Do you not think india need a second revolution right now. The gap between rich and poor is now very wide and every where is corruption. People think law is only for poor and rich and mighty always find out some sort of loop-wholes to escape. Justice is always denied for the poor and government policies are always favorable to rich. waiting for your kind consideration
we also know now of the revolution has been plagued from one country to another country of residence. it is a good mission, for his people's welfare.
I'd like a revolution in India that can weed out all indian comment/forum spammers, I'm really fed up with them, such a waste of time to fight them off.
Indian Independence in August 1947. I too vote for second revolution. We need - some platform for public opinions, - need better politicians, - regulatory body setup that offers detailed reports on black money, - how taxes are really spent.
Indians need a good revolution and should take Pakistan with it, such a trouble some regions, then break it apart in multiple countries.
The whole word needs a revolution mate. I think if something isn't done in the name of individualism and freedom in the next 5 years or so, a new dark age will descend upon us.
based on my understanding on the way politics have played out after the turn on the century in america. i think at basis the separation of church and state has been in jeopordy. at the turn of the century america elected bush jr. as stanch, republican with strong religious beliefs. you can see him breech the separation of church and state when he wanted to make stem-cell research an issue of law in america. it's considered a "moral" law in the view of the church and bush blurred the lines of the state and made it the law of the land. look at roe vs. wade, it's the woman's right to have an abortion, it's the law of the land and bush jr. wanted to bring the issue of developing human cells to the helm of state law again. did all of the scientists interested in this hot and up-coming field of science need to leave the country to pursue their stem-cell research. based on bush's policy, yes. not to mention osama taking out a major building in the only super power left in the world, this guy bush was probably lusting for another holy war. the cold war, transitioning into a holy war, a republican's wet dream. i think the republicans have skewed views about the separation of church and state now based on their brudding about bush during the war on terror before obama. the wars overseas are coming to an end and the clandestine services and homeland security are going to take over the majority of responsibility for protection of america. that is how to fight a handful of terrorists that hate the west now. Brum, their seems to have been a power struggle in religion after the turn of the century, from no Y2K or other events, where most religious believe that the world will end at 1,000 year intervals after the approximate birth of christ, to backwash of the no end of the world senario occuring after the the 9/11. the religious were still on that end of the world feel and also possibly backwash from coming off a cold war that worried the religious to now where we are. the only super power left has an issue about the separation of church and state with one of it's two dominant parties. deep rooted things that the west hold is an issue of one of the two dominant parties in politics in the world's only superpower. here is something: FOX and other news outlets reported that islam surpassed roman catholic as the most numerous religion based on the number of members, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,343336,00.html is religious ferver, from the rise of christianity from the dark ages to what the west knew predominantly until now, going to slow down because the rise of islam? as an independent i hope the democracts consider this and go with the separation of church and state more because of a new, unknown religious dominance and since obama is president now and then those damn elephants catch up.
i would like to apologize to the thread starter for seemingly going off topic with my response to a specific post. and i was wondering if any mod, if necessary, would spin off post #7 and #8 of this thread into a new thread?
No, it's not a woman's right to end another sentient being's life. It's not a moral issue at all. The Founding Fathers built your country on the idea that we all have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. While Bush did many wrong things, don't make the school boy error of putting so much importance in parties and using crude generalisations. It may surprise you I'm "atheist", by the way. In my country the most heinous criminal, judged by the most unanimous jury, can never be sentenced to death, yet the unborn up to 24 weeks can be terminated with as little as a doctor's consent. If the religious resist this backward and disgusting thinking, they have my support in law. Nothing gets on my tits more than militant non-theists. Militant theists are expected to act stupid, we're supposed to know better. That Time cover is bollocks. This decade will be no better nor will the next, who the hell are they trying to kid? It's being getting worse for centuries! Taken from wikipedia. A survey taken in here (UK). Clearest example of mob rule/democratic tyranny. Weep worthy
this is the wikipedia first paragragh for roe vs. wade "Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973),[1] was a landmark controversial decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion. The Court decided that a right to privacy under the due process clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution extends to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that right must be balanced against the state's two legitimate interests for regulating abortions: protecting prenatal life and protecting the mother's health. Saying that these state interests become stronger over the course of a pregnancy, the Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the mother's current trimester of pregnancy." it says "The Court decided that a right to privacy under the due process clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution extends to a woman's decision to have an abortion" in america it's in the law that the woman has the right to an abortion. moral issue or not a woman has the right to end a pregnancy in america. i guess abortion fits more with the right of liberty more that the right of life and pursuit of happiness.
