. Most people's wealth has been cut in half thanks to the declines in the stock market and in home equity. This has been worsening on Obama's watch. Those who continue to blame Bush are in denial…because Bush is no longer President! :hea:

violentblossom
20-03-09, 20:16
I'm not giving him an inch. Most people's wealth has been cut in half thanks to the declines in the stock market and in home equity. This has been worsening on Obama's watch. Those who continue to blame Bush are in denial…because Bush is no longer President! :hea:

it has to get worse before it gets better.

the stimulus hasn't even come out yet.

Reggie
20-03-09, 21:54
I've already passed comment on the issue of this rights business but seeing as we're on the subject Obama here's my stance:

He's a well intentioned guy who wants to change the world for the better but in reality, he is not the first president to want the same as him is he? Don't get me wrong, I think he's a good thing for America BUT everyone all over the world are putting way too much faith in him. They believe he's some kind of saint who can't do any wrong. He's above media critcism and its seen as uncool to not share in this 'Obama mania'. This is just wrong and its a very unhealthy attitude to take.
For the record, I was quite keen on McCain before he bottled out and went for Sarah Palin so I then supported Obama in a desire to see Palin kept out and also the general Republican campaign was beginning to seriously lose steam towards the end anyway.

That was then and this is now and I'm beginning to see a pattern with Obama, he's seems to be a media President with little substance. He seems to do all his work in front of the cameras and we're all to be made aware of every single little thing he's been up to and then encouraged to praise it all as if its faultless. It feels almost like propaganda sometimes. He may have power over the people but who's really calling the shots behind the scenes? After the Jay Leno thing, my doubts are certainly growing about Barrack Obama. I hope I'm wrong though.

Mad Tony
20-03-09, 21:56
Very good post Reggie, I pretty much agree with you there. He seems like of a celebrity more than a leader. You're probably the first person from the UK (bar one of my friends) I've seen criticize Obama.

Ward Dragon
20-03-09, 22:14
I don't know why GW didn't sign this... but, for the same reason, it's also next to meaningless that Obama did sign it. Homosexuality is not illegal in the US, so what does his opinion mean in regards to places in the world where it may be? Those countries are the offenders here.

Or am I missing something?

I was under the impression that Bush didn't sign it because it is a meaningless symbol with no way to actually enforce gay people's right to live.

I think this text is totally pointless. What needs to happen (but never will happen :rolleyes:) is that the UN must clean up its act and actually act like a government with the means to enforce human rights legislation in countries that violate people's right to live. If people are getting murdered and the country's government doesn't do anything about it (or is even participating in the murder) then the UN needs to be able to take over and fix it. That's the only way some of these countries will be prevented from allowing mass murder to take place.

The UN should be a central government with the countries retaining their autonomy unless they fail to uphold a Bill of Rights for all people. Kind of like how the US government interacts with the states, although the central UN government should only have very limited jurisdiction (so should the US central government for that matter...)

violentblossom
20-03-09, 22:15
I'm for him. While i can agree that the hype is a little extreme, you cannot blame us Americans for clinging to the tiny bit of hope that this man represents.

As things stand, i don't think i'll ever be able to do things like go to college, send my daughter to college or get married, and that really sucks.

I really hope this man can straighten things out, or else were doomed.

Ward Dragon
20-03-09, 22:23
I really hope this man can straighten things out, or else were doomed.

I'm very skeptical right now. This whole "stimulus" bill and the bailout were a complete mistake, the exact opposite of what needed to be done. For example this AIG thing -- ordinarily a company like AIG would go bankrupt and then the courts would decide which contracts / debts are the priority and thus which ones get paid off with AIG's remaining assets. Instead, the government pumped millions of dollars into AIG and then passed a law saying that all contracts prior to a certain date must be honored. Therefore AIG is not allowed to declare bankruptcy (they have too much money) and they are legally forced to pay off those million dollar bonuses (the contracts were written prior to the date that Congress specified). Congress should have just stayed out of it, let the company go bankrupt, and then let the courts hash out who gets what. I don't want the government taking my tax money and giving it to incompetent companies like that :hea:

rickybazire
20-03-09, 23:12
Fantastic! I seriously can't see anything wrong with homosexuality.

EmeraldFields
20-03-09, 23:16
I was under the impression that Bush didn't sign it because it is a meaningless symbol with no way to actually enforce gay people's right to live.

