Seriously: I can't say for sure if there's a God or not, but I think we can all agree man has a need for a God, and I would further hope we can agree this need for a God is more than something primal like scratching an itch. Each and every time mortals pass judgment on the civilized or non-civilized behavior of other mortals, they always make a big mess of it. It degenerates into "you're decent if you do what benefits me politically and financially and you're indecent if you don't." Every single time.

No better demonstration of that anywhere than our modern-day liberals. They hounded Bob Packwood out of office and then circled the wagons around Bill Clinton for engaging in a far more serious, and/or far more provable, transgression. And on the human rights thing, from China to Guantanamo, it's been nothing more than tit-for-tat, one-hand-washes-the-other, whatever-it-takes-to-win noise-making exercise, as unprincipled as it can possibly be.

It certainly does have the look of people passing judgment in a realm reserved for something higher, like little boys climbing up into St. Peter's chair, grabbing his quill pen, and then scribbling nonsensically. What happens when you put little kids in grown-up jobs -- the job goes undone, right? Well, just about all of our discretionary spending on foreign aid, plus domestic social programs, goes into proving our wonderful-ness. What great people we are, what swell folks we have in charge of things. And is the job ever done? NO. Every single new item is added, year after year, with the argument of "we're not a truly civilized society unless..." And of course we never give up on anything -- except Iraq. What other things does our government do that could be called "quagmires"?

Hillary should be applauded for showing a little bit of honesty. She should be called-on to supply some more: To admit, for all the talk and bluster, people in charge don't really care about human rights in China, "treatment of detainees," et al; they just care about winning elections and spending money on pet social programs so they can win more elections. Of course that would be change that perhaps the average Obama supporter can't believe in...but hey, you're the Reality Based Community. Quit telling how awesome your iPresident Substitute-Jesus is for a minute and a half or so, and embrace some reality.

Yeah and that's another thing, I notice.

People who are all about holding us up to a higher standard of decency, get 'em to think about those who disagree with the things they want done, and all that decency sort of flies out the window pretty quick. Suddenly it's time to brag about all the indecent things you'd like to do to "neocons." Hypocrisy, much?

It's Saturday, astrology man. Don't forget to buy your beer.

So can we expect some American concern for human rights in Saudi Arabia, now?

Or is the oil more important?

What, you say money talks on BOTH sides of the aisle? How profound...

mkfreeberg: Yeah and that's another thing, I notice.

People who are all about holding us up to a higher standard of decency, get 'em to think about those who disagree with the things they want done, and all that decency sort of flies out the window pretty quick. Suddenly it's time to brag about all the indecent things you'd like to do to "neocons." Hypocrisy, much?

It's Saturday, astrology man. Don't forget to buy your beer.

Yeah, cause people never exaggerate, ever. Mordant would DEFINATELY torture conservatives. That's not retarded AT ALL.

In his Feb. 26 speech to Congress, he devoted just 7 percent of his words to foreign and defense policy, and made just one mention of freedom...Every time Bush called for spreading freedom and democracy around the world, the crowd guffawed and groaned and jeered. For them, evidently, Bush was a figure of fun, and his calls for democracy and human rights laughable. The same people who decried his supposed authoritarian rule at home had nothing but contempt for his call for freedom and democracy abroad....Beneath this stated contempt is, I think, something in the nature of secret guilt. Or rather, anger at the notion that Bush had stolen the issues of human rights and democracy from the liberals....The desire to oppose the Iraq war root and branch, to denounce every aspect of it, imposed a duty to dismiss as laughable Bush's stated objective -- set out eloquently before the decision to take military action as well as after it -- of advancing democracy in the Middle East....etc, ad infinitum.

This guy seems more concerned with talking about freedom and democracy than actually doing anything.

mkfreeberg: No better demonstration of that anywhere than our modern-day liberals. They hounded Bob Packwood out of office and then circled the wagons around Bill Clinton for engaging in a far more serious, and/or far more provable, transgression.

What kind of drugs are you on?
Bob Packwood = Sexual harassment, sexual abuse, and assault of at least 10 women.

Bill Clinton = consensual oral sex, using an intern as a humidor.
Oh yea, he lied under oath about getting a BJ.

If their people don't want the Communists in power, there are way more than enough of them to overthrow the current regime. In the mean time why should we give a shiat?

