A few weeks ago, Afghan President Hamid Karzai announced that he had not won his re-election cleanly, meaning that there had been some kind of fraud, meaning that Abdullah Abdullah, his main opponent, had probably won the election.
A few months ago, I had my first new post in a while called "Election Fraud (?) in Iran" about another controversial election in the middle east, but there it was between Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Mir-Hossein Mosavi.
The Iran election was similar and different to the Afghan election.
It was similar because they were both suspected to have election fraud and both of them were extremely shady.
It was different because Hamid Karzai actually admitted that there was some kind of Election Fraud going on in the election.
Now, some might argue that that means that there wasn't any fraud in Iran. They'll say that the election in Iran was older than the Afghan election, and if Ahmadinejad hasn't said that he didn't win cleanly, then he probably did win cleanly.
This is exactly what Ahmadinejad wants you to think. Karzai coming out and saying that there was corruption in the Afghani election was probably the best thing for Ahmadinejad's corrupt win.
But anyway, back to Afghanistan, Abdullah Abdullah is against everyone in the Afghan government right now since, right now, everyone in the Afghan government works for Hamid Karzai. Although Abdullah is probably supported by most of the country, he has to get through the government before he becomes the next President of Afghanistan.
Since Afghanistan is still a developing democracy, it isn't exactly where the U.S. is since we've had a democracy for more than 200 years.
Now, we do know from 2000 and 2004 that we don't have a perfect democracy either.
This is a bad thing for us and for the rest of the world.
For us, we don't win clean elections and we get the wrong guy to run our country for 4 years.
For the rest of the world, we set an example for democracy worldwide, and if we don't have clean elections, the rest of the world doesn't have clean elections
What do I think? Well, as I said earlier, since Hamid Karzai has come out and said that the race had fraud in it, Karzai has said without saying that Abdullah Abdullah won the Afghan election.
But now, according to nytimes.com, Abdullah has quit the race, and according to CNN Newsroom, it's because he feared that there would be even more fraud the second time around.
Post questions and comments as comments
Sam
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Happily Married
In the 1960's, Homo-Sexuality was far from accepted.
Now, in the 2000's, it is more accepted, but not to the point where it should be. And there, comes the Gay Marriage laws.
In the 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama said that he didn't think it was the president's duty to make a law for the whole country to approve or dis-approve Gay Marriage, and thought that it should be up to states to decide weather or not to allow Gay Marriage.
John McCain, however, didn't like it at all.
No big surprises.
During the Presidential Campaign, however, Gay Marriage was being tossed around in the state of California, and Obama has said, publicly, that he is against Proposition 8, which later passed, and banned Gay Marriage in California. Although, he has also stated that he believes Marriage is between a man and a woman.
Is this believable?
Not especially.
It wasn't until his campaign that he has even been shy about this issue. When he was a Illinois state Senator, he was for it. When he was a U.S. Senator from Illinois he was for it. But when he was running for President, probably in an effort to get more votes, he was shy, and now that he's President, he's against it.
Also, explain this to me: he's against both Proposition 8, which would ban gay marriage, and Gay Marriage.
What do I think?
I think that Gay Marriage is absolutely needed in this country.
First off, no one just decides to be Gay, weather they're Gay or Straight is something that you are born with.
And secondly, according to many surveys from many sources, about 1 out of 10 people in America are Homo-Sexuals.
So if you are against Gay Marriage, that means that you are against giving 10 percent of the people in America the right to be Married.
Ten Percent of the people in this country are the work of the Devil.
10% of people in this country are not going to Heaven.
Will we ever change this?
A special thanks to huffingtonpost.com for additional information
Post questions and comments as comments
Sam
Now, in the 2000's, it is more accepted, but not to the point where it should be. And there, comes the Gay Marriage laws.
In the 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama said that he didn't think it was the president's duty to make a law for the whole country to approve or dis-approve Gay Marriage, and thought that it should be up to states to decide weather or not to allow Gay Marriage.
John McCain, however, didn't like it at all.
No big surprises.
During the Presidential Campaign, however, Gay Marriage was being tossed around in the state of California, and Obama has said, publicly, that he is against Proposition 8, which later passed, and banned Gay Marriage in California. Although, he has also stated that he believes Marriage is between a man and a woman.
Is this believable?
Not especially.
It wasn't until his campaign that he has even been shy about this issue. When he was a Illinois state Senator, he was for it. When he was a U.S. Senator from Illinois he was for it. But when he was running for President, probably in an effort to get more votes, he was shy, and now that he's President, he's against it.
Also, explain this to me: he's against both Proposition 8, which would ban gay marriage, and Gay Marriage.
What do I think?
I think that Gay Marriage is absolutely needed in this country.
First off, no one just decides to be Gay, weather they're Gay or Straight is something that you are born with.
And secondly, according to many surveys from many sources, about 1 out of 10 people in America are Homo-Sexuals.
So if you are against Gay Marriage, that means that you are against giving 10 percent of the people in America the right to be Married.
Ten Percent of the people in this country are the work of the Devil.
10% of people in this country are not going to Heaven.
Will we ever change this?
A special thanks to huffingtonpost.com for additional information
Post questions and comments as comments
Sam
Friday, October 9, 2009
Congratulations: President Barack Obama
On October 9, 2009, something historic happened.
President Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."
He was not a front-runner, in fact, people were surprised that he had won, yesterday, the front-runner, they said, was Colombian senator Piedad Cordoba, who's most famous act was to find and free 16 prisoners.
All applications had to be sent in only 12 days after he had taken office, and there was already talk about who it was going to be 2 months before he was even elected.