I think this text is totally pointless. What needs to happen (but never will happen :rolleyes:) is that the UN must clean up its act and actually act like a government with the means to enforce human rights legislation in countries that violate people's right to live. If people are getting murdered and the country's government doesn't do anything about it (or is even participating in the murder) then the UN needs to be able to take over and fix it. That's the only way some of these countries will be prevented from allowing mass murder to take place.

The UN should be a central government with the countries retaining their autonomy unless they fail to uphold a Bill of Rights for all people. Kind of like how the US government interacts with the states, although the central UN government should only have very limited jurisdiction (so should the US central government for that matter...)

Isn't that why we didn't join the League of Nations? The US didn't want to have to answer to anyone else or have to go fight a war because the UN said so.

Joely-Moley
20-03-09, 23:32
He's a well intentioned guy who wants to change the world for the better but in reality, he is not the first president to want the same as him is he? Don't get me wrong, I think he's a good thing for America BUT everyone all over the world are putting way too much faith in him. They believe he's some kind of saint who can't do any wrong. He's above media critcism and its seen as uncool to not share in this 'Obama mania'. This is just wrong and its a very unhealthy attitude to take.
For the record, I was quite keen on McCain before he bottled out and went for Sarah Palin so I then supported Obama in a desire to see Palin kept out and also the general Republican campaign was beginning to seriously lose steam towards the end anyway.

That was then and this is now and I'm beginning to see a pattern with Obama, he's seems to be a media President with little substance. He seems to do all his work in front of the cameras and we're all to be made aware of every single little thing he's been up to and then encouraged to praise it all as if its faultless. It feels almost like propaganda sometimes. He may have power over the people but who's really calling the shots behind the scenes? After the Jay Leno thing, my doubts are certainly growing about Barrack Obama. I hope I'm wrong though.

Great post, Reggie. I agree completely. I really don't think Obama is going to change that much and people look at him as if he is the messiah or something. Like he's going to save the world. I just don't see it happening.
I believe he wants what's best, but saying great things and doing great things are two completely different things.

Ward Dragon
21-03-09, 01:01
Isn't that why we didn't join the League of Nations? The US didn't want to have to answer to anyone else or have to go fight a war because the UN said so.

Like I said, it's never going to happen, but that's the only way the UN will ever actually mean something. As it is right now, the UN is impotent and powerless to stop all of the genocides that are occurring in the world :(

EmeraldFields
21-03-09, 01:31
Like I said, it's never going to happen, but that's the only way the UN will ever actually mean something. As it is right now, the UN is impotent and powerless to stop all of the genocides that are occurring in the world :(

Yeah, I'm with you it's just that it seems the US never wants to get down off it's high horse to help those in need.

Ward Dragon
21-03-09, 01:48
Yeah, I'm with you it's just that it seems the US never wants to get down off it's high horse to help those in need.

I wouldn't go that far. We spend billions of dollars on charities and the like to help those in need. It's more like the US is afraid to lose sovereignty to anyone else, much less an organization like the UN which has demonstrated its corruption and inability to handle crises.

It's like a catch-22: the UN needs to actually amount to something before the US might trust its judgment enough to agree to give up authority to it, but the UN can't amount to anything without that support. As it is right now, several countries have individual veto power in the UN (not just the US) and between all of the different conflicts of interest, there's always going to be someone who blocks whatever the UN is trying to accomplish.

I think the UN needs to have a clear Bill of Rights for all individual people and the ability to enforce those rights by force if necessary. But, other than enforcing those rights, the UN should not be able to interfere with any country's choices, culture, policies, etc. I still don't think this version of the UN would make it past the veto stage (for example I doubt China wants to be scrutinized for human rights violations and they've got the military power to resist it if the veto doesn't work). But in theory I think that's the way to go if someone could figure out how to implement it.

EmeraldFields
21-03-09, 01:50
If only you were the head of the UN!:p

Ward Dragon
21-03-09, 01:53
If only you were the head of the UN!:p

Thanks :hug: So I can count on your vote then? :pi: :p

EmeraldFields
21-03-09, 01:53
Thanks :hug: So I can count on your vote then? :pi: :p

You're a little too conservative on some issues for me, but I'd trust you!:tmb:

:hug:

Ward Dragon
21-03-09, 01:55
You're a little too conservative on some issues for me, but I'd trust you!:tmb:

:hug:

Thanks :hug: I'm mostly conservative on economic issues. I'm very libertarian on social issues.

irjudd
21-03-09, 01:55
^ Yes you would make a great librarian!