Psychotropic: What kind of drugs are you on?
Bob Packwood = Sexual harassment, sexual abuse, and assault of at least 10 women.

Poor kid sits in his basement day after day and night after night with nobody to talk to and nothing to do but feverishly scan his idiotic blogs for something to scream "Libs !!" about. He probably itches all over from not even showering regularly and has little to eat other than stale cookies.

Drugs ? His mind snapped before he even got around to thinking about drugs.

mkfreeberg: Seriously: I can't say for sure if there's a God or not, but I think we can all agree man has a need for a God,

No.

How some of you are duped into believing whatever the party line is truly frightening.

mkfreeberg had it right...

for all the talk and bluster, people in charge don't really care about human rights

Pounding away on your keyboard here at Fark does nothing. Your self-righteous indignation and faux outrage have been duly noted.

/waits 15 minutes
//oohh... lookie, another topic to bring out the self-righteous with their faux outrage

mkfreeberg: but I think we can all agree man has a need for a God,

See, you already gave away that this was a troll in the first sentence. 0/10

Cries of dismay quickly came forth from Amnesty International USA, New Students for a Free Tibet and Freedom House. Has the United States given up on championing human rights and democracy altogether?

To be fair, this was Hillary Clinton. She and Bill have *never* cared about anyone other than themselves. I wouldn't read anything more into her comments other than the fact that she's a sociopathic biatch who doesn't give a damn about anyone other than herself.

Also there's the corollary of such criticism, why didn't the other side do something to fix the problem? The implication is they stood there and let things be as they are, while others wanted something done. Pretty lousy position to try to mount a criticism from.

Good to see one of the best lib trolls around, mkfreeberg.

It's been a while!

WhyteRaven74: Also there's the corollary of such criticism, why didn't the other side do something to fix the problem? The implication is they stood there and let things be as they are, while others wanted something done. Pretty lousy position to try to mount a criticism from.

On the whole, what passes for leadership in the Republican party these days is just fine with torture, exploitation and human rights abuses. How they reconcile this with their weird interpretation of Christanity is entirely beyond my limited/armchair theology, but it's a fact of life we're just going to have to accept for the time being.

Meanwhile, the clintonian wing of the Democratic party is largely in agreement with the Republican leadership. In some ways they're more honest, since they don't try to praise Jesus while allowing the Chinese to abuse the crap out of their workers and pollute like a mofo. So they have that going for them. Which is nice.

We won't have any real leverage to press China on human rights abuses so long as they're paying a lot of our bills. They know it, too.

Weaver95: How they reconcile this with their weird interpretation of Christanity is entirely beyond my limited/armchair theology,

Yeah the whole thing is a mess. And it's one of their many large problems. I can't ever resolve it either, except that in their own minds given their take on Christianity, there's nothing wrong with letting people be oppressed. I mean they have a thing for basically declaring anyone in some sort of need as morally deficient. And I agree about the Clintons as well.

farking bullshiat. I've been listing to liberals give Hillary hell for days now.

DarnoKonrad: farking bullshiat. I've been listing to liberals give Hillary hell for days now.

Longer than that. There are reasons the Senator from Walmart lost her bid for the nomination. Being a toady for China for over 20 years was certainly on my short list.

The fact that her foreign policy is apparently Obama's is, of course, depressing.

mkfreeberg: Yeah and that's another thing, I notice.

People who are all about holding us up to a higher standard of decency, get 'em to think about those who disagree with the things they want done, and all that decency sort of flies out the window pretty quick. Suddenly it's time to brag about all the indecent things you'd like to do to "neocons." Hypocrisy, much?


Which American political group advocated the nuking of an American city this week?

Which American political group featured a speaker who recommended violence against our elected officials?

When was the last time the Conservative movement actually gave a shiat about human rights?

Answer me those questions, and realize how goddamn stupid you look.

mkfreeberg: Seriously: I can't say for sure if there's a God or not, but I think we can all agree man has a need for a God.



Um, no.

WhyteRaven74: Also there's the corollary of such criticism, why didn't the other side do something to fix the problem? The implication is they stood there and let things be as they are, while others wanted something done. Pretty lousy position to try to mount a criticism from.

this is going on with the republican party and any fiscal discussion at this point.

RevMercutio: mkfreeberg: Yeah and that's another thing, I notice.

