Jumpin Jupiter
05/10/07, 05:21 am
Is this right?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,271116,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,271116,00.html
You've visited the ProgressivesOnline.com archive.
View our full featured site -> : Child Support
Jane of Arc
05/10/07, 10:02 am
Is this right?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2007-04-15-cover-war-children_N.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2007-04-15-cover-war-children_N.htm
Jumpin Jupiter
05/10/07, 11:34 am
Is this right?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2007-04-15-cover-war-children_N.htm
Did I post this in the wrong forum?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2007-04-15-cover-war-children_N.htm
Did I post this in the wrong forum?
FDRfollower
05/10/07, 01:19 pm
Hi Jumpin. No, its not wrong.
But Jane D'arc, in her ironical way, conterposed another story that certainly gives one pause.
What is the life of one child in a nation with screwed up "values", trumpeted by a cynical "news" service that exists to push the buttons of conservates like pavlovs dogs vs. something on the other side of the planet that is effecting huge numbers of future adults, but, according the the same "news" source, has to be done in order to make the world safe for "democracy".
But Jane D'arc, in her ironical way, conterposed another story that certainly gives one pause.
What is the life of one child in a nation with screwed up "values", trumpeted by a cynical "news" service that exists to push the buttons of conservates like pavlovs dogs vs. something on the other side of the planet that is effecting huge numbers of future adults, but, according the the same "news" source, has to be done in order to make the world safe for "democracy".
Jane of Arc
05/10/07, 05:41 pm
Jumpin',
FDR was right on the money, of course. I was being ironical.
Please, Jumpin', you're a smart man. Can't you see when your buttons are being pushed by Fox "News"? They clearly focus sensationally on attacking liberals any way they can. 'Vegans that kill their babies'. 'Lesbians that wrongly get child support'. Bad, bad liberals. The owner of Fox, Rupert Mudoch, loathes liberals.
My point is ... does Fox cover the hundreds of thousands of children that didn't do anything to anyone, who have died for no reason and who continue to die everyday in Iraq? No, they don't. They cover the one child support case.
FDR was right on the money, of course. I was being ironical.
Please, Jumpin', you're a smart man. Can't you see when your buttons are being pushed by Fox "News"? They clearly focus sensationally on attacking liberals any way they can. 'Vegans that kill their babies'. 'Lesbians that wrongly get child support'. Bad, bad liberals. The owner of Fox, Rupert Mudoch, loathes liberals.
My point is ... does Fox cover the hundreds of thousands of children that didn't do anything to anyone, who have died for no reason and who continue to die everyday in Iraq? No, they don't. They cover the one child support case.
Jumpin Jupiter
05/12/07, 09:56 am
Jumpin',
FDR was right on the money, of course. I was being ironical.
Please, Jumpin', you're a smart man. Can't you see when your buttons are being pushed by Fox "News"? They clearly focus sensationally on attacking liberals any way they can. 'Vegans that kill their babies'. 'Lesbians that wrongly get child support'. Bad, bad liberals. The owner of Fox, Rupert Mudoch, loathes liberals.
My point is ... does Fox cover the hundreds of thousands of children that didn't do anything to anyone, who have died for no reason and who continue to die everyday in Iraq? No, they don't. They cover the one child support case.
Well, Jane, I believe news is news and it is actually happening. I know most of you dont care for FOX, but it is one of many web sites that I frequent daily to find out what is going on in the world. If I could have gotten a local link, I would have posted that. Point is, just because YOU dont like where I got the link from, doesnt mean its not news or is happening.
What I was looking for was the reaction to see whom believes this is right or wrong.
I also find this type of reaction to the things I post here is driving me away from this site. I try to post things that I believe could get a thread started with debate and what instead I get is :blah: :blah: :blah: , because you dont like where I get the news from.
Unfortunately for you and many others out there on this site, you dont like where MAIN STREAM public gets there news from. Sorry, but no matter what spin you put on it, it is still happening.
FDR was right on the money, of course. I was being ironical.
Please, Jumpin', you're a smart man. Can't you see when your buttons are being pushed by Fox "News"? They clearly focus sensationally on attacking liberals any way they can. 'Vegans that kill their babies'. 'Lesbians that wrongly get child support'. Bad, bad liberals. The owner of Fox, Rupert Mudoch, loathes liberals.
My point is ... does Fox cover the hundreds of thousands of children that didn't do anything to anyone, who have died for no reason and who continue to die everyday in Iraq? No, they don't. They cover the one child support case.
Well, Jane, I believe news is news and it is actually happening. I know most of you dont care for FOX, but it is one of many web sites that I frequent daily to find out what is going on in the world. If I could have gotten a local link, I would have posted that. Point is, just because YOU dont like where I got the link from, doesnt mean its not news or is happening.
What I was looking for was the reaction to see whom believes this is right or wrong.
I also find this type of reaction to the things I post here is driving me away from this site. I try to post things that I believe could get a thread started with debate and what instead I get is :blah: :blah: :blah: , because you dont like where I get the news from.
Unfortunately for you and many others out there on this site, you dont like where MAIN STREAM public gets there news from. Sorry, but no matter what spin you put on it, it is still happening.
Jennifer_SFBA
05/12/07, 12:43 pm
JJ, lets analyze:
Pennsylvania Court Orders Sperm Donor to Lesbian Couple to Pay Child Support
Now how do you suppose a traditional values person is going to read and react to that, and how do you suppose a liberal is going to read and react to the same thing? Could, or should the title have been written differently for " social understanding" rather than deliberatley setting up a confrontation?
The answer to the last question is in the analysis.
1.) It turns out the guy is NOT a sperm donor in the legal sense. A sperm donor goes to a sperm bank, signs legal documents that he will forever remain anonomous to the sperm repient and to the child and that NO identifying information will be provided to ANYONE seeking the services of the sperm bank, etc. A woman goes to that very same sperm bank and signs documents, selects genetic characteristics she would like her child to have and, from there, a match is made between her preferences for her child's genetic characteristics and the various donors' GENETIC sperm donations.
Now, it is KNOWN that many Americans are hung up on sex, sexuality and gender, especially conservative Christians. Conservative Christians react emotionally based on conservative values to the very idea of a sperm bank alone as being unnatural and against God and God's will from their conservative Christian point of view.
2.) "Lesbian couple" is included in the title. It is KNOWN that conservative Christians are hung up on gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and transsexual people. Conservative Christians react emotionally based on conservative values to the very idea of any person being gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender or trassexual alone as being unnatural and against God and God's will from their conservative Christian point of view.
"Judge orders" - How might that be reacted to by Conservative Christians. "Well, see what liberals do?!" "We need to get rid of those "liberal activist judges" and replace them with good God fearing Christian conservative judges who do the will of God."
"Pay Child Support" is implied in the title to be 1.) VERY expensive, a back breaker even 2.) unjust because it was ordered and 3.) for an immoral purpose, that is, a purpose against God and God's will, and the natural order from conservative Christians' point of view on the basis that sperm is being donated to a lesbian couple who will raise the child without a man in the household to be the child's father, the child to learn that gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and transsexual people are OK, and that it is OK for same sex couples to raise children together and maybe even learn that they do a really good job of it, at least as good as heterosexual couples go.
