Netanyahu Slams Ban Ki-Moon's 'Occupation' Remarks

Jun 14, 2015 21:14:20 GMT pjohns1873 said:

The reason that "we see the woman with the child" is that she is highly visible; whereas the man who impregnated her may be in dispute, absent a DNA test (which is not often done, for the purpose of determining paternity). There is no "misogyny" there.

If a young man knows himself to be the father, however--perhaps he was in an exclusive relationship with the young woman in question ("going steady," as we used to term it, back in the 1960s)--and still refuses to pay child support, he is, indeed, irresponsible.  And anti-social, too.

I have previously noted my severe distaste for your qualifier, "the Rights of the Person." So I will state it here, unequivocally: Any point of yours, based upon this criterion, shall go ignored by me; which is to say, that I will not respond to it.  Period.

Your speculation about what Benjamin Netenyahu would do, if only he could, is precisely that:  speculation. 

To declare that the US economy is in "serious trouble"--and to imply that this "serious trouble is irreversible--is also mere speculation.  (What countries' economies are doing much better, in your opinion?) 
 

Blaming the woman alone is misogynistic. In a real sense she's often the victim of the pregnancy as she's often the only one financially responsible for the raising of the child.

You're unquestionably one of the few people I've ever encounterd that doesn't believe that people have any rights.

Yes, I merely speculate on what Netayahu would do based upon the "Jewish Supremacy" doctrine of the Zionists as expressed in the Israel Declaration of Independence. The nation of Israel was founded upon Jewish Supremacy and what those in the government will do to enforce this "supremacist" ideology is speculative. One thing we do know is that the Israeli government denies the "right to vote" and "representation" to over one million non-Jewish people subjected to the authority of the government of Israel.

I've not claimed that the serious economic troubles we find ourselves in are irreversable. I've claimed that we're not doing what is necessary to reverse our path and that even if we did it would take a generation to accomplish.

Compensation for American workers was basically stagnant between 1970-2008 and then has declined by 5% since 2009. While using slightly older information from Business Insider that is not the case for many developing countries.

According to the International Monetary Fund, there is a 1 in 6 chance that global growth dips below 2% in 2013, which would throw advanced economies back into a recession.

But the IMF’s recently released World Economic Outlook, which includes economic growth forecasts for 185 countries, wasn’t completely negative.

We selected 20 countries with the highest projected compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) from 2013 through 2017, based on the IMF’s estimates.

None of these countries are located in the Western Hemisphere – all are from Africa or Asia – which underscores that global economic growth will be driven by emerging markets and developing economies.

A cautionary note – this isn’t a list of the world’s best economies, or countries with the highest standards of living. Many of these countries start with extremely low levels of GDP, and as such have an easier time attaining a high growth rate over this selected period.

Some features of these countries:
•10 are found in Sub-Saharan Africa, 8 in Asia (2 from the Commonwealth of Independent States), and 2 from the Middle East/North Africa;
•10 are underdeveloped, as evidenced by little infrastructure and mass subsistence farming;
•8 rely upon oil or gas as a key export; and
•7 have law and order, corruption, or security issues as impediments to growth.

www.businessinsider.com/worlds-fastest-economies-2012-10?op=1

While hampered by corruption, law and order, and other security issues the people of these nations have the promise of improvement in their lives based upon economic growth. In the United States today, even though we have economic growth, the increased wealth is being funneled into the bank accounts of the very wealthy while the incomes of the vast majority is shrinking.

In the past, when we grew up, a person could expect their children to be better off finacially when they grew up but today their children are going to be worse off based upon current economic trends. It is reversable but not by continuing to do what created the problem in the first place. Favoritism for corporatons and the wealthy, the economic agenda of the Republican Party, is the root cause of the problem and that needs to change.

Jun 17, 2015 20:33:16 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Contrary to your assertion, I do not believe "that people [don't] have any rights."  Rather, I believe that, in America, those rights are enumerated in the US Constitution; in the various state constitutions; and in legislative decrees. 