People who are all about holding us up to a higher standard of decency, get 'em to think about those who disagree with the things they want done, and all that decency sort of flies out the window pretty quick. Suddenly it's time to brag about all the indecent things you'd like to do to "neocons." Hypocrisy, much?


Which American political group advocated the nuking of an American city this week?

Which American political group featured a speaker who recommended violence against our elected officials?

When was the last time the Conservative movement actually gave a shiat about human rights?

Answer me those questions, and realize how goddamn stupid you look.

None, none, and Iraq.
How's that?

"To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history."

They have, what, 1.4 billion people in a country the size of the US? Damned right human rights are violated. The Tienanmen Square incident and rumors of torture or whatever is probably best to keep a country with 4 1/2 times the amount of people we have under control.

From documentaries I've seen, the Chinese see the government as like a 'father' or 'parent'. I guess this is all part of disciplining the children.

Is Tibet that bad off, because I don't know? Is it like if Hawaii wanted independence?
I do know that the Chinese gov't fears that if they relinquish Tibet it might bolster other sects that want autonomy.

And as far as Clinton's comments go, how are you going to go to your loan shark in a time of crisis and then tell him to stop beating his wife.

We can't control China, but they need us prosperous. They don't want to be behind but things are just more complicated over there.

They just got way too many people over there.

I was never into forcing people to adhere to human rights. Plenty of cultures do not have the same views as we do on them. Extreme situations aside, we shouldn't have to. Promoting them is fine.

God has been used to justify so many things, and they always find exemptions to whatever rules don't suite them at the moment. No reason to be any different now. Same with liberals. Same with conservatives. Surprising? it shouldn't be.

All in all, Hillary might actually be right. Priorities in our relations with China are ranked differently with the times. Might be hypocritical, might be smart.

Say what you will about China, they get shiat done.

"We're going to build a dam. A big mother farking dam."
"But we live here!"
BLAM. "Right, well, on with the damn dam."

On the last day of her trip to East Asia, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke briefly of the place of human rights in American policy toward China. "Our pressing on those issues" -- issues she didn't identify any more fully -- "can't interfere with the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis and the security crisis."

That's a pretty typical Clinton comment. She gives the impression that she actually cares about human rights and at the same time makes it very clear she intends to do nothing about it. This is why she will probably be an ineffective and largely forgettable Secretary of State.

It still surprises me to see politicians make comments like this to the press. She's actually telling reporters how she intends to position U.S. foreign policy around the ludicrous notion that one can separate security and globalization from human rights. This is total postmodern intellectual chaos.

t3knomanser: Say what you will about China, they get shiat done.

"We're going to build a dam. A big mother farking dam."
"But we live here!"
BLAM. "Right, well, on with the damn dam."

Building high speed rail is also a lot easier for them since they can just seize property with little debate.

/Beijing to Shanghai rail will be awesome

t3knomanser: Say what you will about China, they get shiat done.

"We're going to build a dam. A big mother farking dam."
"But we live here!"
BLAM. "Right, well, on with the damn dam."

A truly shining example to aspire to.

mkfreeberg: WHARRGARBL

The amount of cognitive dissonance which allows you to make the claim that "them liberals" aren't doing enough to increase human rights in China while simultaneously believing it's okay for the US to torture people is staggering.

May I suggest a refresher course as to what is a sovereign nation?

"Tribal sovereignty means that; it's sovereign. I mean, you're a - you've been given sovereignty, and you're viewed as a sovereign entity. And therefore the relationship between the federal government and tribes is one between sovereign entities."

my DEll/Hp/Sony.etc laptop was made in communist china.


isn't Freedom great!!

Mordant: If China wants to torture neocons I'll not only help, but I'll pay my own way to get there.

How do you say "give me a call" in Chinese ?

All you do is go into threads and troll until you get a response. Go crawl back from wince you came. You offer no reasonable discourse.

/Yes, I realize that I'm feeding a troll

The U.S. is almost communist at this point. Just a "capitalist" shell. Sure our banks our solvent, and FOX news is fair and balanced, but sooner or later they will fall to the darkside of state ownership and we will have some kind of hope and change filled perpetual revolution/war. I just know it. Let's not let this happen people, keep an eye out.

Guys, it's not that liberals are not opposed to China's lack of civil rights, liberties and sometimes life-threatening oppression in general.