What's the underlying "FEAR" that is being triggered? The child will be sexually abused. The child will be encouraged or forced to be "gay" by associations. That traditional Christian belief systems will become socially and religiously extinct. That traditional Christian belief is wrong, and that they who believe it are wrong and are even bad people for believing in it and for their loathing and discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and transsexual people - EGO is involved too.
The legal facts in the case are that the man did not exercise anonimity, and that the man provided his sperm to the woman openly, not withstanding the presently legal immaterial fact that she is a lesbian and in a lesbian relationship, as a favor to her. Then, that he had a direct, on-going, relationship with the child such that the man was called daddy by the child.
The article could have pointed out the current GENETIC science on sex and gender that would tend to show that different sexual orientations in people are natural and, therefore, a part of God's natural plan. Did the article do that?
The fact is that raising a child costs money and that parents are responsible for those costs. So, is it established that the man is a parent of the child? If so, then it is established that the man is responsible for costs associated with the raising HIS child.
I hope that you will apply analysis and critical thinking to questions such as this one. I also hope that you will take time to educate yourself about things like the genetic science of sex and gender (Milton Diamond, Ph.D. Physiology, University of Hawaii - Do you know his work?). It's absolutely necessary IF We, the people are NOT to be manipulated into becoming unfree, freedomless, and controlled in the way neo-conservatives and conservative Christians want us to be.
Critical thinking and analysis is just about the opposite of belief. Belief is programming, and programming is control.
Pennsylvania Court Orders Sperm Donor to Lesbian Couple to Pay Child Support
Now how do you suppose a traditional values person is going to read and react to that, and how do you suppose a liberal is going to read and react to the same thing? Could, or should the title have been written differently for " social understanding" rather than deliberatley setting up a confrontation?
The answer to the last question is in the analysis.
1.) It turns out the guy is NOT a sperm donor in the legal sense. A sperm donor goes to a sperm bank, signs legal documents that he will forever remain anonomous to the sperm repient and to the child and that NO identifying information will be provided to ANYONE seeking the services of the sperm bank, etc. A woman goes to that very same sperm bank and signs documents, selects genetic characteristics she would like her child to have and, from there, a match is made between her preferences for her child's genetic characteristics and the various donors' GENETIC sperm donations.
Now, it is KNOWN that many Americans are hung up on sex, sexuality and gender, especially conservative Christians. Conservative Christians react emotionally based on conservative values to the very idea of a sperm bank alone as being unnatural and against God and God's will from their conservative Christian point of view.
2.) "Lesbian couple" is included in the title. It is KNOWN that conservative Christians are hung up on gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and transsexual people. Conservative Christians react emotionally based on conservative values to the very idea of any person being gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender or trassexual alone as being unnatural and against God and God's will from their conservative Christian point of view.
"Judge orders" - How might that be reacted to by Conservative Christians. "Well, see what liberals do?!" "We need to get rid of those "liberal activist judges" and replace them with good God fearing Christian conservative judges who do the will of God."
"Pay Child Support" is implied in the title to be 1.) VERY expensive, a back breaker even 2.) unjust because it was ordered and 3.) for an immoral purpose, that is, a purpose against God and God's will, and the natural order from conservative Christians' point of view on the basis that sperm is being donated to a lesbian couple who will raise the child without a man in the household to be the child's father, the child to learn that gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and transsexual people are OK, and that it is OK for same sex couples to raise children together and maybe even learn that they do a really good job of it, at least as good as heterosexual couples go.
What's the underlying "FEAR" that is being triggered? The child will be sexually abused. The child will be encouraged or forced to be "gay" by associations. That traditional Christian belief systems will become socially and religiously extinct. That traditional Christian belief is wrong, and that they who believe it are wrong and are even bad people for believing in it and for their loathing and discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and transsexual people - EGO is involved too.
The legal facts in the case are that the man did not exercise anonimity, and that the man provided his sperm to the woman openly, not withstanding the presently legal immaterial fact that she is a lesbian and in a lesbian relationship, as a favor to her. Then, that he had a direct, on-going, relationship with the child such that the man was called daddy by the child.
The article could have pointed out the current GENETIC science on sex and gender that would tend to show that different sexual orientations in people are natural and, therefore, a part of God's natural plan. Did the article do that?
The fact is that raising a child costs money and that parents are responsible for those costs. So, is it established that the man is a parent of the child? If so, then it is established that the man is responsible for costs associated with the raising HIS child.
I hope that you will apply analysis and critical thinking to questions such as this one. I also hope that you will take time to educate yourself about things like the genetic science of sex and gender (Milton Diamond, Ph.D. Physiology, University of Hawaii - Do you know his work?). It's absolutely necessary IF We, the people are NOT to be manipulated into becoming unfree, freedomless, and controlled in the way neo-conservatives and conservative Christians want us to be.
Critical thinking and analysis is just about the opposite of belief. Belief is programming, and programming is control.
Jumpin Jupiter
05/13/07, 09:47 am
I want to know now, since they lesbian couple had split up, the sperm donor dead, will the "other woman" have to pay child support as well?
I am also not sure if PA considers the "civil union" from another state, legal here in PA. I hope they keep the public up on the case about it, as its going to get interesting. PA takes a hard line on Child Support, I know, been there and done with that.
I also think the title is accurate : Pennsylvania Court Orders Sperm Donor to Lesbian Couple to Pay Child Support
After all, isnt that what the article is about?
I am also not sure if PA considers the "civil union" from another state, legal here in PA. I hope they keep the public up on the case about it, as its going to get interesting. PA takes a hard line on Child Support, I know, been there and done with that.
I also think the title is accurate : Pennsylvania Court Orders Sperm Donor to Lesbian Couple to Pay Child Support
After all, isnt that what the article is about?
Jennifer_SFBA
05/13/07, 12:51 pm
No, the story is about the "biological" parents of the child and who is "legally" responsible for the child unless "otherwise" provided for in the law. There are many positive ways that article could have been written, but it was written that way. It could have focused on the finanial welfare of the child and on unequal rights AND responsibilities of gay, lesbian, biexsexual, transgender and transsexual people, but instead it puts out the message I analyzed above in post 7.
The article is sensationalistic and biased and contentious. That is FOX's intention, and it hurts the country, it hurts freedom.
The article is sensationalistic and biased and contentious. That is FOX's intention, and it hurts the country, it hurts freedom.
Wafflepudding
05/13/07, 01:59 pm
I would hardly say any sort of message hurts freedom. I dislike Fox News, I HATE Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter, but would I oppose their right to rant because I am offended by them? hell no, they might but I leave censorship of political views to fascists and narrow-minded people.
JJ has got a point here though, so far it's been all about attacking the source, disqualifying it (not that it needs any help, being Fox) or the sensasionalistic and biased way it's presented. These are all important factors, yes, but has there been any actual discussion on the news reported? no
Now, when conservatives disqualify the source or say that our claims are propaganda, I'm bothered by their dismissal of the facts as propaganda, the door swings both ways and making their mistakes won't make us better.
How about we leave the format, biased and inflammatory as it is, and focus on the ISSUE?
JJ has got a point here though, so far it's been all about attacking the source, disqualifying it (not that it needs any help, being Fox) or the sensasionalistic and biased way it's presented. These are all important factors, yes, but has there been any actual discussion on the news reported? no
Now, when conservatives disqualify the source or say that our claims are propaganda, I'm bothered by their dismissal of the facts as propaganda, the door swings both ways and making their mistakes won't make us better.