Ward Dragon
21-03-09, 01:56
^ Yes you would make a great librarian!

How did you know I volunteered in the library during high school? I know the Dewey Decimal system inside and out :pi:

EmeraldFields
21-03-09, 01:57
Thanks :hug: I'm mostly conservative on economic issues. I'm very libertarian on social issues.

Yep, while I don't agree with where the bailout money is going, I do support it.

irjudd
21-03-09, 01:57
Library stalkers :pi:

Ward Dragon
21-03-09, 02:07
Yep, while I don't agree with where the bailout money is going, I do support it.

I don't like the idea of a bailout in theory, but I would be okay with it if the money was actually being spent wisely. Instead I've gotten the impression that Congress has no clue what they are doing while the companies are just asking for whatever they can get away with. I'm just sickened with the way this whole thing has played out. There's too much politics and not enough common sense. The Senators weren't even given time to read most of the stuff they had to vote on. There's something seriously wrong when people are voting for something so important and they haven't even read it yet.

Library stalkers :pi:

So where do I file you? In the DVD section under "The Matrix" or in the biography section under "Keanu Reeves"? :pi:

EmeraldFields
21-03-09, 02:11
I don't like the idea of a bailout in theory, but I would be okay with it if the money was actually being spent wisely. Instead I've gotten the impression that Congress has no clue what they are doing while the companies are just asking for whatever they can get away with. I'm just sickened with the way this whole thing has played out. There's too much politics and not enough common sense. The Senators weren't even given time to read most of the stuff they had to vote on. There's something seriously wrong when people are voting for something so important and they haven't even read it yet.

:tmb:

We actually just finished our WWII section in my AP US History class and the debt spending that was done during WWII is what got us out of the Great Depression. Except they handled it a lot better back then.

Ward Dragon
21-03-09, 02:14
:tmb:

We actually just finished our WWII section in my AP US History class and the debt spending that was done during WWII is what got us out of the Great Depression. Except they handled it a lot better back then.

Yes, right before and during WWII the government spent a ton of money on defense and building up the military, which created a lot of jobs. I don't know how well that would work now though. I'd rather live with a recession than see WWIII :o

irjudd
21-03-09, 02:15
So where do I file you? In the DVD section under "The Matrix" or in the biography section under "Keanu Reeves"? :pi:
Adult fiction. Do I need to explain why? :pi:

EmeraldFields
21-03-09, 02:19
Yes, right before and during WWII the government spent a ton of money on defense and building up the military, which created a lot of jobs. I don't know how well that would work now though. I'd rather live with a recession than see WWIII :o

Yeah, I don't want any war.:p Maybe the government could try to create more public works projects? Building things such as greener ways to obtain energy. I think in Michigan they are building solar power plants and they will employ both people to build the plant and people to continue to run it.

Ward Dragon
21-03-09, 02:21
Adult fiction. Do I need to explain why? :pi:

That's what she said?

Anyway, somewhat back on topic, I think it's a bad idea to pass a purely symbolic resolution with no means to enforce it. Every country that signs it already gives gay people rights. Meanwhile the countries that treat gay people horribly aren't going to change and might even be more hostile towards us for trying to tell them what to do. I mean, I'm all for upholding human rights, but I think this particular resolution is counter-productive and won't benefit gay people.

Edit:

Yeah, I don't want any war.:p Maybe the government could try to create more public works projects? Building things such as greener ways to obtain energy. I think in Michigan they are building solar power plants and they will employ both people to build the plant and people to continue to run it.

Another thing I recently learned is that France has extremely safe nuclear power plants. They got the idea from Intel I think. Every single power plant in France is identical down to the last detail and if they catch something suspicious in one plant then they can repair it and take precautions to prevent it from breaking in all of the other plants in the country. Considering how much energy can be obtained from nuclear power, I think that this is something we should seriously look into (at least until someone develops fusion). The plants would have to all be built from the same plans (the few nuclear plants that we do have are very unsafe compared to France's design) so that would create a lot of jobs too, and then the power plants would need to be operated. Plus states like California would be able to get rid of the rolling blackouts and other extremely inconvenient consequences of not having enough energy to meet everyone's needs.

