noodles wrote:
Goat wrote:
Shit like what, giving their opinions? It is the Telegraph blog, after all. But including the law in the report is clearly an underhanded political measure, if you step back for a second. The issue here is, that the law should be decided by US courts rather than countries that have real civil rights violations of their own. Which is fair enough, no?
I'll concede it probably is an underhanded political measure; if you're going to call a movement controversial, it makes sense to bring up something current and that you oppose. But the article doesn't argue that, it takes that for granted and then jumps to "Barack Obama has bowed before the UN over Arizona immigration law" which is pretty ridiculous. It makes it sound like the report is asking China and Saudi Arabia to judge whether the Arizona law is a human rights abuse. I only skimmed the report for a minute or two but most of it seems to be about how democracy and the US kick ass and how others on the UN human rights panel could learn from them. f.ex Clint's spokesperson defending the inclusion:
Quote:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08 ... ts-report/"The universal periodic review, we believe, can be a model to demonstrate, you know, to other countries, even other countries on the Human Rights Council, this is how you engage civil society,' Crowley told reporters.
"And the Arizona immigration law is a good example of how we are debating this as a society. There is a legal case ongoing. And this issue will be resolved under the rule of law," he said.
Holding yourself up as an example of how to engage in civil society seems to me like the exact opposite of bowing to the UN.
I know it's opinion but that doesn't mean the writer shouldn't at least make an attempt at presenting the debate in a fair way. He cites an article where the administration offers a defense of including the Arizona reference in the report, but then doesn't even mention what their argument was.
cry of the banshee wrote:
noodles wrote:
Because the article you linked was dumb and it'd be neat if political writers stopped doing shit like that.
You know jack shit about it, yet you call the article "dumb".
Stick to your fluff schoolgirl posts in the fashion thread, leave the important stuff to the men, 'kay, Dearheart?
The things I conceded ignorance to have nothing to do with the point I was making, although I wouldn't expect you to understand that since you've previously demonstrated a complete inability to engage in anything resembling rational argument. Instead of responding to anyone's points you just throw out a slew of related but irrelevant red herrings which basically makes the whole exercise pointless.
Please. Name one red herring in my argument. One.
The things you are ignorant of have everything to do with this.
See, there is a very definite pattern of incompetence and neglect, not to mention the stab after stab in the back of the country this sad excuse for a leader is supposed to represent.
The, as you innocuously put it, underhanded politics at the cost of the very nation the man is suppossed to be at least a figurehead of.
You said it, or at least conceded it, that's exactly what the article said, and yet... it's a "dumb" article.
I understand perfectly, but I doubt that you do.
If you had known the HISTORICAL stance this administration held in regards to the law, you'd see clearly that the article was spot fucking on.
Again, how is this "controversial"?
It is not "a legal case ongoing"... it is merely enforcing pre-existing federal law. The fact that you quoted that little tidbit shows your ignorance on the matter.
The law is FEDERAL law, already existing... yet, this administration actually sues the state of AZ for enforcing that same law.
Kisses El Presidente of Mexico's ass in complete acquiesence while that ineffectual failure actually has the balls to criticize OUR law, on our soil...
And on top of it all, brings it up at the UN. I am not surprised that you don't fucking get it, though. You think it is a controversial law, after all.