How about we leave the format, biased and inflammatory as it is, and focus on the ISSUE?
Jennifer_SFBA
05/13/07, 02:49 pm
Well, then, wp, you would not agree with Germany's law against NAZI propaganda, or other Western World laws I cite below claiming there is NO harm ... There is a saying, "Anyone's right to discriminate ends at my nose!"
Again, you fail to see, wp! The issue is who pays. The question was, was it right for what happened to happen. I said YES and showed why it was a legally sound descision. I have a right to respond in everyway I see it, wp. Sorry you don't like it, wp, but if you open up, you might gain more wisdom and understanding and breadth.
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/austrian/austrian-resistance-archives/ld-14.html
Holocaust denial is outlawed in seven European countries as a form of hate speech.
The Council of Europe has worked intensively on this issue. While Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights does not prohibit criminal laws against revisionism such as denial or minimization of genocides or crimes against humanity, as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe went further and recommended to member governments to combat hate speech under its Recommendation R (97) 20. The Council of Europe also created the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (www.coe.int/ecri) which has produced country reports and several general policy recommendations, for instance against anti-Semitism and intolerance against Muslims.
In the United Kingdom, incitement to racial hatred is an offence under the Public Order Act 1986 with a maximum sentence of up to seven years imprisonment.
In Germany, Volksverhetzung (incitement of hatred against a minority) is a punishable offense under Section 130 of the Strafgesetzbuch (Germany's criminal code) and can lead to up to five years imprisonment. Volksverhetzung is punishable in Germany even if committed abroad and even if committed by non-German citizens, if only the incitement of hatred takes effect within German territory, e.g. the seditious sentiment was expressed in German writ or speech and made accessible in Germany (German criminal code's Principle of Ubiquity, Section 9 §1 Alt. 3 and 4 of the Strafgesetzbuch).
In Ireland, the right to free speech is guaranteed under the Constitution (Article 40.6.1.i). However, the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act, proscribes words or behaviours which are "threatening, abusive or insulting and are intended or, having regard to all the circumstances, are likely to stir up hatred" against "a group of persons in the State or elsewhere on account of their race, colour, nationality, religion, ethnic or national origins, membership of the travelling community or sexual orientation."
In Canada, advocating genocide or inciting hatred against any 'identifiable group' is an indictable offense under the Canadian Criminal Code with maximum terms of two to fourteen years. An 'identifiable group' is defined as 'any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.' It makes exceptions for cases of statements of truth, and subjects of public debate and religious doctrine. The landmark judicial decision on the constitutionality of this law was R. v. Keegstra (1990).
Again, you fail to see, wp! The issue is who pays. The question was, was it right for what happened to happen. I said YES and showed why it was a legally sound descision. I have a right to respond in everyway I see it, wp. Sorry you don't like it, wp, but if you open up, you might gain more wisdom and understanding and breadth.
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/austrian/austrian-resistance-archives/ld-14.html
Holocaust denial is outlawed in seven European countries as a form of hate speech.
The Council of Europe has worked intensively on this issue. While Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights does not prohibit criminal laws against revisionism such as denial or minimization of genocides or crimes against humanity, as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe went further and recommended to member governments to combat hate speech under its Recommendation R (97) 20. The Council of Europe also created the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (www.coe.int/ecri) which has produced country reports and several general policy recommendations, for instance against anti-Semitism and intolerance against Muslims.
In the United Kingdom, incitement to racial hatred is an offence under the Public Order Act 1986 with a maximum sentence of up to seven years imprisonment.
In Germany, Volksverhetzung (incitement of hatred against a minority) is a punishable offense under Section 130 of the Strafgesetzbuch (Germany's criminal code) and can lead to up to five years imprisonment. Volksverhetzung is punishable in Germany even if committed abroad and even if committed by non-German citizens, if only the incitement of hatred takes effect within German territory, e.g. the seditious sentiment was expressed in German writ or speech and made accessible in Germany (German criminal code's Principle of Ubiquity, Section 9 §1 Alt. 3 and 4 of the Strafgesetzbuch).
In Ireland, the right to free speech is guaranteed under the Constitution (Article 40.6.1.i). However, the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act, proscribes words or behaviours which are "threatening, abusive or insulting and are intended or, having regard to all the circumstances, are likely to stir up hatred" against "a group of persons in the State or elsewhere on account of their race, colour, nationality, religion, ethnic or national origins, membership of the travelling community or sexual orientation."
In Canada, advocating genocide or inciting hatred against any 'identifiable group' is an indictable offense under the Canadian Criminal Code with maximum terms of two to fourteen years. An 'identifiable group' is defined as 'any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.' It makes exceptions for cases of statements of truth, and subjects of public debate and religious doctrine. The landmark judicial decision on the constitutionality of this law was R. v. Keegstra (1990).
Jennifer_SFBA
05/13/07, 02:51 pm
Continued:
In Iceland, the hate speech law is not confined to inciting hatred, as one can see from Article 233 a. in the Icelandic Criminal Code, but includes simply expressing such hatred publicly: "Anyone who in a ridiculing, slanderous, insulting, threatening or any other manner publicly assaults a person or a group of people on the basis of their nationality, skin colour, race, religion or sexual orientation, shall be fined or jailed for up to 2 years." (The word "assault" in this context does not refer to physical violence, only to expressions of hatred.)
Victoria, Australia has enacted the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001, which prohibits conduct that incites hatred against or serious contempt for, or involves revulsion or severe ridicule of another on the grounds of his race or religious beliefs.
New Zealand prohibits hate speech under the Human Rights Act 1993. Section 61 (Racial Disharmony) makes it unlawful to publish or distribute "threatening, abusive, or insulting...matter or words likely to excite hostility against or bring into contempt any group of persons...on the ground of the colour, race, or ethnic or national or ethnic origins of that group of persons." Section 131 (Inciting Racial Disharmony) lists offences for which "racial disharmony" creates liability.
France has made hate speech laws restricting the open expression of anti-Semitism, and ethnic bias in public, but it implies to guidelines in news journalism (i.e. newspapers and state-owned Television) in how to report (or be told not to discuss) those matters without creating social tension.[citation needed]
Singapore has passed numerous laws that prohibit speech that causes disharmony among various religious groups. The Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act is an example of such legislation. In 2005, three men were convicted for hate speech under the Law of Singapore.
In Brazil, according to the 1988 Brazilian Constitution, racism and other forms of race-related hate speech are "imprescriptible crime(s) with no right to bail to its accused". In 2006, a joint-action between the Federal Police and the Argentinian police has cracked down several hate-related websites. However, some of these sites have recently reappeared -- the users have re-created the same sites on American domain. The federal police have asked permission from the FBI to crackdown these sites, but the FBI denied claiming that the First Amendment guarantees the right to any speech, even if it involves racism.
Sweden prohibits hate speech, hets mot folkgrupp, and defines it as publicly making statements that threaten or express disrespect for an ethnic group or similar group regarding their race, skin colour, national or ethnic origin, faith or sexual orientation.
Finland prohibits hate speech, hets mot folkgrupp/kiihotus kansanryhmää vastaan, and defines it as publicly making statements that threaten or insult a national, racial, ethnic or religious group or a similar group.
