We seem to be smashing most of the rules into pieces on this particular thread - remember that I've asked for much stricter rules on this particular board - could we please recap them? -;
stravagante.proboards30.com/index.cgi?board=Debate&action=display&thread=1116614859NO text speak - (sorry guys)
Longer posts - not just 'me too!'
NO off topic posts.
Neutral opening statement
But it's ok.
I am personally against the Bush Administration. Apart from the fact that I am disgusted that the most important man in the world can't even speak properly, I disagree with many, no scratch that, nearly all of his policies.
1) I don't agree with him merging of state and church. The modern view adopted by the Supreme Court in the latter half of the nineteenth century is that no government -- federal, state or local -- can perform any action or make any policy which blatantly favours one faith or church over the others, or which favours belief in a God or Supreme being over non-belief.
And yet, despite all that, the court-enforced separation does not extend to all elements of civil religion. By law, the country's currency carries the motto "In God We Trust". Congress begins its sessions with a prayer, and the Pledge of Allegiance contains the phrase, "one nation, under God". Court rulings have upheld these apparently religious references, viewing them as non-substantive "ceremonial deism" or utilising other legal theories.
In schools, many
science classrooms are teaching the I.D. theory - Christian creationism masquerading in a white coat. It is, to me, as the daughter of a biochemist and a bio physicist chemical engineer,
a load of balls. And even if it did manage to find some evidence, it belongs in a religion classroom, NOT in a science classroom. Personally, I've always been of the 'and god said that e=mc^2 and there was light mindset - I am a Christian, and I personally find the idea of atoms being gods building blocks, and forces, and science and quantum mechanics incredibly exciting. Yet I.D. is not that. I.D relies on faith, ignorance of the facts, and bible metaphors presented as fact.
Besides, why is the CHRISTIAN faith given preference over, say, Islam, or Buddhism, or the church of the flying spaghetti monster?
(I beseech you to check out
www.venganza.org/ )
And it’s not just that. The laws against gay marriage, the abortion laws, are all blatantly Christian – the polls said that Americans were worried about ‘upholding family values’, so GWB has decided to make the entire country Christian. And ban flag burning while he’s at it. But don’t get me started on that.
His ‘Christian’ tactic to combat teenage pregnancy in Texas, where he was in charge before he became the president (someone American help me out) Involved teaching nothing but abstinence in schools. Kids were told to wait until they were married, and nothing else, and told that condoms had holes in them. Consequently, Teenage pregnancy, STD’s and other sexual health problems rocketed, and are among the highest in the entire western world.
State and religion should remain UNMERGED if everyone is to be equal, or other, non Christian belief patterns or schools of thought, are being discriminated against. Being an atheist is not wrong – it’s a perfectly acceptable school of thought. And that’s reason number 1 why I don’t like him.
2) (although I may just leave it at two or three at the rate I’m going)
I think that his war on terror is hypocritical and wrong.
I grew up, as a child, knowing that Northern Ireland was not a nice place. I remember frequent news reports about car bombs, about acid bombs, about shoots, about school children killed, about school children unable to get to school because they were catholic and lived in a Protestant area, or vice versa. I remember peace process’s not working, and constant atrocities caused by the IRA.
And what I only just found out quite recently was that the IRA
were bloody well funded by the USA. The USA funded them to blow up school kids, and kill people.[/i]
And that makes me sick. Especially, as after 9/11, they suddenly decided that they didn’t like terrorism after all! And on 9/11 there were speech’s made about the devastation caused by terror, and how ‘we will not stand for this!’ and how terrorist are the lowest of the low, and then GWB declared a WAR on terror – and he was funding them just days earlier.
Its hypocritical.
Also, it scapegoats countries and religions. There are still prisoners being held illegally in Guantanamo Bay, without trial or lawyers. It blatantly and openly smashes the Geneva convention into a thousand pieces, making excuses along the way – ‘oh, the convention doesn’t relate to
Afghanistan it’s a ‘failed state’, we don’t have to worry about their rights.’
America are guilty of things, that, were it anyone else, would be consider war crimes and atrocities, and yet, because they’re AMERICA, they get away with them.