In short you do not believe in the statements included in the Declaration of Independence where it states that the inalienable rights of the person are self-evident or in the 9th Amendment that expressly establishes that the rights of the person do not require enumeration in the Constitution.

What part of the American political ideology do you believe in if you refuse to believe in the (natural) inalienable rights of the person? Our government was founded upon the political ideology that the primary purpose of our government, and of all governments, was to be to protect the (natural) inalienable rights of the person. Any government failing to protect the (natural) inalienable rights of the person is a trannical government.

So what part of being an American do you actually believe in?  

Jul 5, 2015 21:27:37 GMT pjohns1873 said:

I believe in the US Constitution; which (necessarily) includes the Ninth Amendment. (In fact, it includes all the amendments, unless they have been repealed; and only one has been.) 

Both natural rights (which you have mentioned) and the social contract (a.k.a. the social compact) are important to the US Constitution.  Sometimes the two are in tension with each other.  But these are the two chief principles behind the US Constitution. 

So, in point of fact you do believe in the unenumerated Rights of the Person that are protected by the 9th Amendment.

Let me ask you a question based upon the US Constitution.

In Article I it establishes that members of the House are to be selected by the "people" of the United States. The 17th Amendment revised the provisions for the election of US Senator where it also states that Senators are to be selected by the "people" of the United States. The US Constitution is very specific when it refers to the "people" as opposed to the "citizens" as the term "people" refers to everyone, citizens and non-citizens alike, living in the United States.

Based upon the specific wording of both Article I and the 17th Amendment shouldn't permanent resident aliens (non-citizens) be allowed to vote in federal elections?

Jul 16, 2015 6:11:39 GMT pjohns1873 said:

I believe in the entire US Constitution--including the Ninth Amendment.

When were the "people" of the United States ever meant to include illegal aliens, for the purpose of voting in federal elections? 

Who said anything about illegal aliens?

From memory I believe there are about 35 million legal immigrants residing in the United States, over half of which are of voting age and the majority of which are on a "pathway" to becoming US citizens. They're not tourists or temporary labor but instead they're part of the "people" of the United States. They're counted by the US government census that determines the apportionment for seats in the House of Represenatives (that also affects the electorial college and presidential elections) but they're being denied the "right to vote" for their elected representatives in the House and Senate even though the US Constitution explicitly establishes that members of House and Senate are to be elected by the "People" and not just the "Citizens" of the United States.

Based upon the explicit wording of Article I and the 17th Amendment do you support the Right to Vote for the millions of legal non-citizen immigrants that are in the process of becoming US citizens?

Jul 20, 2015 1:26:41 GMT pjohns1873 said:

I would support the right for these people to vote--who are "on a 'pathway' to becoming US citizens"--once they actually do become citizens of this country.

But not before that. 

So, until they become US citizens they're not "People" according to your position? Once agian the Constitution is specific when it addresses the "People" and when it addresses the "Citizens" of the United States and both Article I and the 17th Amendment use the term "People" and that includes both citizens and non-citizens alike.

Why are you opposed to the explicit wording of the US Constitution?

You're even willing to defy historical precedent in the United States where non-citizens were not prohibited from voting under the law when the nation was founded. In fact, at one point in the 19th Century, 40 states and territories protected the right to vote for non-citizens (so long as they were seeking US citizenship).

Jul 23, 2015 4:46:12 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Actually, what I am "opposed to" is your interpretation of "people" in the US Constitution--an interpretation that is not supported by the SCOTUS, or any other federal court. 

Seriously you jest. The courts, including the SCOTUS, have ALWAYS differentiated between "citizens" and the "people" in their decisions. As noted in the 14th Amendment citizens do have certain privileges and immunities (e.g. a US citizen cannot be deported or denied entry into the United States) but the Constitutionally protected rights of the "people" apply to all people regardless of whether they're US citizens or not.