Denmark prohibits hate speech, and defines it as publicly making statements that threaten, ridicule or hold in contempt a group due to race, skin colour, national or ethnic origin, faith or sexual orientation.
Norway prohibits hate speech, and defines it as publicly making statements that threaten or ridicule someone or that incite hatred, persecution or contempt for someone due to their skin colour, ethnic origin, homosexual life style or orientation or, religion or philosophy of life.
Serbia - Serbian constitution guaranties freedom of speech, but declares that it may be restricted by law to protect rights and respectability of others. Because of inter ethnic conflicts during last decade of 20th century, Serbian authorities are very rigorous about ethnic, racial and religion based hate speech. It is processed as "Provoking ethnic, racial and religion based animosity and intolerance" criminal act, and punished with six months to ten years of imprisonment.
In Iceland, the hate speech law is not confined to inciting hatred, as one can see from Article 233 a. in the Icelandic Criminal Code, but includes simply expressing such hatred publicly: "Anyone who in a ridiculing, slanderous, insulting, threatening or any other manner publicly assaults a person or a group of people on the basis of their nationality, skin colour, race, religion or sexual orientation, shall be fined or jailed for up to 2 years." (The word "assault" in this context does not refer to physical violence, only to expressions of hatred.)
Victoria, Australia has enacted the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001, which prohibits conduct that incites hatred against or serious contempt for, or involves revulsion or severe ridicule of another on the grounds of his race or religious beliefs.
New Zealand prohibits hate speech under the Human Rights Act 1993. Section 61 (Racial Disharmony) makes it unlawful to publish or distribute "threatening, abusive, or insulting...matter or words likely to excite hostility against or bring into contempt any group of persons...on the ground of the colour, race, or ethnic or national or ethnic origins of that group of persons." Section 131 (Inciting Racial Disharmony) lists offences for which "racial disharmony" creates liability.
France has made hate speech laws restricting the open expression of anti-Semitism, and ethnic bias in public, but it implies to guidelines in news journalism (i.e. newspapers and state-owned Television) in how to report (or be told not to discuss) those matters without creating social tension.[citation needed]
Singapore has passed numerous laws that prohibit speech that causes disharmony among various religious groups. The Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act is an example of such legislation. In 2005, three men were convicted for hate speech under the Law of Singapore.
In Brazil, according to the 1988 Brazilian Constitution, racism and other forms of race-related hate speech are "imprescriptible crime(s) with no right to bail to its accused". In 2006, a joint-action between the Federal Police and the Argentinian police has cracked down several hate-related websites. However, some of these sites have recently reappeared -- the users have re-created the same sites on American domain. The federal police have asked permission from the FBI to crackdown these sites, but the FBI denied claiming that the First Amendment guarantees the right to any speech, even if it involves racism.
Sweden prohibits hate speech, hets mot folkgrupp, and defines it as publicly making statements that threaten or express disrespect for an ethnic group or similar group regarding their race, skin colour, national or ethnic origin, faith or sexual orientation.
Finland prohibits hate speech, hets mot folkgrupp/kiihotus kansanryhmää vastaan, and defines it as publicly making statements that threaten or insult a national, racial, ethnic or religious group or a similar group.
Denmark prohibits hate speech, and defines it as publicly making statements that threaten, ridicule or hold in contempt a group due to race, skin colour, national or ethnic origin, faith or sexual orientation.
Norway prohibits hate speech, and defines it as publicly making statements that threaten or ridicule someone or that incite hatred, persecution or contempt for someone due to their skin colour, ethnic origin, homosexual life style or orientation or, religion or philosophy of life.
Serbia - Serbian constitution guaranties freedom of speech, but declares that it may be restricted by law to protect rights and respectability of others. Because of inter ethnic conflicts during last decade of 20th century, Serbian authorities are very rigorous about ethnic, racial and religion based hate speech. It is processed as "Provoking ethnic, racial and religion based animosity and intolerance" criminal act, and punished with six months to ten years of imprisonment.
Wafflepudding
05/13/07, 03:58 pm
Well, then, wp, you would not agree with Germany's law against NAZI propaganda, or other Western World laws I cite below claiming there is NO harm ... There is a saying, "Anyone's right to discriminate ends at my nose!"
Again, you fail to see, wp! The issue is who pays. The question was, was it right for what happened to happen. I said YES and showed why it was a legally sound descision. I have a right to respond in everyway I see it, wp. Sorry you don't like it, wp, but if you open up, you might gain more wisdom and understanding and breadth.
Open up like you and imply you're inferior for not following my own logic? No thanks. I'm so open, that in spite of not agreeing with you, I never have said or implied a single negative thing about the way you think or operate, which I cannot say has been reciprocal.
Yes, I don't agree with that law, it is inefective, it makes neo-nazis take a martyr stand and so far it hasn't stopped the expansion of their ideology. It also gives them credibility when they claim they are being persecuted by a jewish conspiracy in the government. Nobody should be afraid to say something because you might be thrown in jail for it, and that includes vicious hate speech. It just so happens that "hate speech" is a hard to define term, the kind that a repressive government might use to ban some discourse it disagrees with, in the same way that we persecuted dissidents during WW1.
Censorship does not give the people power, it gives the censors power. Who gets to decide what is hate speech and what is not if nobody can listen to it? judges? a court of law? congress? At least right now anyone can decide what is and what isn't hate speech and stop listening if you so choose. I would rather have to zone out and dismiss hate speech by biggots than having to worry about someone taking offense at my opinion and labelling it as hate speech while I'm talking, not sure if I might be going too far.
By taking away free speech, even a iota of it, you're violating two fundamental freedoms, the right of every human being to choose his or her own course of action, and the right to transmit their ideas to others. If people want to be hateful, discriminatory or any other negative trait on their personal lives and want to organize and discuss with like-minded people, it's their right, and although I dislike biggots intensely, I'll defend that right. When it comes to taking action based on their speech then their rights end as they start invading other's rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
I already hate the way the PATRIOT act and other Bush initiatives are turning this country into a police state, I will NOT sit quietly while even more restrictions on freedom are celebrated under the guise of the common good. And I will not cheer you on as you promote silencing other people because you disagree with their message or their agenda, as much as I hate their agenda or dislike their message. On a curious note, many of the things you say could be labeled by the far christian right as hate speech against their religion, or by extreme conservatives/capitalists/etc as hate speech against their kind or their views and thus banned.
Other things that could be labelled hate speech: Blazzing Saddles, the speeches of Malcom X, rap music, some graffitti, political satire, anything else people can find a way to label "hate speech".
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. In spite of you not being able to act likewise.
Finally, I agree with the court because if that man had sued for parental rights, he would have probably won, and with equal rights come responsabilities as well.
Again, you fail to see, wp! The issue is who pays. The question was, was it right for what happened to happen. I said YES and showed why it was a legally sound descision. I have a right to respond in everyway I see it, wp. Sorry you don't like it, wp, but if you open up, you might gain more wisdom and understanding and breadth.
Open up like you and imply you're inferior for not following my own logic? No thanks. I'm so open, that in spite of not agreeing with you, I never have said or implied a single negative thing about the way you think or operate, which I cannot say has been reciprocal.