EmeraldFields
21-03-09, 02:48
Considering how much energy can be obtained from nuclear power, I think that this is something we should seriously look into (at least until someone develops fusion).


I'm against nuclear. I think it has less to do with me being environmentally conscience and more about me being paranoid about some freak accident.:p

Ward Dragon
21-03-09, 02:54
I'm against nuclear. I think it has less to do with me being environmentally conscience and more about me being paranoid about some freak accident.:p

Yeah, I'm paranoid too. I live kind of close to a nuclear plant and it really freaked me out when I found out that the father of one of my high school friends worked there (he was really extremist and the one time I met him, he asked my father, "Is this yours?" while referring to me...actually I can't remember the exact wording but it made me sound like a possession instead of a person, not to mention some stories my friend told me about rules she had to live by).

But anyway, I think if it could really be done safely then it should at least be considered. Even alternative energies have negative impacts on the environment (wind towers mess up birds and hydroelectric power requires dams, while solar cells are very toxic to dispose of and they don't last long enough) so there's no simple answer as of yet. I think fusion would solve nearly everything, but that could be decades or even centuries away.

EmeraldFields
21-03-09, 03:02
Yeah, I'm paranoid too. I live kind of close to a nuclear plant and it really freaked me out when I found out that the father of one of my high school friends worked there (he was really extremist and the one time I met him, he asked my father, "Is this yours?" while referring to me...actually I can't remember the exact wording but it made me sound like a possession instead of a person, not to mention some stories my friend told me about rules she had to live by).

But anyway, I think if it could really be done safely then it should at least be considered. Even alternative energies have negative impacts on the environment (wind towers mess up birds and hydroelectric power requires dams, while solar cells are very toxic to dispose of and they don't last long enough) so there's no simple answer as of yet. I think fusion would solve nearly everything, but that could be decades or even centuries away.

I was watching the discovery channel and it showed footage of a current fusion power plant, which actually sucks in more energy than it creates, and they said between the years of 2050 and 2070 is when we might get a proper fusion power plant.

Then again, who knows. My Mom thought that by 2000, we'd be living like the Jetsons.:p

Ward Dragon
21-03-09, 03:06
I was watching the discovery channel and it showed footage of a current fusion power plant, which actually sucks in more energy than it creates, and they said between the years of 2050 and 2070 is when we might get a proper fusion power plant.

Exactly. We're having so much trouble figuring out how to make fusion profitable in terms of producing more energy than we have to use to start the process going. I think that 2050 sounds reasonable. I hope it's soon enough that I get to see it in my lifetime :D

Then again, who knows. My Mom thought that by 2000, we'd be living like the Jetsons.:p

I want a hover car so badly right now :p

MattTR
21-03-09, 04:19
OMG! Amazing news, this made me happy.

Every little step counts, and I mean every step. :D

Goose
21-03-09, 12:36
WASHINGTON – The Obama administration on Wednesday formally endorsed a U.N. statement calling for the worldwide decriminalization of homosexuality, a measure that former President George W. Bush had refused to sign.

The move was the administration's latest in reversing Bush-era decisions that have been heavily criticized by human rights and other groups. The United States was the only western nation not to sign onto the declaration when it came up at the U.N. General Assembly in December.

Democracy is about having a vote, whilst having the freedom of speech to attempt to influence that vote. Basically if 90% of Texans don't want same sex marriage, things like this bill will force there democratic vote to be void, meaning they have no choice in the matter, which destroys the meaning of democracy.

It doesnt bother me, gays can do what they like in England, and im happy for that, but i just figured id post my opinion.

I think GW was right to leave it up to individual States to decide on the matter, considering most western nations are almost the size of a state or two in America, the fact that the US was the only western nation not to sign is insignificant.

violentblossom
21-03-09, 12:47
i just feel for the G/L/B/T community in America because it just seems like they'll never be able to completely have their rights here.. i mean, who's it hurting for them to get married? no one, absolutely no one.It's not like gay people are forcing other people to do anything, they just want to live their lives and be happy.

as far as i'm concerned, in terms of rights and how G/L/B/T are seen and allowed certain freedoms, its still 1980.