It's just that liberals are focused on the far more horrendous cases of abuse, like making Muslim men take funny pictures together. Only a shockingly depraved world fascist would commit such grotesque acts against the human rights, one George Bush, a man so disgustingly evil and guilty of the worst kinds of terrorism and oppression imagineable (read: aforementioned example). I'm not sure China, North Korea, or Muslim countries are quite so bad, though.

THe point is, Liberals are so sickened by Bush and friends' violation of human rights, they were totally behind stripping them of power pre-emptively, un-democratically, and economically. They even wanted to throw him in jail! They wanted nothing to do with him, because he violated human rights. Liberals will oppose and combat ANY government or person who violates human rights...

Hey. Wait a second... Ohhh...

It was just Republicans and Christians doing that liberals didn't like.

So that's why ... no privacy for non-demostic communication under Bush = bad, no privacy for private medical care under Obama = good. I totally understand this now.

Frank N Stein: All you do is go into threads and troll until you get a response. Go crawl back from wince you came. You offer no reasonable discourse.

ProTip - Americans sometimes use humor, satire and sarcasm to make a point.
For further reading please refer to - Mark Twain, Will Rogers, and Art Buchwald.

/and yes, I am wincing from you not understanding all of this

For what it's worth, when people rightly denounced Bush's record on human rights I'm pretty sure the absolute last thing they had in mind was his policy towards China. Most reasonable people understand that the China situation is ridiculously complex because of economic and defense issues, and dealing with China's human rights violations is nowhere near as easy as it is with other countries. We can basically directly tell countries like Burma/Myanmar to get their shiat together, but its a little harder to do the same to an economic powerhouse that has 1.4bn people and buys up most of our debt.

Also, an enormous 'fark you' to the author for this:
Beneath this stated contempt is, I think, something in the nature of secret guilt. Or rather, anger at the notion that Bush had stolen the issues of human rights and democracy from the liberals.
The desire to oppose the Iraq war root and branch, to denounce every aspect of it, imposed a duty to dismiss as laughable Bush's stated objective -- set out eloquently before the decision to take military action as well as after it -- of advancing democracy in the Middle East.

The revisionist bullshiat that this was all done in the name of spreading freedom and democracy is ridiculous. When they were building the case against Iraq this was something like a distant 5th on the list of reasons, way behind lies about imminent attacks from WMDs and ties to 9/11. When your main rationales are proven to be outright falsehoods you don't get to fall back on your supplementary moral arguments and claim them as the driving force, especially when the way you executed the war made it obvious that the only thing that was really properly planned was overthrowing Saddam.

And saying you're for freedom and democracy and human rights is all well and good, but it makes you look like a hypocritical asshole when you also advocate indefinite detention without trials, extraordinary rendition and torture. THIS is why Bush's speeches were a farking laughing stock; everyone knew that they were empty rhetoric when compared to his actions.

But yes, go on talking about how those dirty libs hate freedom and democracy, and Bush is a champion of human rights.

Random Reality Check: ProTip - Americans sometimes use humor, satire and sarcasm to make a point.
For further reading please refer to - Mark Twain, Will Rogers, and Art Buchwald.

/and yes, I am wincing from you not understanding all of this

Ok then, what point is he trying to make when he says that he wants to torture neocons?

xkillyourfacex: WHARRGARBL

The best estimates are that over well one million people have either died or been seriously wounded directly due to our military's involvement in Iraq. This action was wholly unnecessary, as Saddam had offered to leave Iraq peacefully. The Bush Administration refused that offer and effectively doomed those one million people to the fate of war.

How do you define a war crime?

amazing how the tone has shifted in the last month. A year ago, everyone would be screaming for Bush's head for something similar (and rightly so). But because Obama's in charge everyone who voted for him and being confronted with crap like this that was predicted now has to build up their own Fortress of Cognitive Dissonance, just like the ones that protected the 26%'ers from Bush's non-stop evil; in a slightly different way, but the idea is the same.

Seriously: I can't say for sure if there's a God or not, but I think we can all agree man has a need for a God.

NONONONONO

Frank N Stein: Random Reality Check: ProTip - Americans sometimes use humor, satire and sarcasm to make a point.
For further reading please refer to - Mark Twain, Will Rogers, and Art Buchwald.

/and yes, I am wincing from you not understanding all of this

Ok then, what point is he trying to make when he says that he wants to torture neocons?

I read his post as an attempt to point out that liberals never really advocated torture or the killing of NeoCons whereas several "conservative" spokepeople did make comments about torturing or killing liberals.