Yes, I don't agree with that law, it is inefective, it makes neo-nazis take a martyr stand and so far it hasn't stopped the expansion of their ideology. It also gives them credibility when they claim they are being persecuted by a jewish conspiracy in the government. Nobody should be afraid to say something because you might be thrown in jail for it, and that includes vicious hate speech. It just so happens that "hate speech" is a hard to define term, the kind that a repressive government might use to ban some discourse it disagrees with, in the same way that we persecuted dissidents during WW1.
Censorship does not give the people power, it gives the censors power. Who gets to decide what is hate speech and what is not if nobody can listen to it? judges? a court of law? congress? At least right now anyone can decide what is and what isn't hate speech and stop listening if you so choose. I would rather have to zone out and dismiss hate speech by biggots than having to worry about someone taking offense at my opinion and labelling it as hate speech while I'm talking, not sure if I might be going too far.
By taking away free speech, even a iota of it, you're violating two fundamental freedoms, the right of every human being to choose his or her own course of action, and the right to transmit their ideas to others. If people want to be hateful, discriminatory or any other negative trait on their personal lives and want to organize and discuss with like-minded people, it's their right, and although I dislike biggots intensely, I'll defend that right. When it comes to taking action based on their speech then their rights end as they start invading other's rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
I already hate the way the PATRIOT act and other Bush initiatives are turning this country into a police state, I will NOT sit quietly while even more restrictions on freedom are celebrated under the guise of the common good. And I will not cheer you on as you promote silencing other people because you disagree with their message or their agenda, as much as I hate their agenda or dislike their message. On a curious note, many of the things you say could be labeled by the far christian right as hate speech against their religion, or by extreme conservatives/capitalists/etc as hate speech against their kind or their views and thus banned.
Other things that could be labelled hate speech: Blazzing Saddles, the speeches of Malcom X, rap music, some graffitti, political satire, anything else people can find a way to label "hate speech".
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. In spite of you not being able to act likewise.
Finally, I agree with the court because if that man had sued for parental rights, he would have probably won, and with equal rights come responsabilities as well.
Jennifer_SFBA
05/13/07, 05:31 pm
Wait, wp, you did, in fact, imply that I was not following MY OWN LOGIC by being "off topic," missing the point completely. Did you also mean to imply my response was inferior too to your logic? You do twist things, don't you?
"Open up like you and imply you're inferior for not following my own logic?"
"How about we leave the format, biased and inflammatory as it is, and focus on the ISSUE?"
That's not the first time you said I'm off topic when I was, as I see it.
You said, wp, "The reason why I try NOT to discuss things with you is because I differ so radically it's painfully hard for me not to be somewhat sarcastic or borderline offensive, and when I have no good way to say things I try to stay silent until I can come up with one. Is that my fault? Yes, I should be smarter and more accepting, I accept that.
I'm merely trying to keep this discussion about the penal system, not the CIA or the government's criminal activities, if you want to discuss that please start another thread."
I responded:
"I'm sorry you don't see that they are related/connected, wp. I do provide factual documentation. That is the basis upon which I say what I say. I get you though, so see ya."
Then you follow me here and do the same thing, wp ...
There is a song that fits the situation as I see it in the first stanza. I actually thought of it last night, and it's really what I felt then. I'll post it for you if you care to know:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNM6IuA87eM
and you support hate speech ... The saga of the Second World War, that took 20 MILLION lives, began with NAZI political hate speech. Guess who the NAZI's went after first; "gays" by the burning down of the Magnus Hirschfeld sexuality library institute!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnus_Hirschfeld
We've got American concentration camps in America ready to go, built and administered by FEMA.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=277826260716604258&q=fema+camp
We've got HIV-AIDS that was started in key American cities though Hepatitus B vacines adimistered to the "gay" population in those cities through the CIA.
1) EMERGING VIRUSES, AIDS AND EBOLA: Nature, Accident or Intentional? by Leonard G. Horowitz, D.M.D. Horowitz is a dentist who got drawn into AIDS research when investigating the Acer/Bergalis AIDS contamination case several years ago. ... Like a determined blood hound, Horowitz kept after this story, nailing down every lead, every paper, every person. He interviewed, he delved into cartons of old files, he compared medical research articles, he looked at corporate/government collusions. The result- -combining Horowitz's story of the research with the research itself--is well worth the price. A key piece of evidence is a 1970 government document budgeting money for a biological weapon for which there is no known cure nor natural immunity. HIV, according to Horowitz, was probably spread with the early Hepatitis B vaccine trials in the gay community in the late '70s. Population control, CIA biological warfare tests on the general public, widespread contamination of polio and other vaccines, and Nazi influence in public policy are just a few of the topics Horowitz weaves together to illustrate this wedding of bad intentions and medical technology. Now that I've read this shocking book, I wonder: Now what? Will this groundbreaking, gutsy book make a difference?
I have and read that book, and I posted many other book reviews on this site at, "FAQ: Isn't homosexuality unnatural/against nature?" in the Gay Rights Room.
New Zealand prohibits hate speech under the Human Rights Act 1993. Section 61 (Racial Disharmony) makes it unlawful to publish or distribute "threatening, abusive, or insulting...matter or words likely to excite hostility against or bring into contempt any group of persons...on the ground of the colour, race, or ethnic or national or ethnic origins of that group of persons." Section 131 (Inciting Racial Disharmony) lists offences for which "racial disharmony" creates liability.
France has made hate speech laws restricting the open expression of anti-Semitism, and ethnic bias in public, but it implies to guidelines in news journalism (i.e. newspapers and state-owned Television) in how to report (or be told not to discuss) those matters without creating social tension.
Norway prohibits hate speech, and defines it as publicly making statements that threaten or ridicule someone or that incite hatred, persecution or contempt for someone due to their skin colour, ethnic origin, homosexual life style or orientation or, religion or philosophy of life.
Finland prohibits hate speech, hets mot folkgrupp/kiihotus kansanryhmää vastaan, and defines it as publicly making statements that threaten or insult a national, racial, ethnic or religious group or a similar group.
Sweden prohibits hate speech, hets mot folkgrupp, and defines it as publicly making statements that threaten or express disrespect for an ethnic group or similar group regarding their race, skin colour, national or ethnic origin, faith or sexual orientation.
"Open up like you and imply you're inferior for not following my own logic?"
"How about we leave the format, biased and inflammatory as it is, and focus on the ISSUE?"
That's not the first time you said I'm off topic when I was, as I see it.
You said, wp, "The reason why I try NOT to discuss things with you is because I differ so radically it's painfully hard for me not to be somewhat sarcastic or borderline offensive, and when I have no good way to say things I try to stay silent until I can come up with one. Is that my fault? Yes, I should be smarter and more accepting, I accept that.
I'm merely trying to keep this discussion about the penal system, not the CIA or the government's criminal activities, if you want to discuss that please start another thread."
I responded:
"I'm sorry you don't see that they are related/connected, wp. I do provide factual documentation. That is the basis upon which I say what I say. I get you though, so see ya."
Then you follow me here and do the same thing, wp ...