Goose
21-03-09, 12:52
i just feel for the G/L/B/T community in America because it just seems like they'll never be able to completely have their rights here.. i mean, who's it hurting for them to get married? no one, absolutely no one.It's not like gay people are forcing other people to do anything, they just want to live their lives and be happy.

as far as i'm concerned, in terms of rights and how G/L/B/T are seen and allowed certain freedoms, its still 1980.

States in America allow gay marriages, like i said its about the majority vote, if the majority don't want it, then it shouldn't happen as far as im concerned, it defeats the point of living 'in the land of the free'. Gays should hit the road with a campaign wagon to win the majority over like politicians do, if they want to change there minds.

Mr.Burns
21-03-09, 13:12
States in America allow gay marriages, like i said its about the majority vote, if the majority don't want it, then it shouldn't happen as far as im concerned, it defeats the point of living 'in the land of the free'. Gays should hit the road with a campaign wagon to win the majority over like politicians do, if they want to change there minds.

Currently only three states allow for same sex marriage and as we know, the future of that in California is up in the air. Some states allow for a same sex union but you will find that since the US is a predominantly Judeo-Christian society which teaches that homosexuality is a sin, The states, for the most part won't pass a law allowing for gay marriage. However it does depend on which region of the US because some are more likely to fight against such a thing than others. The Northeast and west coast are known to be generally more liberal than say, the Midwest or the South. As it stands right now, homosexual marriage in the US is an exceptionally slow process. The fact that we have even one state that allows it is amazing.

Goose
21-03-09, 13:28
Currently only three states allow for same sex marriage and as we know, the future of that in California is up in the air. Some states allow for a same sex union but you will find that since the US is a predominantly Judeo-Christian society which teaches that homosexuality is a sin, The states, for the most part won't pass a law allowing for gay marriage. However it does depend on which region of the US because some are more likely to fight against such a thing than others. The Northeast and west coast are known to be generally more liberal than say, the Midwest or the South. As it stands right now, homosexual marriage in the US is an exceptionally slow process. The fact that we have even one state that allows it is amazing.

Well thats exactly it, if the majority in a democracy dont want it, then it shouldnt happen, if it does its not done through a democratic vote.

They'l have to come over here instead, or go to the west coast.

Draco
21-03-09, 14:50
Democracy is about having a vote, whilst having the freedom of speech to attempt to influence that vote. Basically if 90% of Texans don't want same sex marriage, things like this bill will force there democratic vote to be void, meaning they have no choice in the matter, which destroys the meaning of democracy.

Mob rule is exactly what democracy is, the wants and needs of the majority over the wants and needs of the minority.

Which is why the US is republic and not a democracy. Doesn't always work however.

Reggie
21-03-09, 14:56
^Well said Draco. :tmb:
Democracy is a wonderful idea paved with good intentions but does it work? Not necessarily.

Ilves
21-03-09, 14:57
Mob rule is exactly what democracy is, the wants and needs of the majority over the wants and needs of the minority.


What you describe is actually 'direct democracy'. Democracy as we propagate it in the West is representative democracy, in which is supposed to protect the rights of the minority from the majority.

Now if only it would function as the textbooks have us believe...

Gay rights is not a democratic issue, it's about human rights. :tmb:

Goose
21-03-09, 15:00
What you describe is actually 'direct democracy'. Democracy as we propagate it in the West is representative democracy, in which is supposed to protect the rights of the minority from the majority.

Now if only it would function as the textbooks have us believe...

Gay rights is not a democratic issue, it's about human rights. :tmb:

It is practiced perfectly, if theres a gay march, the riot police dont come out and beat them back, or snatch them off the street for public floggings later do they?

Reggie
21-03-09, 15:03
^The issues that Gay people face run much deeper than that and the fact is, what Government decrees from the top doesn't necessarily trickle down to a social level. The same can be said for many other areas of discrimination.

The kind of democracy we have is by no means perfect.

Goose
21-03-09, 15:05
There is no perfect democracy, unless there's shared ideals, which isn't democracy.

Its about going one way, then the majority voting to go another, and so on. It reaches a mid way after a while, but its never perfect.

Ilves
21-03-09, 15:09
When I said...


Now if only it would function as the textbooks have us believe...

