At a recent gun amnesty (which is similar to these gun buybacks) in sweden someone turned in an anti aircraft cannon.

And for the record that AT-4 is not an RPG it's technically a recoilless grenade launcher

Here's a link to the Amnesty article
http://nabisalehsolidarity.wordpress.com/2012/11/03/amnesty-international-israeli-soldiers-arrest-son-of-detained-palestinian-activist-at-west-bank-pr
otest/
via
http://nabisalehsolidarity.wordpress.com/


In response to another comment, kids can learn to hate something without anyone actively teaching them to do so. All life responds to and is sculpted by its environment.

The residents of Nabi Saleh and their supporters who are international activists.

It cannot be disputed that Palestinians do and have used children for political gain. Nor can it be disputed that Israelis have used excessive and lethal force against.

In this particular instance they are protesting about the expansion of the Israeli settlement of Halamish. Halamish is not a border settlement like we are led to believe most settlements are. It is 10 miles from the Israel border.

https://maps.google.com.au/maps?q=Halamish&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=0x151d295311c3dc3d:0xe8c9eec7d4996da0,Halamish&gl=au&ei=aJWbUISYCcTqiAf664CgDA&ved=0CIMB
ELYD

It has the constant protection, and therefore tacit approval, of the Israeli government and violates a multitude of international agreements and laws regarding occupation. Each week there are protests which are met with a military presence against an unarmed mob. These protests are monitored by Amnesty International. Unfortunately their site is down at the moment and I can't find any reliable links to this other than the BBC which says little. However you can read the following if you want to know more.

http://www.bikyamasr.com/80182/amnesty-international-declares-palestinian-activist-a-prisoner-of-conscience/

I guess the crux of my argument is this: To what extend does the use of children for political purposes compare to the often brutal and expanding occupation of a homeland? What is the right thing for these villagers to do under the circumstances?

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

It's important to be rooted in idealism, but without pragmatism (and all of the qualities that go with it - cooperation, negotiation and compromise) there is no way reconcile your own idealism with the conflicting idealism of other factions.
If you want to create a healthcare system in a political climate dominated by business, you are going to have to make a few caveats to business. It's a foot in the door. Then, a few miles down the road you can renegotiate for something better. Same goes for foreign policy. While the use of new drone technology is troubling, it is an improvement over ground invasions, deploying troops and building bases in places they are unwelcome.
Democracy is a balancing act.

I understand what you're saying, and for the most part I'm forced to agree. But, saying the healthcare reform had a few caveats to business is like saying, "Lizzy Borden had a few issues with her parents."

The things that bother me most about Obama are the way his civil rights promises have been mostly ignored. He made no visible attempt to block the amnesty for telecom companies, indeed he voted for it. No investigation of torture and who ordered it. Increased use of the state secrets defense. In most ways as far as civil rights goes, he took the Bush line and doubled down.

I'm thankful (in some sad way) that it truly doesn't matter if I vote in this election...Kansas won't go for a Democrat for at least another 20 years or more (we'll need at least one more generation to die off, and maybe two or three). They sure aren't going to go for a somewhat-right-of-center black man.

At no time did I say "Lana Lang" here was justified or right in doing what she did. As some of the less-testy lefties here admit, she certainly did not act like someone who was caught deliberately trying to do wrong.

What I am saying is, compared to the vote-rigging schemes by taxocrat elected officials and the illegal "granting" of amnesty by His Majesty, liberals have no solid ground to attack voter suppression, which consists of asking for the SAME FUCKING ID used to buy alcohol.

Oh that's right, we're not allowed to criticize The One's SHIT performance in office, because he's (half) Black.

Liberals will always have a ready-made excuse why obamanomics failed, or why no one is investing in this poisoned business climate, or why millions have been added to food stamps and disability, or why tyrants around the world scoff at His Earness' spinelessness. But it's your right to worship at the feet of this fool.

Regarding partisanship, am I inclined to be a little less harsh towards conservative foolishness than liberal foolishness? Of course. Only now, liberal foolishness means the wholesale ruination of the system.

Seriously, American libs, why are you still here? Canada and Europe ALREADY HAVE free health care and all the PC bullshit already set in stone! If I believed as you do, I'd have moved a long time ago.



>> ^cosmovitelli:

>> ^quantumushroom:
I'll see your one confused girl attacked by a liberal harpie with these clowns and His Earness' amnesty for one million illegals in June.

Behold the hypocrisy of the partisan.. funny how reality flips upside down depending on the color of the offenders T shirt..
Harpies and cuties aside any reasonably impartial fan of democracy would say this shit CANNOT PASS

>> ^quantumushroom:

I'll see your one confused girl attacked by a liberal harpie with these clowns and His Earness' amnesty for one million illegals in June.


Behold the hypocrisy of the partisan.. funny how reality flips upside down depending on the color of the offenders T shirt..
Harpies and cuties aside any reasonably impartial fan of democracy would say this shit CANNOT PASS

I'll see your one confused girl attacked by a liberal harpie with these clowns and His Earness' amnesty for one million illegals in June.