I know all about Roe vs Wade, you don't need to quote it for me mate. I don't care what the supreme court rules, they give stupid rulings all the time. Their authority means squat. Liberty doesn't extend to control over others, which is what abortion relates to. Isn't it interesting how selective the government is with rights? The fat cats encourage people to use their "right" to end life, but you better be quiet when the TSA violates your privacy.
Indeed your post is appriciable. But in current ages, revolution is far away from mass people's attention.
then you get into "when" it is appropiate to call life, life and yap, yap, yap. "Liberty doesn't extend to control over others" what about the liberty of the child bearer. when do we draw a line? and if you get into science and religious theology, WHY do we draw the line? here is another thing, if abortion is so terrible for republicans in america why do they love capital punishment so much? fucking rediculous brum, you called the ruling of roe vs. wade as a "stupid rulling all the time". it's the law Brum. there is an importance of the separation of church and state. law is not predicated on religion anymore ("whew", look what religion brought us, the "dark ages" like you talked about in your first post) we are going to go one about this for awhile Brum and i am interested in getting into why you think the world is heading into the dark ages, i am patient.
"It's the law" so are many things! Don't tell me you're one of these who blindly follows the law. Do you always stick to speed limits, 'cause that's the law. We shouldn't be derailing the thread further, so I'll just end my part on abortion here, with: Liberty doesn't extend to control over others, however there are obviously a very few limited exceptions to this rule. If there is a high probability of a mother's death during labour, that's different. Maybe I should have been clearer, but my previous posts were in reference to about 95% of abortions which come by because the parents "can't be arsed" or it would be "inconvenient". I don't know, but you shouldn't generalise like that. There are republicans out there who oppose both. I didn't say religious fervour and dogma has never caused problems or hasn't held human-kind back, my point is beside all of this. forget the separation of church and state, forget what religion has done in the past, these points are all irrelevant to what we're discussing now. The matter of the fact is that I don't think "rights" has anything to do with someone deciding the fate of an unborn child's life, in usual circumstances which is the vast majority of the time. If you said to me that religious zealots pushed through laws meaning prayer must be said before eating, intelligent design to only taught in public schools or that civil partnerships cannot be legal I'd agree with you. I agree that the separation of church and state is important. However, we're talking about another human's life, the most precious and magical thing to happen on this mysterious rock, floating about in space. In a country were the right to bear arms was given in order for people to ensure they have their rights to life and liberty, it baffles me beyond belief to see, in the same vain, the "right" of death encouraged, too. Anyway, back to the original point. The reason we're on course for a new dark age is because of everything I see around me. The world is nuts and those running the world are getting away with it. Our civil liberties and freedoms haven't been recognised or respected by establishments for many, many decades and here, centuries. America is one of the very few nations with some rights still in tact, but for how long? You yankees need to rally up and take the Republic back. Although a distant memory and lost to more than I'm happy to say, you have a chance in America because traditionally you have a higher understanding of what freedom is. My fellow countrymen have never truly tasted independence, so I think we're too far gone here. If you're interested, take a look at the Free State Project. Very appealing, although it's notoriously difficult for immigrants to relocate to America properly, right?