... I wasn't thinking of the gay rights issue in particular. My overall disappointment in the functioning of contemporary democracy must have come through here. I guess shouldn't have mentioned it in this context. :p

It is practiced perfectly, if theres a gay march, the riot police dont come out and beat them back, or snatch them off the street for public floggings later do they?

I referred to people that demand more than the right to march without having their asses kicked. People who would consider the denial of civic marriage to same sex couples an infringement of their human rights.

AODdigger
21-03-09, 15:17
Congrats :D There would never be something like this in my country, sadly :rolleyes: We're literally centuries away from this.

Goose
21-03-09, 15:19
I referred to people that demand more than the right to march without having their asses kicked. People who would consider the denial of civic marriage to same sex couples an infringement of their human rights.

Human rights are founded on parliamentary rights (in the UK anyway, the founder of what we call the basics of western ideals) not church ceremonies. No democracy should have a mix of church and government, its just not done. One shouldn't talk about the other to in depth.

Ilves
21-03-09, 15:32
Human rights are founded on parliamentary rights (in the UK anyway, the founder of what we call the basics of western ideals) not church ceremonies. No democracy should have a mix of church and government, its just not done. One shouldn't talk about the other to in depth.

I'm having trouble following your train of thought. :o My bad.

BTW, I don't think the statement in bold txt is 100% accurate. With the second you make in the quote above, I totally agree.

But as for the topic: I think decriminilazing homosexual acts between two consenting adults is the very least any any self respecting democracy should do.

Goose
21-03-09, 15:48
I'm having trouble following your train of thought. :o My bad.

BTW, I don't think the statement in bold txt is 100% accurate. With the second you make in the quote above, I totally agree.

But as for the topic: I think decriminilazing homosexual acts between two consenting adults is the very least any any self respecting democracy should do.

Basically, we don't mix religious rites of passage (like marriage) with governments law. Its not easily done in the West.

AODdigger
21-03-09, 15:55
To be honest, I think there should be as many equal rights as possible, the only thing I'm against are Gay Parades. Why show-off when in the same time you're complaining to be equal? I think they're redundant and needless tools to provoke aggression between hetero-sexuals and homo-sexuals... And only a hold-back in progression. As my favourite philosophist has said - "Protest = Regress" and in the context of Gay rights, the parades are a kind of protest..

Draco
21-03-09, 16:02
What you describe is actually 'direct democracy'. Democracy as we propagate it in the West is representative democracy, in which is supposed to protect the rights of the minority from the majority.

Most of the things decided on by the government are not decided democratically. We use a republican form of government.

Most people don't even know that the federal government was actually designed to be less democratic than it is now.

SamReeves
21-03-09, 16:05
To be honest, I think there should be as many equal rights as possible, the only thing I'm against are Gay Parades. Why show-off when in the same time you're complaining to be equal? I think they're redundant and needless tools to provoke aggression between hetero-sexuals and homo-sexuals... And only a hold-back in progression. As my favourite philosophist has said - "Protest = Regress" and in the context of Gay rights, the parades are a kind of protest..

I'd have to agree with you there. It's nothing more than an hour or two for one group to draw attention to themselves. There are no straight parades, but frankly we don't need them. Everyone has different sexual lifestyles, but we don't need public parades for them. However if a group wants to privately rent out a convention hall, and then put on a festival, I have no problem with that. It doesn't use city dollars, the group can invite who they want to a private event, and for the most part would keep all sides happy.

violentblossom
21-03-09, 16:10
To be honest, I think there should be as many equal rights as possible, the only thing I'm against are Gay Parades. Why show-off when in the same time you're complaining to be equal? I think they're redundant and needless tools to provoke aggression between hetero-sexuals and homo-sexuals... And only a hold-back in progression. As my favourite philosophist has said - "Protest = Regress" and in the context of Gay rights, the parades are a kind of protest..

okay, while i agree that its kinda going against the stance to be equal in having the parade, i don't think its wrong for the G/L/B/T community to have them.

no one's stopping straight people from having one, we just choose not to.