The committee said, just after they had announced that it would go to Obama, "Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given it's hope for a better future".
According to Thorbjorn Jagland, the leader of the committee, the decision to give Obama the prize was "Unanimous" and that it came with ease to pick the President.
During Obama's speech, he said that he didn't deserve to "be in the company" of all the other winners of the prize, but that he would accept it, because he did think that he was trying to do a lot of things, like his attempt to find a resolution to Nuclear Weapons, the Global Economic Downturn, and finding the resolution to the Arab-Isreali conflict.
He also mentioned that he, as the President of the United States, was responsible with ending the useless Iraq war to premote a higher level of peace, and that he will donate about 1.4 million to charity and charitable causes.
As well as Barack Obama, other winners of the Nobel Prizes include Elizabeth H. Blackburn, Carol W. Greider, and Jack W. Szostack for Medicine and Physiology, Herta Müller for Literature, and many others.
A special thanks to cnn.com and other various sources for additional information
Post questions and comments as comments
Sam
President Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."
He was not a front-runner, in fact, people were surprised that he had won, yesterday, the front-runner, they said, was Colombian senator Piedad Cordoba, who's most famous act was to find and free 16 prisoners.
All applications had to be sent in only 12 days after he had taken office, and there was already talk about who it was going to be 2 months before he was even elected.
The committee said, just after they had announced that it would go to Obama, "Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given it's hope for a better future".
According to Thorbjorn Jagland, the leader of the committee, the decision to give Obama the prize was "Unanimous" and that it came with ease to pick the President.
During Obama's speech, he said that he didn't deserve to "be in the company" of all the other winners of the prize, but that he would accept it, because he did think that he was trying to do a lot of things, like his attempt to find a resolution to Nuclear Weapons, the Global Economic Downturn, and finding the resolution to the Arab-Isreali conflict.
He also mentioned that he, as the President of the United States, was responsible with ending the useless Iraq war to premote a higher level of peace, and that he will donate about 1.4 million to charity and charitable causes.
As well as Barack Obama, other winners of the Nobel Prizes include Elizabeth H. Blackburn, Carol W. Greider, and Jack W. Szostack for Medicine and Physiology, Herta Müller for Literature, and many others.
A special thanks to cnn.com and other various sources for additional information
Post questions and comments as comments
Sam
Monday, October 5, 2009
North Korea's Iran
North Korea, like Iran, supposedly has Nuclear weapons. North Korea, like Iran, is feared by the U.S. North Korea, like Iran, are places that, out of fear, Republicans feel like we need to bomb.
God, has anybody learned anything from Pearl Harbor? Or even our Atom Bomb droppings on Japan?
Bombing just keeps everything going, in fact it makes the feud between those countries worse.
If we bomb them, they are more likely to bomb us.
If we bomb them, they see us as cowards.
Also, let me explain the physics of this, we think that they have Nuclear Weapons, so we get Nuclear Weapons, and we bomb them. Makes perfect sense, right?
Wrong.
If we drop a few Nukes on them, and let me just point out, that we don't know if they have Nuclear Weapons, and we're just assuming, 'cause, y'know, all Muslims are Terrorists.
Right now, there is about an 100% chance that no, they don't have Nuclear Weapons. But just to be sure, we should assume that that 0% is right, and go in, spend 10 billion dollars a month (and they wonder why our debt is so large), realize that there aren't any, but they'll still stay in Iran, to make sure that they aren't making non-existing Nuclear Weapons (and yes, "Iraqi Road" still wasn't enough).
But back to the point, if we bomb them, we are imposing a threat that is doesn't exist, we need to have Iran see us as a good country. Charitable, forgiving, and genuine.
If we bomb them, we are bad people.
To them, to the world, and to me.
How do we do this?
We give aid.
Iran has a lot of people in need of Aid, and if Ahmadinejad sees that we are supplying aid, it will change our image, slightly at first, but later, by a significant margin.
Also, we half to do it sincerely.
If we don't do it sincerely, and Ahmadinejad knows that, he'll just think that we are trying to suck up.
Post questions and comments as comments
Sam
God, has anybody learned anything from Pearl Harbor? Or even our Atom Bomb droppings on Japan?
Bombing just keeps everything going, in fact it makes the feud between those countries worse.
If we bomb them, they are more likely to bomb us.
If we bomb them, they see us as cowards.
Also, let me explain the physics of this, we think that they have Nuclear Weapons, so we get Nuclear Weapons, and we bomb them. Makes perfect sense, right?
Wrong.
If we drop a few Nukes on them, and let me just point out, that we don't know if they have Nuclear Weapons, and we're just assuming, 'cause, y'know, all Muslims are Terrorists.
Right now, there is about an 100% chance that no, they don't have Nuclear Weapons. But just to be sure, we should assume that that 0% is right, and go in, spend 10 billion dollars a month (and they wonder why our debt is so large), realize that there aren't any, but they'll still stay in Iran, to make sure that they aren't making non-existing Nuclear Weapons (and yes, "Iraqi Road" still wasn't enough).
But back to the point, if we bomb them, we are imposing a threat that is doesn't exist, we need to have Iran see us as a good country. Charitable, forgiving, and genuine.
If we bomb them, we are bad people.
To them, to the world, and to me.
How do we do this?
We give aid.
Iran has a lot of people in need of Aid, and if Ahmadinejad sees that we are supplying aid, it will change our image, slightly at first, but later, by a significant margin.
Also, we half to do it sincerely.
If we don't do it sincerely, and Ahmadinejad knows that, he'll just think that we are trying to suck up.
Post questions and comments as comments
Sam
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)