STATE OF THE UNION Egypt Suspends the Constitution
also check me out on www.facebook.com and twitter.com
Video Rating: 4 / 5
STATE OF THE UNION Egypt Suspends the Constitution
28 comments on “STATE OF THE UNION Egypt Suspends the Constitution”
Leave a Reply
Sundrumify
February 21, 2011 at 11:01 pm
Hope that the West is not further pumping money into the military to gain influence again. We heard already from Mrs. Ashton, EU “press officer”, not showing up as a foreign minister living the values set forth in the EU constitution, offering “help”? There are many lawyers in Egypt who do not need any legal advise to set up a new Constitution which represents the majority of people. On the other hand it should be based on the International Declaration of Human Rights, universally applicable.
StartLoving4
February 21, 2011 at 11:14 pm
@Sundrumify 🙂 slxxls
Sundrumify
February 21, 2011 at 11:54 pm
Thank YOU so much for keeping us posted with your uploads. lsxxsl
JacobusCT
February 22, 2011 at 12:23 am
nice vid man….you seem to know what ur on about
baigandine
February 22, 2011 at 12:42 am
Healthcare falls comfortably within the authority to spend ‘for the general welfare.’
89integra123456
February 22, 2011 at 1:22 am
@ladivadivala Yeah great point, cause dropping the hydrogen bomb was ‘killing for it’s own interets’. Lol
ladivadivala
February 22, 2011 at 1:30 am
@theslimeylimey I think it is amazing how this country is always portrayed as saving instead of actually killing for it’s own interests. Which country is still the only country to have dropped the hydrogen bomb on another country?
mackbdsr
February 22, 2011 at 1:37 am
We have heard about trickle down, ever considered trickle up? Rather than paying banks, give taxpayers back our money, tax free. We paid it in. Some will blow it on t.v.’s and junk. Most will pay mortgage and past bills. WOW. Funny, banks get stimulus, an not though bailout already paid….”Must be stupid”….banks and insurance are chokeing us. Its not privilage to drive our own roads, its our right, we already own them…show me recieptsinsurance companies paid for road and bridge tax
uturniaphobic
February 22, 2011 at 2:25 am
accrued money and deferring hell! All well said in my opinion
one other issue is the separation of common law to natural law. I think it’s blended in this bill.
so they can use common law to make me buy car insurance maybe (although questionable)
but they can’t make me buy insurance to live. it is a “God given right”
also what about religions that do not use western medicine?
natural law usurps common law or at least it did once
thanks 5*s!
Nickelodeon2002
February 22, 2011 at 2:51 am
I didn’t get this reply earlier, so I’ll respond now. What Bush has said to N.Korea is irrelevant-as I’m referring to action and most everyone thought Bush an ignoramus toward the end of his reign. As far as Nukes to our ports go-anything is possible but the moment it was done Iran would be a very deep dark hole in the ground,nothing more. You yourself stated they want it for defense reasons-which I agree with. If the world moves on with N.Korea as a nuclear power it can live with Iran too.
theslimeylimey
February 22, 2011 at 3:49 am
@Nickel I think Iran only really wants nukes for self protection from a US lead or sponsored invasion and don’t intend to use them offensively. Iran’s leadership doesn’t exactly instill a sense of calm responsible rational thinking though.
theslimeylimey
February 22, 2011 at 4:25 am
@Nickel- Didn’t Bush include N Korea in his axis of evil? That is about as thinly veiled as it gets. I was against the Iraq invasion from day one and I’m against military intervention in Iran at this point too for the same reason (not a threat). I’m not sure what sort of delivery system Iran would need for a nuke to cause serious damage but I think a nuke in a shipping container detonated at a major port would be messy.
Nickelodeon2002
February 22, 2011 at 4:54 am
@theslimeylimey You assume rational people are making rational decisions on that basis…something our gov’t routinely fails to do in even the most simple of circumstances. I can’t think of one government right now that could come close to matching (or even want to try) the military might of the US….so this scenario of bombing other countries EVEN if they want and are developing a nuke is absurd. I say let Iran have a nuke, who cares. N. Korea has them and it’s not doing them any good.
theslimeylimey
February 22, 2011 at 5:46 am
@Nickel I actually do agree with what you are saying but so is Peter if you really listen to his many blogs and understand his style. He is non interventionist, but if an unstable a nut job is trying to get nukes and might be just crazy enough to use them, it’s better to stop development through inspections and if that is denied, blow up ONLY those places you were going to inspect. Whether intell is reliable or not is another issue completely.