Now living in Arizona the case of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio provides a perfect example. He's in federal court facing charges for contempt because his office, in violation of a federal court order, was stopping Hispanic (immigrants) without probably cause because it's a violation of the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution. The 4th Amendment protections against unreasonable search and siezure applies to everyone regardless of citizenship in the United States because it refers to the "people" and not just to US citizens. The "Due Process" clause of the 14th Amendment applies to all people subjected to the  jurisdiction of our government regardless of citizenship because the protection is for the "people" and not just US citizens. In 2007 the SCOTUS upheld the protected right of legal representation for GITMO detainees, that haven't even set foot in the United States, because they are "people" subject to the jurisdiction of the United States (6th Amendment).

So citizens have certain "privileges and immunities" but "rights" exist for everyone regardless of citizenship. So the question exists as to whether voting is a "privilege of citizenship" or is it a "right of the people" protected by the US Constitution? Once again the US Constitution is quite clear because in the 15th, 19th, and 26th Amendment the Constitution, while limited in application, refers to voting as a "right" and not a privilege of citizenship.

Let me ask you one more question. If non-citizen residents are not the "people" then why are they counted by the US census for the purpose of allocating seats in the House of Representatives? Why aren't Congressional seats apportioned based upon just the US "citizens" as opposed to all of the "people" residing in the state?

Jul 27, 2015 1:18:57 GMT pjohns1873 said:

I do not believe that non-citizens should be counted, for the purpose of allocating House seats. (My guess is that this measure was rammed through by Democrats, who view non-citizens as one of their client groups.)

Again, I ask: When has the Supreme Court ever claimed that the US Constitution guarantees non-citizens the right to vote?  (Please provide a direct answer--not some sort of tortured logic.) 

And Arizona's Joe Arpaio may be in court; but he has not been convicted of anything, at this moment. 

To my knowledge the "right to vote" for non-citizens has hever been adjudicated before the US Supreme Court but based upon cases addressing the Constitutionally protected rights of the person the court has established by precedent that they apply to both citizens and non-citizens alike. Voting, according to the US Constitution, is a right and not a privilege and Constitutionally protected rights apply to everyone regardless of citizenship. I would love to see the ACLU file a lawsuit challenging the Constitutionality of the statutory laws prohibiting "non-citizen" people from voting. Supreme Court precedent indicates the ACLU would win the lawsuit.

Since 1790 when the first US census was conducted all people, citizens and non-citizens alike, have been counted for the purpose of apportionment for seats in the House of Representatives because it's required by Article I of the US Constitution. Once again you express beliefs that are in direct contradiction to the explicit provisions of the US Constitution. I don't know how you can claim you support the Constitution as written when you oppose so many of the explicit provisions contained in it.

You're probably correct that "Democrats" were responsible. When the nation was founded the Democrats were the party of WASP Male Supremacy with Andrew Johnson, a Democrat, arguably being the most racist president in American history. The Democrats remained the party of WASP Male Supremacy until the elections of Kennedy and LBJ. The indications that Democrats wanted to include non-citizens is reflected in the Constitution itself where slaves were counted (as 3/5ths of  a person) and under the racist statutory laws of the South the slaves weren't even "people" in the Southern (racist) states but instead were property and never allowed to vote.

Racists always want non-WASP's to be counted but denied the right to vote and today it's states like Texas (a Republican state) that benefit. Based upon a quick analysis Texas would lose two seats in the House if Hispanic non-citizens, that are not allowed to vote, were excluded from the census. 

Joe Arpaio's sheriff department was found guilty of violating the Constitution by using racial profiling in it's stops of Hispanics which is why there's a court order requiring "probably cause" for the stops. He has not been convicted of continuing the stops after the court order issued (i.e, the current contempt charges) but he was found guilty of violating the "probably cause" provisions of the Constitution previously which is why the court order exists. If found guilty he faces possible fines and/or imprisonment for contempt of court and I hope it's both. Arpaio is unquestionably the highest profile racist cop in America IMHO.