UPDATE 9:55 am: All three women have been sentenced to two years in prison, starting from the date of arrest in March. Shouts of "shame! shame!" could be heard in the courtroom.

The three long-detained members of Russian punk band Pussy Riot have been found guilty of "hooliganism motivated by religious hatred," following a five-month case in Moscow that had become both controversial and inspiring around the world.

A number of people have been arrested outside of the courtroom, including chess champion-turned-political activist Garry Kasparov, according to the Guardian, who are live-blogging the verdict.
Reuters are streaming the case (which is, of course, in Russian) here. If you're in Britain, the BBC are sporadically returning to the case, which they're broadcasting with live English translation.

Pussy Riot were jailed in March on grounds of "hooliganism," after a February 21 flash-performance at Moscow's Christ the Saviour Cathedral, wherein the group shouted an anti-Putin "punk prayer".
Amnesty International declared Pussy Riot "prisoners of conscience" and noted they faced the danger of being sent to labor camps where they would be at risk of physical and sexual abuse.

I said "legally" can't not report it.

This amnesty program is about tax cheats about to be caught. Which isn't the olly olly oxen free deal. That was about corporations working solely on foreign soil.

Although there is an interesting point buried in here....

IF Rmoney in PRIOR YEARS hadn't reported his Swiss earnings, that would show up on prior years' tax returns. 2006-2009 no Swiss earnings, then, boom, amnesty for prior years and the Swiss earnings show up.

I doubt that he would do that, though. His presidential ambitions have been blatant for years. To lie on his tax returns with the possibility of getting caught.... I doubt he would do that.

Of course, Dem Charles Rangel didn't report the rental income from his Jamaican property. Maybe Rmoney would be that stupid.

I doubt it though....



>> ^ObsidianStorm:

Well, I don't claim to be an expert on the topic but from what I have read about the 2009 amnesty program, it appears to apply to individuals with Swiss bank accounts...

From the Oct 2009 LA Times,
"Some 3,000 U.S. residents have voluntarily disclosed their foreign bank accounts to the IRS this year, compared to fewer than 100 in 2008, said one U.S. government official who asked not to be identified.
Demand for the amnesty program exploded in August when Swiss bank UBS agreed to settle U.S. criminal charges that it had engaged in a "multibillion-dollar scheme" to help U.S. taxpayers hide assets from the IRS."

Admittedly this is just speculation and I have no proof that Romney ever did this. But to state the obvious, whatever is in his tax returns is political kryptonite or he would never put up with the beating he's taking (and will continue to take) for this...

Well, I don't claim to be an expert on the topic but from what I have read about the 2009 amnesty program, it appears to apply to individuals with Swiss bank accounts...


From the Oct 2009 LA Times,

"Some 3,000 U.S. residents have voluntarily disclosed their foreign bank accounts to the IRS this year, compared to fewer than 100 in 2008, said one U.S. government official who asked not to be identified.

Demand for the amnesty program exploded in August when Swiss bank UBS agreed to settle U.S. criminal charges that it had engaged in a "multibillion-dollar scheme" to help U.S. taxpayers hide assets from the IRS."


Admittedly this is just speculation and I have no proof that Romney ever did this. But to state the obvious, whatever is in his tax returns is political kryptonite or he would never put up with the beating he's taking (and will continue to take) for this...

Holy fuck, please get away from your computer and interact with real flesh and blood human persons.

I refuse to believe you can't comprehend how disgusting and illogical this comment is.

"Sure prison rape is awful. But why make prisoners safer? We should really be focusing on making sure no one ever breaks the law, ever. Then there wouldn't be any prisoners to rape in the first place. Duuurrr."

It's simple Pennypacker.
You're a human. Immigrants are humans. Prisoners are humans.

If it's unjust to treat WinstonField AssholePacker like this.
It's clearly unjust to treat immigrants and prisoners like this. Full stop.

Who the fuck cares what law these people broke.
You break the law all the goddamn time and no one humiliates and degrades you for it.

These immigrants are trying to live "the american dream".
Shouldn't you admire them for that.
Shouldn't you stand up and protect them from these injustices.
Shouldn't you recognize their determination and hardwork to achieve that dream by any means necessary?!

You should. But you can't.
Cause you're too wrapped up in your "conservative" moralfaggotry to stop and examine the reality of things.

I.E. - The problem here is that the Border Patrol abuse EVERYONE. Fully legal citizens included.

Yet your moralfaggotry conveniently allows you to gloss over that fact and the root of the injustice.
All in favor of tooting the - "Illegal immigration is the real problem" horn.

TL;DR

The problem isn't illegal immigration.
The problem is the systemic abuse, degradation and misconduct by people trusted with authority.

Pennypacker can't empathize. Needs to be tortured next time he gets a speeding/parking ticket.


>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Nothing new here. Such things have plagued the system for decades. Only message I get is that the US needs a better, better, higher, deeper wall so that only legal immigration can take place.