To date, every time this issue is made, I have seen direct quotes from people who were invited to the Republican conventions and routinely appeared at high level Republican fundraising events but have yet to see a single direct quote of equal hatred directed at "conservatives" from any Democratic spokesperson of a similar status.

Of course, as a married man, I am oftentimes reminded that I am wrong and this could be one of those time.

Liberals 2008: Hillary Clinton sucks, and shouldn't be in a position of authority!

Liberals 2009: Hillary Clinton sucks, and shouldn't be in a position of authority!

Republicans 1980-present: LIBS!

I'm surprised subby could put down the pr0n long enough to post this...

RanDomino: amazing how the tone has shifted in the last month. A year ago, everyone would be screaming for Bush's head for something similar (and rightly so). But because Obama's in charge everyone who voted for him and being confronted with crap like this that was predicted now has to build up their own Fortress of Cognitive Dissonance, just like the ones that protected the 26%'ers from Bush's non-stop evil; in a slightly different way, but the idea is the same.

Actually, I see this differently.

A comment was made about civil rights, one that could have easily been omitted. This sets a tone, a tone that at no time in the eight years that President Bush was in office I can remember a parallel.

Who are we to claim this upper hand in human rights? In the last decade we have executed a man who was so mentally retarded (and incapable of knowing right from wrong) that he asked if he could save his dessert for after the execution.

We allow roughly 25% of our children to go to bed undernourished, black children at a measurably higher rate, the gap between incredibly wealthy and miserably poor is the highest it has been in close to a century, our prison population has now reached parity with all the other industrialized nations combined and the list goes on and on.

Are you sure we have any right to crow about human rights?

A psychopath decides he's the brother of Jesus Christ. Starts a rebellion that kills 50 million people and has to be put down with foreign assistance. 90% of 1.5 billion people live on 10% of a land area the size of the US. That's the history and geography and some jackasses are concerned about human rights. Look up the philosophy of Falun Gong, it makes Jim Jones look like Fred Rogers. It's not a human rights abuse when you deny psychos the right to spread psychosis.

Mordant: Decency is for human beings and cute animals like puppies. Killing neocons is like spraying roaches, it doesn't count.

Someone want to explain why this comment doesn't violate the Fark posting rules?

Don't encourage others to perform illegal acts.
Don't post hate speech.

Random Reality Check: RanDomino: amazing how the tone has shifted in the last month. A year ago, everyone would be screaming for Bush's head for something similar (and rightly so). But because Obama's in charge everyone who voted for him and being confronted with crap like this that was predicted now has to build up their own Fortress of Cognitive Dissonance, just like the ones that protected the 26%'ers from Bush's non-stop evil; in a slightly different way, but the idea is the same.

Actually, I see this differently.

A comment was made about civil rights, one that could have easily been omitted. This sets a tone, a tone that at no time in the eight years that President Bush was in office I can remember a parallel.

Who are we to claim this upper hand in human rights? In the last decade we have executed a man who was so mentally retarded (and incapable of knowing right from wrong) that he asked if he could save his dessert for after the execution.

We allow roughly 25% of our children to go to bed undernourished, black children at a measurably higher rate, the gap between incredibly wealthy and miserably poor is the highest it has been in close to a century, our prison population has now reached parity with all the other industrialized nations combined and the list goes on and on.

Are you sure we have any right to crow about human rights?

No, of course not, it's not like we have a constitution that guarantees rights or we're a sanctuary for the oppressed from around the world or anything. Why don't you moral relativists do the world a favor and start a Russian Roulette tournament?

We have to take a new approach. Condemning China in public for their dismal human rights record has not worked.
I believe it's time for a new tactic. Believe me I want Tibet to be given sovereign rights and the people of China to have freedom of speech etc. A better way to get China to play ball on human rights, is to leverage them into it.
Secondly, we will be totally spanked for preaching human rights to other countries since the previous administration screwed the pooch on that front.
I think the liberals need to smarten up and be patient and the conservatives stifle themselves, they aren't helping.

Random Reality Check: Of course, as a married man, I am oftentimes reminded that I am wrong and this could be one of those time.

I'm gunna have to say that you're wrong on this. I have him farky'd as a troll for a reason. He goes into political threads and spews hateful comments until someone bites. The only reason you read this as satire was because, for once, him advocating torture and/or murder is somewhat relevant to this thread.