There is a song that fits the situation as I see it in the first stanza. I actually thought of it last night, and it's really what I felt then. I'll post it for you if you care to know:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNM6IuA87eM
and you support hate speech ... The saga of the Second World War, that took 20 MILLION lives, began with NAZI political hate speech. Guess who the NAZI's went after first; "gays" by the burning down of the Magnus Hirschfeld sexuality library institute!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnus_Hirschfeld
We've got American concentration camps in America ready to go, built and administered by FEMA.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=277826260716604258&q=fema+camp
We've got HIV-AIDS that was started in key American cities though Hepatitus B vacines adimistered to the "gay" population in those cities through the CIA.
1) EMERGING VIRUSES, AIDS AND EBOLA: Nature, Accident or Intentional? by Leonard G. Horowitz, D.M.D. Horowitz is a dentist who got drawn into AIDS research when investigating the Acer/Bergalis AIDS contamination case several years ago. ... Like a determined blood hound, Horowitz kept after this story, nailing down every lead, every paper, every person. He interviewed, he delved into cartons of old files, he compared medical research articles, he looked at corporate/government collusions. The result- -combining Horowitz's story of the research with the research itself--is well worth the price. A key piece of evidence is a 1970 government document budgeting money for a biological weapon for which there is no known cure nor natural immunity. HIV, according to Horowitz, was probably spread with the early Hepatitis B vaccine trials in the gay community in the late '70s. Population control, CIA biological warfare tests on the general public, widespread contamination of polio and other vaccines, and Nazi influence in public policy are just a few of the topics Horowitz weaves together to illustrate this wedding of bad intentions and medical technology. Now that I've read this shocking book, I wonder: Now what? Will this groundbreaking, gutsy book make a difference?
I have and read that book, and I posted many other book reviews on this site at, "FAQ: Isn't homosexuality unnatural/against nature?" in the Gay Rights Room.
New Zealand prohibits hate speech under the Human Rights Act 1993. Section 61 (Racial Disharmony) makes it unlawful to publish or distribute "threatening, abusive, or insulting...matter or words likely to excite hostility against or bring into contempt any group of persons...on the ground of the colour, race, or ethnic or national or ethnic origins of that group of persons." Section 131 (Inciting Racial Disharmony) lists offences for which "racial disharmony" creates liability.
France has made hate speech laws restricting the open expression of anti-Semitism, and ethnic bias in public, but it implies to guidelines in news journalism (i.e. newspapers and state-owned Television) in how to report (or be told not to discuss) those matters without creating social tension.
Norway prohibits hate speech, and defines it as publicly making statements that threaten or ridicule someone or that incite hatred, persecution or contempt for someone due to their skin colour, ethnic origin, homosexual life style or orientation or, religion or philosophy of life.
Finland prohibits hate speech, hets mot folkgrupp/kiihotus kansanryhmää vastaan, and defines it as publicly making statements that threaten or insult a national, racial, ethnic or religious group or a similar group.
Sweden prohibits hate speech, hets mot folkgrupp, and defines it as publicly making statements that threaten or express disrespect for an ethnic group or similar group regarding their race, skin colour, national or ethnic origin, faith or sexual orientation.
Jennifer_SFBA
05/13/07, 06:04 pm
Wp, what I said, "Again, you fail to see, wp! The issue is who pays. The question was, was it right for what happened to happen. I said YES and showed why it was a legally sound descision. I have a right to respond in everyway I see it, wp. Sorry you don't like it, wp, but if you open up, you might gain more wisdom and understanding and breadth," is directly related to your comment, "How about we leave the format, biased and inflammatory as it is, and focus on the ISSUE?" You wanted me to narrowly answer the question which I did NOT do and have no intension of doing. I've been here a year, and that's the way I write and have written. Sorry you don't like it. So, that was my response in response to your continued personal critism of what I wrote and write.
Wp, the words to the song I posted and mean are the ones below:
Go Your Own Way Fleetwood Mac Lindsey Buckingham
Lovin’ you...Isn't the right thing to do
How can I ever change things ...That I feel
If I could ... Maybe I'd give you my world
How can I ... When you won't take it from me
Chorus: You can go your own way Go your own way
You can call it ... Another lonely day
You can go your own way Go your own way
Wp, the words to the song I posted and mean are the ones below:
Go Your Own Way Fleetwood Mac Lindsey Buckingham
Lovin’ you...Isn't the right thing to do
How can I ever change things ...That I feel
If I could ... Maybe I'd give you my world
How can I ... When you won't take it from me
Chorus: You can go your own way Go your own way
You can call it ... Another lonely day
You can go your own way Go your own way
Jennifer_SFBA
05/13/07, 06:56 pm
Whether the lesbian woman who is NOT the biological parent of the child is obligated to pay child support, or not depends on what the law says. If gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and transsexual people are granted equal inclusion in law, then, YES, they would be equally as equally obligated as a step parent would be for child support of the child. If not included in law - rights and obligations - then, the lesbian woman who is NOT the biological parent of the child is NOT legally obligated to pay child support because of legal exclusion. It's that simple.
Wafflepudding
05/13/07, 07:00 pm
Wait, wp, you did, in fact, imply that I was not following MY OWN LOGIC by being "off topic," missing the point completely. Did you also mean to imply my response was inferior too to your logic? You do twist things, don't you?
"Open up like you and imply you're inferior for not following my own logic?"
"How about we leave the format, biased and inflammatory as it is, and focus on the ISSUE?"
That's not the first time you said I'm off topic when I was, as I see it.
You said, wp, "The reason why I try NOT to discuss things with you is because I differ so radically it's painfully hard for me not to be somewhat sarcastic or borderline offensive, and when I have no good way to say things I try to stay silent until I can come up with one. Is that my fault? Yes, I should be smarter and more accepting, I accept that.
I'm merely trying to keep this discussion about the penal system, not the CIA or the government's criminal activities, if you want to discuss that please start another thread."
I responded:
"I'm sorry you don't see that they are related/connected, wp. I do provide factual documentation. That is the basis upon which I say what I say. I get you though, so see ya."
Then you follow me here and do the same thing, wp ...
There is a song that fits the situation as I see it in the first stanza. I actually thought of it last night, and it's really what I felt then. I'll post it for you if you care to know:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNM6IuA87eM
and you support hate speech ... The saga of the Second World War, that took 20 MILLION lives, began with NAZI political hate speech. Guess who the NAZI's went after first; "gays" by the burning down of the Magnus Hirschfeld Sexuality Library!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnus_Hirschfeld
We've got American concentration camps in America ready to go, built and administered by FEMA.
1.- You can quote as much about countries that place restrictions on free speech until the end of time and it will still only prove that the measure is being taken elsewhere. It's being practiced elsewhere, WE GET IT, we got it since before you told us, since we were in high school and learned the history of post WW2 Germany and Japan. Those prohibitions are based on the fear of repeating the holocaust, you cannot legislate based on fear, there are plenty of examples of fear legislation enacted here that show why. Ironically enough, the article by Fox would not qualify as "hate speech" under German or Japanese law. Which brings me to my second point.
2.- It doesn't take much effort to circumvent hate speech legislation. In fact, and again, ironically, ALL OF THE COUNTRIES YOU MENTIONED HAVE ACTIVE NATIONAL SOCIALIST PARTIES!. Some of them have even succeeded in getting their candidates elected. Hate speech laws did nothing to stop this, and here, where it is perfectly legal, no self professed nazi party has attained any success at the polls.