i agree with not derailing the thread so i will respond to your rebuttle with concerns with your first post on this thread, then respond to your secondary point as it dwindles down on this thread. i hope the mods consider moving our posts and making them a new thread. your point about the English not knowing about independence is curiously interesting. i think when civilization became something you guys could grasp as your own it was through royality. the Celtics and other nomads were roaming around when the Roman empire expanded their boarders there(i'm assuming, correctly or not, that they were not civilized). correct me if i'm wrong Brum. if i'm right, civilization through English eyes goes straight to the throne, tough to grasp independence for the English because of this, as someone that should know about independence (not that i know what it fully is) i'll say sorry. this may lead into some background for this thread (if these posts remain in it's original thread) as England used to occupy India, so those who are keeping track with this thread, don't lose track. (this goes with Brum's dark ages concerns) Brum, what is happening with the Church of England? Are the Catholics taking over? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1573549/Anglicans-England-is-not-a-Catholic-nation.html Is religious ferver helping with driving the world nuts, like you said you noticed Brum? I can see how religious angles from those running the world are getting in the way and can see how it's effecting how you see the world in England. Leave it to the religious to know about how to manipulate the dark ages' feeling, i'm guessing. these questions can help with your opinion Brum. I have lightly wondered this but is capitalism driving away civil liberties and freedoms from america? is that where capitalism is taking us? is it a more appealing and lucurative propostion for capitalism now? is capitalism looking for ways to expand more in this fashion because of the fall of U.S.S.R. and it's idealism (and no more opposing super powers) so now it's free to explore more, including exploring opportunities with U.S.S.R. idealism? does that also go with after 9/11 and the now the war on terror also with concerns about the previously mentioned expanding fashion? curious Well. i don't believe Ron Paul is going to get it done, one part from my now bias against the Republicans and another part is that i can't believe Ron Paul is trying to bring america back to the gold standard now in these days and times. there is probably not gold in the ground to finance america, we are talking trillions now. statistcally, because of the numbers and now with issues with jobs( it would be less difficult if jobs were available but the numbers drown out the ease), it would be reasonable to assume that. some laws are stronger than others. speed limits and seat belt laws are more guidelines than laws but have credence to be enforced for humanities' sake. and i'll end this point on this thread with yes, Liberty does not go to controlling others, that is what liberty is not about, so abortion is under the liberty angle with concerns of the famous quote you posted Brum. using the term "liberty" with respects of defining the ability of controlling or not controlling others is irrelevent based on the term "liberty". a person has the right to live the way they want to live, if they are not ready to bring a child into this world, then they are not, that goes to liberty. and there are democracts that oppose abortion, statistically there are those like that and those like that that you refer to. isn't it curious that the catholic church is against contraception and is against abortion for the most part? are they trying to keep up with growing muslim population? you can deduce that.
Some good points there mate, we really should make another thread like you said.. woops If you'd like to learn more about England or have those questions answered, I'd be happy to talk with you privately over some IM. Be very careful. Don't fall into the same trap those ridiculous socialists have. Capitalism, the original meaning of the term, does not exist in America, nor here. Crony Capitalism is rife, this is what is leading us down the hole. The freedom of expressing the value of goods traded between two individuals should always be upheld. This is the reason why I can never understand leftist thinking, because they simply do not understand history and economics. The other day I was thinking about the Neo-establishment (neo-con and neo-lib) agenda and how it seems that traditionally national ideals have been exported throughout the world in an effort to standardise; invading and occupying sovereign nations to establish policies we take for granted at home (minimum wage, welfare state etc..). I disagree with international libertarianism and view it as quite ironic and oxymoronic - this is another discussion, though. Global competition across borders is not, I believe, in the same vein as the true libertarian ideology. Ron Paul is the probably the only chance the US has to restore freedom and everything that once made it the beacon of hope and individualism. Before you criticise Ron Paul, how well do you understand economic theory and Austrian economics? The gold standard is a good idea compared to fractional reserve banking. The banks and their reign of global terror must stop and using precious metals as the basis of a non-fiat currency would help this. I have my own better ideas though. I prefer the notion of competing, non-central banks that must purchase legal tender from congress, just how the constitution states! Please read your constitution. I have a copy right here in front of me. It is supreme law and it's quickly being phased out. I think it only fair to learn about the history of a country your parents chose to adopt. Uhm, no. A murderer or rapist does not have a tolerable life-style. On a final note, I must disagree with your conclusion on abortion. Liberty has everything to do with it. Why do you so easily dismiss the unborn's right to life over a woman's choice for convenience? Like I said before, read up on what a right is, it has a very specific meaning. Also what you said about seat belts made me laugh. If I didn't care about my own safety, why should big brother force me to wear a seat belt? Do I really have to give Americans an education in their own history and constitution?
i think we are too far into our current economic style that changing to a precious metal standard is too difficult now. some of those "magical" techniques of making money out of thin air have helped everybody out of some devastating financial situatutions. situations that would have eliminated countries if the precious metal standard was in effect. we have progressed so much with "magical" techniques in finances (and made alot of money that could not have been made before) that i don't think that going back is wanted or possible. andrew jackson fought off the central bank, but i think it would be hard to get away from that. i think freedom and civil liberties need to find another tactic to get their desired results, if that was wondered. you can tie parallels to universal health care with your point. at least those helping you feel good about themselves, right hehehe Do I really have to give Americans an education in their own history and constitution?[/QUOTE]