3) GWB is too powerful. America is too powerful, and it’s in the hands of an idiot. He threatens and invades countries for having suspected nuclear weapons. So what? America has nuclear weapons! Who says that America are allowed to boss everyone around? Why are they allowed weapons, but other countries are not? That is the role of the UN, The UNITED NATIONS, not one county. America throw their weight around, they blackmail, they and loud, and brash, and pushy, and demanding, and manipulative. They know that countries cannot afford to make enemies of the United States, and they use that fact to their advantage. They use it as a way of coercing countries, pushing laws that shouldn’t be pushed. We rely on America for trade and back up, and they use this in turn, to make themselves the most powerful bully in the playground.
4)He smashes many constitutional and human rights into bits. The Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right to a fair trial, freedom of religion, property rights, equal suffrage, and freedom from discrimination based on race, color or religion. Such affirmations of human rights are the product of nearly four centuries of struggle and social progress aiming for a fair and just society, with its beginnings in 1634 when the first colonies in Maryland were founded on the basis of religious tolerance. However, some Americans attempting to exercise these fundamental human rights have been persecuted at various times throughout the country's history.
After the September 11, 2001 attacks, pressure from the government for more surveillance of suspected terrorist cells activities has led to heightened criticism of the government's violation of suspected terrorists ' privacy and of control measures that do not respect suspected terrorist prisoners' dignity. In the aftermath of those attacks, there have been signs from the Federal government of the United States of a noticeable shift away from United States Constitution safeguards traditionally afforded American citizens, notably: (these examples came from wikipedia)
* Two Pakistani Americans allegedly affiliated with the Islamic militant group Harakat ul-Ansar were arrested in Pakistan by Pakistani authorities and held and allegedly tortured in a Pakistani jail. The two allege that they were interrogated by men flashing FBI agents shields.
* The detention without charge, for months on end, of United States citizens suspected of ties to insurgents in Iraq (for instance, for carrying washing machine timers in their car trunks). (The Associated Press reported on July 7, 2005, that the United States was holding five Americans in Iraq.)
* The arrest, without charge, of large numbers of Muslim men as "material witnesses" in cases related to Terrorist activities in the United States.
Up until 2005, it was legal in United States to execute juvenile offenders. Since 1990 Amnesty International recorded 38 executions of offenders who committed their crimes when they were under the age of 18, 19 of them in the USA. Along with Somalia, the United States is one of the two sovereign states in the world not to ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which prohibits use of the death penalty against child offenders. However, On March 1, 2005 the United States Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 that it is unconstitutional to execute juvenile killers, commuting the death sentences of 72 murderers who were under 18 when they committed their crimes. Thank god for small mercies, although it’s been too late for a long time.
In the US, Freedom of Expression is seen as an important right and is given special protection. According to Supreme Court precedent, the federal and lower governments may not apply prior restraint to expression. There is no law punishing insults against the government, ethnic groups, or religious groups. And yet there is an amendment, as passed several times by the U.S. House of Representatives, pushing for;
The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.Surely citizens of the United States have a right to burn their flag as a form of protest? Surely giving Congress such power would essentially limit the principle of freedom of speech—enshrined in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and
symbolised by the flag itself?William J Brennan wrote, in a court case; "We do not consecrate the flag by punishing its desecration, for in doing so we dilute the freedom that this cherished emblem represents."
Most other western countries treat health care as a fundamental human right. However, the United States does not, and provides publicly funded medicine only to certain classes of people. This has resulted in a wide gap in the quality of treatment between those who can afford health insurance and those who cannot. So if you’re poor, then tough luck, you die. If you get ill, you have to pay because you’re ill. If you’re very ill, and you get better, you’ll probably relapse because the extortionate medical bills will cause you not to be able to eat, or something ridiculous.
While some countries such as Canada and Spain have been moving to recognise same-sex marriage, the issue remains hotly contested in the United States. Massachusetts recognises same-sex marriage, while California, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, New Jersey and Vermont grant persons in same-sex unions a similar legal status to those in a civil marriage by domestic partnership, civil union or reciprocal beneficiary laws.
Sixteen states have constitutional amendments explicitly barring the recognition of same-sex marriage, confining civil marriage to a legal union between a man and a woman. Twenty-seven states have legal statutes defining marriage to two persons of the opposite-sex. A small number of states ban any legal recognition of same-sex unions that would be equivalent to civil marriage.
Surely a Gay person has exactly the rights as a straight person? Or is he then not being discriminated on the grounds of his sexuality? These laws discriminate, refusing them the legal protection, and more importantly, i think, the emotional RIGHT of marriage.
And that is why I oppose Bush.
Whew.
Now, how many of you actually read that? Heh….