AODdigger
21-03-09, 16:17
okay, while i agree that its kinda going against the stance to be equal in having the parade, i don't think its wrong for the G/L/B/T community to have them.

no one's stopping straight people from having one, we just choose not to.
Because it's needless, my friend :) I'm bisexual myself and I don't feel an urge to scream it to the world just out of a complex or whatever. It's even bad for the community as I've said. It only makes things worse. Though I'm sure that in the next 10 years attention to those parades (if they still exist), will be drawn to minimum.

violentblossom
21-03-09, 16:22
Because it's needless, my friend :) I'm bisexual myself and I don't feel an urge to scream it to the world just out of a complex or whatever. It's even bad for the community as I've said. It only makes things worse. Though I'm sure that in the next 10 years attention to those parades (if they still exist), will be drawn to minimum.

touche'.

it is pointless, lol.

MiCkiZ88
21-03-09, 16:23
There are a lot of things that are needless. Carnivals, whatever parades.. to some they are completely useless, some find entertainment in them and some just find the need to do it. Should that be taken away?

I'm not fond of the parades myself, but I dont participate in watching them and I do things that I find entertaining. I do not like how the parades enforce the stereotype of gays though..

AODdigger
21-03-09, 16:26
I don't like the concept too. I'm sorry I'm not familiar with traditions in such parades, man :o I mean, we only had the first in our country last year, followed by mass beating-ups and such. It was proved that less than 2% of the gay community in our country went because of fear factors, etc. And the carnivals aren't useless. They're traditions from thousands of years ago - a sacrificial ritual that is.

ShadyCroft
21-03-09, 16:28
I'm not fond of the parades myself, but I dont participate in watching them and I do things that I find entertaining. I do not like how the parades enforce the stereotype of gays though..

Most, if not all, gay-related things shown everywhere enforce stereotypes. I am waiting to see a gay character on tv who's not flamboyant, pinkish, loves shopping and clothes and so stereotypical. :whi:

I, too, am not fond of gay parades. Some really take it far and fully strip in the middle of the streets. And what pains me more is that most people base their judgment on what gay is on those parades.

violentblossom
21-03-09, 16:32
Most, if not all, gay-related things shown everywhere enforce stereotypes. I am waiting to see a gay character on tv who's not flamboyant, pinkish, loves shopping and clothes and so stereotypical. :whi:

I, too, am not fond of gay parades. Some really take it far and fully strip in the middle of the streets. And what pains me more is that most people base their judgment on what gay is on those parades.

that's my issue here. people getting so hung up on the stereotypes that they don't stop to find things out for themselves, and so the g/l/b/t community gets thrown under the bus... g/l/b/t discrimination is just as bad a discriminization against races.. its not something you choose, so why should you suffer?

Ilves
21-03-09, 16:37
Basically, we don't mix religious rites of passage (like marriage) with governments law. Its not easily done in the West.

I was talking about civil marriage. What I didn't get is why you brought the mixing of church & state up in the first place. But nevermind. :)

Most of the things decided on by the government are not decided democratically. We use a republican form of government.

Most people don't even know that the federal government was actually designed to be less democratic than it is now.

But the rights of minorities are guaranteed under all circumstances by constitution. Although gays are not explicitly mentioned, obviously. :p

AODdigger
21-03-09, 16:44
that's my issue here. people getting so hung up on the stereotypes that they don't stop to find things out for themselves, and so the g/l/b/t community gets thrown under the bus... g/l/b/t discrimination is just as bad a discriminization against races.. its not something you choose, so why should you suffer?
How come not a thing you choose? :confuse: Do you truly believe that? I'm really sorry, no offence I hope, but... in some cases it's what you choose to be, you're not always born with this.

Draco
21-03-09, 16:44
Rights are guaranteed.

However marriage is not a right and should have nothing to do with the law.

violentblossom
21-03-09, 16:45
How come not a thing you choose? :confuse: Do you truly believe that? I'm really sorry, no offence I hope, but... in some cases it's what you choose to be, you're not always born with this.

can you honestly tell me you chose to be bisexual?

i don't think gays are gay because they set out to be. i think you're born that way.

TRhalloween
21-03-09, 16:52
I can't honestly explain what a punch in the face it is when people say that you choose to be attracted to the same sex.
AODdigger, would you believe me if I said I didn't choose my sexuality?

Ilves
21-03-09, 16:52
However marriage is not a right and should have nothing to do with the law.