Nickelodeon2002
February 22, 2011 at 6:05 am
Btw, the “non-neocon” choice as you have it, is always to do “nothing”, aka “being peaceful”. If the US did a lot more of “nothing” globally speaking the world would be a much better place and our country wouldn’t be operating as a bankrupt enterprise forcing the world to take our paper that is decreasing in value.
Nickelodeon2002
February 22, 2011 at 6:14 am
As with anything, an evaluation of what the nature of the threat is should always take place. In Iraq’s case, there were no WMD. In the Iranian situation-they still don’t have a nuclear weapon…and they are no where near having any delivery system beyond a donkey cart to deliver said weapon. I’m for a strong national defense, not a strong national offense.
So what scenario are you describing? Korea? Ask yourself why we aren’t threatening to bomb them.
theslimeylimey
February 22, 2011 at 7:10 am
@Nickelodeon2002- question- You repeatedly state that bombing another country first is NEOCON and you against that. So, if you have a dictator who declares he wants to blow a certain country into dust, you think sitting back and watching this dictator enrich uranium into weapons grade while denying access for inspections is the way to go? Do you suggest the world waits for him to use a few nucs and then do something? What’s YOUR “non-neocon” choice then?
deadman12078
February 22, 2011 at 7:25 am
It all depends on ones definition of “hell”
JonasFrimodt
February 22, 2011 at 7:49 am
@AtlasShruggery He never said that it will definatly rise to 5.000 he says that if we stay on the current track it will, cause the dollar will collapse.
AtlasShruggery
February 22, 2011 at 7:52 am
“Gold is still going to go up on a long term trend”
“In the long run, we’re all dead” – John Maynard Keynes.
AtlasShruggery
February 22, 2011 at 7:52 am
Nah. Schiffty Pete just keeps changing his parameters and moving the goal posts every time the facts prove him wrong.
dennis345
February 22, 2011 at 8:51 am
He definitely had an anti-government agenda, but could you please define “Mises hack?”
BIackOp
February 22, 2011 at 9:14 am
No, I am not kidding. Not everyone opposing “Far Left” propaganda is Fox News.. The Political Bar is bullshit.
But Cheney wouldn’t have Congress debate and declare war. Cheney also wouldn’t let the situation end in a matter of days. And lastly the question they asked Schiff was an imminent threat, meaning talks were done end game.
Peter also said get out, don’t stay there.
And the Iranians have been complying with all the inspections.
AtlasShruggery
February 22, 2011 at 9:35 am
“constantly proven right”?
Schiffty Pete fancies himself an Austrian. Was he right in 2002 when he predicted that Dow would fall to 2000 within two years? How ’bout Schiffty’s prediction that the price of gold will rise to $5,000 per ounce? Do you believe that?
salmongutter
February 22, 2011 at 10:14 am
Your point being? If anything Atlas you make him sound even more appealing to me. A follower of Mises who is a gold bug and an anarcholibertarian who’s views fight against those of the mainstream, damn that is hot! What’s even more appealing is how Austrian Economics is so clear, concise, logical, and how they are constantly proven right.
AtlasShruggery
February 22, 2011 at 11:12 am
I’m familiar with Rothbard. He’s a Mises hack with an anti-government agenda. His arguments about the economics of Hoover and the Great Depression are not widely accepted outside of a small circle of gold bugs and anarcholibertarians.
.
aristochat3
February 22, 2011 at 11:12 am
“Herbert Hoover was a Keynesian”
this is a conclusion that can be reasonably made as a result of reading “The Great Depression” by Murray J. Rothbard.
AtlasShruggery
February 22, 2011 at 12:10 pm
“Herbert Hoover was a Keynesian”
You’re kidding, right? Where’d you get that one, Faux News?
Here’s a recent quote from yer boy Schiffty Pete:
“We tell the Iranians: This is where we think those weapons are, you need to let our inspectors in there. If they dont let us in, just blow the place up”
Schiffty sounds just like Dick Cheney, doesn’t he?