3.- Recap: You just "discovered" that the very complex phenomenon of the rise of the nazi party in weimar Germany, which has been the focus of study of sociologists, political science majors and psychologists for decades in reality was just due to laws that allowed hate speech. I can't even disqualify this, it falls down on its own weight. The "saga" of WW2 started with the imperialism that led to WW1 and the resentment and crisis that was created in post WW1 Germany as a result of the treaty of Versailles, among many other factors. And by the way, WW2 casualties were closer to 60 million, between military and civilian both Axis and allied. I would have felt more impressed if you quoted the correct number not because of the technicality but because it would show you researched the subject, which apparently you didn't do since this is a fairly certain and not at all minor fact.
4.- The topic here, unless I read it wrong, is "child support". Not speech laws, not what I've said in other threads, not the way fox is a propaganda mouthpiece for the American right (which is by no means news to anyone). It should really go without saying, and as you mentioned, anyone with critical thought skills can see clearly WHY that article is biased. Anyone without can spend weeks here arguing with you about what is wrong with it and you'll never get through to him/her.
5.- The ego on you! I FOLLOWED you here! it is all part of my master plan to get you! Oh yes, Bush pays me half a mill a year to prevent YOU from revealing The Truth (TM). Or, you know, could have been that I was interested by the topic "child support" since I was raised by a single mom without child support, whatever, pick one they're all good.
6.- http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v391/n6667/abs/391594a0.html;jsessionid=607BC9F4E0710B6B43C93AB84 892DB44 The first registered case goes back to 1971, the virus had to be older than the document you're talking about, unless the document was dated 1970, odds are 9 to 1 that it isn't. Or if you take the 1959 "might have been", then possibly even older. Furthermore that is no proof by itself, since the government was also researching anthrax, smallpox and botulism strains at the time (from which "botox" BT neurotoxin and the anthrax for the post 9/11 mail attacks came from).
7.- If this discussion about death camps and government engineered viruses does not show what I meant with going off topic when I started this, hell, I give up.
"Open up like you and imply you're inferior for not following my own logic?"
"How about we leave the format, biased and inflammatory as it is, and focus on the ISSUE?"
That's not the first time you said I'm off topic when I was, as I see it.
You said, wp, "The reason why I try NOT to discuss things with you is because I differ so radically it's painfully hard for me not to be somewhat sarcastic or borderline offensive, and when I have no good way to say things I try to stay silent until I can come up with one. Is that my fault? Yes, I should be smarter and more accepting, I accept that.
I'm merely trying to keep this discussion about the penal system, not the CIA or the government's criminal activities, if you want to discuss that please start another thread."
I responded:
"I'm sorry you don't see that they are related/connected, wp. I do provide factual documentation. That is the basis upon which I say what I say. I get you though, so see ya."
Then you follow me here and do the same thing, wp ...
There is a song that fits the situation as I see it in the first stanza. I actually thought of it last night, and it's really what I felt then. I'll post it for you if you care to know:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNM6IuA87eM
and you support hate speech ... The saga of the Second World War, that took 20 MILLION lives, began with NAZI political hate speech. Guess who the NAZI's went after first; "gays" by the burning down of the Magnus Hirschfeld Sexuality Library!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnus_Hirschfeld
We've got American concentration camps in America ready to go, built and administered by FEMA.
1.- You can quote as much about countries that place restrictions on free speech until the end of time and it will still only prove that the measure is being taken elsewhere. It's being practiced elsewhere, WE GET IT, we got it since before you told us, since we were in high school and learned the history of post WW2 Germany and Japan. Those prohibitions are based on the fear of repeating the holocaust, you cannot legislate based on fear, there are plenty of examples of fear legislation enacted here that show why. Ironically enough, the article by Fox would not qualify as "hate speech" under German or Japanese law. Which brings me to my second point.
2.- It doesn't take much effort to circumvent hate speech legislation. In fact, and again, ironically, ALL OF THE COUNTRIES YOU MENTIONED HAVE ACTIVE NATIONAL SOCIALIST PARTIES!. Some of them have even succeeded in getting their candidates elected. Hate speech laws did nothing to stop this, and here, where it is perfectly legal, no self professed nazi party has attained any success at the polls.
3.- Recap: You just "discovered" that the very complex phenomenon of the rise of the nazi party in weimar Germany, which has been the focus of study of sociologists, political science majors and psychologists for decades in reality was just due to laws that allowed hate speech. I can't even disqualify this, it falls down on its own weight. The "saga" of WW2 started with the imperialism that led to WW1 and the resentment and crisis that was created in post WW1 Germany as a result of the treaty of Versailles, among many other factors. And by the way, WW2 casualties were closer to 60 million, between military and civilian both Axis and allied. I would have felt more impressed if you quoted the correct number not because of the technicality but because it would show you researched the subject, which apparently you didn't do since this is a fairly certain and not at all minor fact.
4.- The topic here, unless I read it wrong, is "child support". Not speech laws, not what I've said in other threads, not the way fox is a propaganda mouthpiece for the American right (which is by no means news to anyone). It should really go without saying, and as you mentioned, anyone with critical thought skills can see clearly WHY that article is biased. Anyone without can spend weeks here arguing with you about what is wrong with it and you'll never get through to him/her.
5.- The ego on you! I FOLLOWED you here! it is all part of my master plan to get you! Oh yes, Bush pays me half a mill a year to prevent YOU from revealing The Truth (TM). Or, you know, could have been that I was interested by the topic "child support" since I was raised by a single mom without child support, whatever, pick one they're all good.
6.- http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v391/n6667/abs/391594a0.html;jsessionid=607BC9F4E0710B6B43C93AB84 892DB44 The first registered case goes back to 1971, the virus had to be older than the document you're talking about, unless the document was dated 1970, odds are 9 to 1 that it isn't. Or if you take the 1959 "might have been", then possibly even older. Furthermore that is no proof by itself, since the government was also researching anthrax, smallpox and botulism strains at the time (from which "botox" BT neurotoxin and the anthrax for the post 9/11 mail attacks came from).
7.- If this discussion about death camps and government engineered viruses does not show what I meant with going off topic when I started this, hell, I give up.
Wafflepudding
05/13/07, 07:16 pm
Wp, what I said, "Again, you fail to see, wp! The issue is who pays. The question was, was it right for what happened to happen. I said YES and showed why it was a legally sound descision. I have a right to respond in everyway I see it, wp. Sorry you don't like it, wp, but if you open up, you might gain more wisdom and understanding and breadth," is directly related to your comment, "How about we leave the format, biased and inflammatory as it is, and focus on the ISSUE?" You wanted me to narrowly answer the question which I did NOT do and have no intension of doing. I've been here a year, and that's the way I write and have written. Sorry you don't like it. So, that was my response in response to your continued personal critism of what I wrote and write.
No, in fact it was directed towards Jane, JJ, FDR AND you, and I did not intend to get any sort of answer, as I did not ask any question. You misread my intentions, I'm merely saying we should focus on the case, not the media covering it, as there are plenty of other places to discuss media corruption (and again, Fox news fair and balanced? please, who buys that crap anymore?)
And it's not that simple, because parenthood is more than biology. I have a father, I never met him, he's got no rights and no claim to jack even though he's my biological parent. You can produce sperm/eggs, big freaking deal, so can 6 billion other humans.
And I would like to know, exactly when have I engaged in personal criticism of you? I'd like other opinions on this as well.