Marriage has severe consequences for your legal status. It has everything to do with the law. That's why gays consider it a human rights issue.

violentblossom
21-03-09, 16:56
I can't honestly explain what a punch in the face it is when people say that you choose to be attracted to the same sex.
AODdigger, would you believe me if I said I didn't choose my sexuality?

yeah. i didn't choose to be straight.

Draco
21-03-09, 17:06
Marriage has severe consequences for your legal status. It has everything to do with the law. That's why gays consider it a human rights issue.

Thank you Captain Obvious.

TRfan23
21-03-09, 17:38
Marriage has severe consequences for your legal status. It has everything to do with the law. That's why gays consider it a human rights issue.

How does it have severe consequences, for your legal status?

Ilves
21-03-09, 17:43
Thank you Captain Obvious.

You are so confusing me right now... :D

How does it have severe consequences, for your legal status?

Here's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_Un ited_States#Rights_and_benefits)some of them. :)

AODdigger
21-03-09, 17:46
can you honestly tell me you chose to be bisexual?

i don't think gays are gay because they set out to be. i think you're born that way.
Oh yes. I remember it clearly. It was so many years ago. I just had had an astonishing dream.... I woke up and by the end of the day I chose to be bisexual :p That simple.

violentblossom
21-03-09, 17:51
Oh yes. I remember it clearly. It was so many years ago. I just had had an astonishing dream.... I woke up and by the end of the day I chose to be bisexual :p That simple.

well, i'm going to tell you right now that that's not the case for most gays and lesbians.

AODdigger
21-03-09, 17:54
I'm really sorry then. :/ But why would anyone feel bad about that? I'm sure most people aren't unhappy to be who they are, and if they are they shouldn't! You are who you are, you shouldn't regret anything. That's the way you are, period. And it isn't a bad thing either.

TRhalloween
21-03-09, 18:15
I'm really sorry then. :/ But why would anyone feel bad about that? I'm sure most people aren't unhappy to be who they are, and if they are they shouldn't! You are who you are, you shouldn't regret anything. That's the way you are, period. And it isn't a bad thing either.

What about the people who are saying the complete opposite of what you are saying? The people who insult other people's sexuality. A lot of people like me can't let that bounce off of them.

AODdigger
21-03-09, 18:19
Listen to me, those people will one day get what they deserve, you may not witness it, but they surely will. And they shouldn't bother you because you know for yourself who you are and that they never will know who you are. They're ignorant, forget about them. **** them ;)

TRhalloween
21-03-09, 18:23
I' like to re-assure myself that bad things will happen to them but I don't believe in karma or anything :(

I think I should throw it out there that I've never been majorly insulted.

AODdigger
21-03-09, 18:30
Well, you needn't be insulted or humiliated in public to be feeling bad about others' opinions! And trust me, you need not reassure yourself, the universe has its laws, just have faith and you can fuel any of these laws ;) But in the end, if you're no true believer, you needn't be anyways, just say '**** them' and things are always better, ok? :D

Delamo1999
21-03-09, 19:13
The guy's been a disaster so far. Look at his appointees. Half of them had problems with the law, and the ones that are there like Geithner are liars. He knew all about AIG and its bonuses.

Point is while Rome burns, Obama is busy getting his ego stroked on Jay Leno.

*ugh*


For Obama to get any points in my book, he needs to quickly find a way to create good paying jobs for everyone. This is bull**** that so many honest and hardworking people are forced to be on unemployment. :mad:

violentblossom
21-03-09, 19:16
For Obama to get any points in my book, he needs to quickly find a way to create good paying jobs for everyone. This is bull**** that so many honest and hardworking people are forced to be on unemployment. :mad:


and you expect him to have accomplished this in 2 months? that could take a year.

amiro1989
21-03-09, 19:18
Yeah, it's all Obama's fault... What about that guy named Bush? What happenned to him? Did 8 years of presidency disappeared that fast.

You can't expect Obama and his administration to solve a big problem like that, in 3 months. Gosh.

Delamo1999
21-03-09, 19:19
and you expect him to have accomplished this in 2 months? that could take a year.


What was that quote in Legend that Lara said about the patient. I believe it was in the Japan level. I just love that quote. ;)

violentblossom
21-03-09, 19:24
What was that quote in Legend that Lara said about the patient. I believe it was in the Japan level. I just love that quote. ;)

yeah.

i agree, Amiro. Obama has alot on his plate.