If you were looking for sympathy, look elsewhither. Illegals get no sympathy from me. No one approves of abuses.

If you want to eliminate these abuses, the solution is clear. Eliminate illegal immigration by slamming the south border shut.

And yet should we not arrest them? Should we give them 'amnesty'? Should we just get rid of prisons and go to some sort of hippie liberal honor system? Pht. So what's your point?

Nothing new here. Such things have plagued the system for decades. Only message I get is that the US needs a better, better, higher, deeper wall so that only legal immigration can take place. Eliminate the illegal immigration and you don't need to arrest people for being illegal.

If you were looking for sympathy, look elsewhither. Illegals get no sympathy from me. No one approves of abuses. But anyone who illegally crosses the border must operate under the assumption that they may get - you know - arrested for participating in illegal activity. That's what happens when you do things that are against the law you know. You get arrested and punshied. Dur.

If you want to eliminate these abuses, the solution is clear. Eliminate illegal immigration by slamming the south border shut tighter than Obama's school records. Law enforcement & prison environments are not pleasant places. Nor should they be. Prisoners who are in prison for stealing, selling drugs, or other crimes are subject to abuses just as bad or worse. And yet should we not arrest them? Should we give them 'amnesty'? Should we just get rid of prisons and go to some sort of hippie liberal honor system? Pht. So what's your point?

That looks like an Amnesty International logo, perhaps it was specially designed for an event of theirs?

"Tyrans"? Can't Amnesty International afford a proofer?

I'll just respond to these in bulk, since it's quite a pile of manure.

The following state things happened that never happened:

>> ^lantern53:

First President to violate the War Powers Act.
First President to abrogate bankruptcy law to turn over control of companies to his union supporters.
First President to by-pass Congress and implement the Dream Act through executive fiat.
First President to order a secret amnesty program that stopped the deportation of illegal immigrants across the U.S., including those with criminal convictions.
First President to demand a company hand-over $20 billion to one of his political appointees.
First President to terminate America's ability to put a man in space.
First President to threaten insurance companies if they publicly spoke-out on the reasons for their rate increases.
First President to tell a major manufacturing company in which state it is allowed to locate a factory.
First President to fire an inspector general of Ameri-Corps for catching one of his friends in a corruption case.
First President to appoint 45 czars to replace elected officials in his office.
First President to hide his medical, educational and travel records.
First President to go on multiple global 'apology tours'.


The following he wasn't the first to do, or wouldn't have been if it weren't also part of the block above:

>> ^lantern53:

First President to violate the War Powers Act.
First President to be held in contempt of court for illegally obstructing oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.
First President to defy a Federal Judge's court order to cease implementing the Health Care Reform Law a duly passed Act of Congress.
First President to require all Americans to purchase a product from a third party.
First President to arbitrarily declare an existing law unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it.
First President to file lawsuits against the states he swore an oath to protect.
First President to withdraw an existing coal permit that had been properly issued years ago.
First President to hide his medical, educational and travel records.
First President to go on 17 lavish vacations, including date nights and Wednesday evening White House parties for his friends paid for by the taxpayer.
First President to have 22 personal servants (taxpayer funded) for his wife.
First President to keep a dog trainer on retainer for $102,000 a year at taxpayer expense.
First President to take a 17 day vacation.


Many of these he not only wasn't the first to do, they were things Bush did when he was in office. Some, like "arbitrarily declare an existing law unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it" and "require all Americans to purchase a product from a third party" happened back when the founding fathers were still alive.

Let's see, what's left?

>> ^lantern53:

First President to spend a trillion dollars on 'shovel-ready' jobs when there was no such thing as 'shovel-ready' jobs.


There's a lot wrong with this one. First, it wasn't a trillion dollars. Second, "the President" didn't spend it. Third, "shovel-ready" was a term to describe projects that could begin work sooner rather than later, and amazingly enough, those existed. Fourth, this wasn't a "first" -- the New Deal was bigger when you adjust for inflation. Fifth, it was a big help to our sagging economy, and we should've done a second round of it.

But I do agree, the President deserves credit for getting the stimulus passed. So does the President -- the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (aka the stimulus) is featured prominently in the video above.

>> ^lantern53:

First President to preside over a cut to the credit-rating of the United States.


That's because Republicans in Congress came within seconds of forcing the US to default on its debt.

>> ^lantern53:

First President to have a law signed by an auto-pen without being present.


No argument from me on this one. Is this supposed to be a bad thing?

>> ^lantern53:

First President to repeat the Holy Quran tells us the early morning call of the Azan (Islamic call to worship) is the most beautiful sound on earth.


I suspect if we check the record really carefully we can find Bush (Jr. or Sr.) saying something similar, but in any case is this supposed to be a bad thing?

President Obama's record is one he should be proud of. I was hoping he'd be able to do more, but honestly I underestimated the totally craven hostile bullshit that having a black Democrat in the White House brought out of the Confederacy. Excuse me, I mean the "Republican party."