EDIT: For the sake of clarity, the "own" is redundant, it's supposed to be "following my logic". This I do not feel is a personal attack and here's why: You say I "fail to see", I don't fail to see, I simply don't see your way. I don't say you're blind for not looking at things my way. You did imply it with me though.
No, in fact it was directed towards Jane, JJ, FDR AND you, and I did not intend to get any sort of answer, as I did not ask any question. You misread my intentions, I'm merely saying we should focus on the case, not the media covering it, as there are plenty of other places to discuss media corruption (and again, Fox news fair and balanced? please, who buys that crap anymore?)
And it's not that simple, because parenthood is more than biology. I have a father, I never met him, he's got no rights and no claim to jack even though he's my biological parent. You can produce sperm/eggs, big freaking deal, so can 6 billion other humans.
And I would like to know, exactly when have I engaged in personal criticism of you? I'd like other opinions on this as well.
EDIT: For the sake of clarity, the "own" is redundant, it's supposed to be "following my logic". This I do not feel is a personal attack and here's why: You say I "fail to see", I don't fail to see, I simply don't see your way. I don't say you're blind for not looking at things my way. You did imply it with me though.
Jennifer_SFBA
05/13/07, 09:03 pm
1.) In post 14, I did not reference German or Japanese law regarding hate speech. Where I did reference German law to give a large overview was in post 11. Post 14 is where I narrowed it down to laws most relevant to that article.
2.) Two of the countries I mentioned in post 14 have a party with a true Nazi platform, Norway and Sweden. Neither of them has any representatives elected. None are called National Socialist Party.
New Zealand - New Zealand has a National Party, but it is not a correlary to Nazism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_parties_in_New_Zealand
France - France has a conservative National Front Party. It has similar aspects to the American Republican Party.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_France
Norway - Norway has a Fatherland Party. They have no elected representatives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_parties_in_New_Zealand
Finland - Finland has no correlary to the National Socialist Party.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_parties_in_New_Zealand
Sweden - Sweden has a National Socialist Front Party. They, however, have no political representatives elected.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_Sweden
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Front
3.) No. I'm saying that speech played a very significant role in who was hated and what happened - The Holocaust.
4.) Speech is included because I opened it up to be included and because it is relevant, at least to me. That is my perogative. You are not a sensor here.
5.) No ego. I left you alone to "your" thread. Please leave me alone! That's the message.
6.) I was following your lead as I am here to your post 17.
2.) Two of the countries I mentioned in post 14 have a party with a true Nazi platform, Norway and Sweden. Neither of them has any representatives elected. None are called National Socialist Party.
New Zealand - New Zealand has a National Party, but it is not a correlary to Nazism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_parties_in_New_Zealand
France - France has a conservative National Front Party. It has similar aspects to the American Republican Party.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_France
Norway - Norway has a Fatherland Party. They have no elected representatives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_parties_in_New_Zealand
Finland - Finland has no correlary to the National Socialist Party.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_parties_in_New_Zealand
Sweden - Sweden has a National Socialist Front Party. They, however, have no political representatives elected.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_Sweden
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Front
3.) No. I'm saying that speech played a very significant role in who was hated and what happened - The Holocaust.
4.) Speech is included because I opened it up to be included and because it is relevant, at least to me. That is my perogative. You are not a sensor here.
5.) No ego. I left you alone to "your" thread. Please leave me alone! That's the message.
6.) I was following your lead as I am here to your post 17.
Jennifer_SFBA
05/13/07, 09:49 pm
I responded to your 7 as 6 and didn't respond to 6.
6.) Yes, the documentation in the book against the government for the creation of HIV-AIDS does go back to the 50s with a congressional hearing transcript included in the book on the subject, wherein it was proposed to create an autoimmune virus that Congress did approve. The Congressional hearing document is dated in the early 60s. My copy of the book is at my office, so I can't look it up now.
7.) I was following your lead as I am here to your post 17.
Your EDIT: Not anymore than you don't see life my way. It's as hard for me to talk with you as the other way around. I'd outlaw hate speach in a New York second. You support hate speech. No amount of evidence changes your mind.
6.) Yes, the documentation in the book against the government for the creation of HIV-AIDS does go back to the 50s with a congressional hearing transcript included in the book on the subject, wherein it was proposed to create an autoimmune virus that Congress did approve. The Congressional hearing document is dated in the early 60s. My copy of the book is at my office, so I can't look it up now.
7.) I was following your lead as I am here to your post 17.
Your EDIT: Not anymore than you don't see life my way. It's as hard for me to talk with you as the other way around. I'd outlaw hate speach in a New York second. You support hate speech. No amount of evidence changes your mind.
Jennifer_SFBA
05/13/07, 11:41 pm
I'm at my office to do some work actually. I have my my book now,
"Emergering Viruses AIDS & EBOLA Nature, Accident or Intentional" by Leonard G. Horowitz, D.M.D., M.A., M.P.H.
The Congressional document is titled,
"Department of Defense Appropriations Hearings for 1970 on the Development of Imune-System Destroying Agents for Biological Warfare" that was funded by United States Congress.
Related National Cancer Institute studies under Dr. Robert C. Gallo are reported in detail in the book beginning in 1968.
Material in the book building background goes back to Operation Paperclip in the 1940s. Studies are cited in the book for 1957 - 1958.
"Emergering Viruses AIDS & EBOLA Nature, Accident or Intentional" by Leonard G. Horowitz, D.M.D., M.A., M.P.H.
The Congressional document is titled,
"Department of Defense Appropriations Hearings for 1970 on the Development of Imune-System Destroying Agents for Biological Warfare" that was funded by United States Congress.
Related National Cancer Institute studies under Dr. Robert C. Gallo are reported in detail in the book beginning in 1968.
Material in the book building background goes back to Operation Paperclip in the 1940s. Studies are cited in the book for 1957 - 1958.
Wafflepudding
05/13/07, 11:44 pm
2.- Exploring the links you provided I found that the national front's platform in NZ amounts to fascism, and France's national front is also nazi in nature, if not in name, and a quick revision of its figurehead, Jean Marie Le Pen, supports this view. Etcetera for the rest, if you dig through them you'll find out.
3, 4 and 5.- I do not intend to be a censor, I did not tell you, ever, to leave any thread or shut up. Sharing why I have opposing views is sharing my ideas, not curtailing yours. If by "leave me alone" you mean "stop posting where I'm posting", that's not gonna happen anytime soon seeing as you're a frequent poster on almost every thread.
6.- Perfect. Lets talk about that further. I particularly find interesting that the start of the current pandemic was in cities linked to Ft. Detrick, Maryland. I had dismissed this possibility because I found no evidence suggesting otherwise.
I support FREE SPEECH. If that means having to deal with a bunch of nutcases who do not reach a wide audience and are publically reviled anyway, so be it.
But you are correct, I simply do not believe in limiting public discourse, and I agree with Thomas Paine: He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself.
3, 4 and 5.- I do not intend to be a censor, I did not tell you, ever, to leave any thread or shut up. Sharing why I have opposing views is sharing my ideas, not curtailing yours. If by "leave me alone" you mean "stop posting where I'm posting", that's not gonna happen anytime soon seeing as you're a frequent poster on almost every thread.
6.- Perfect. Lets talk about that further. I particularly find interesting that the start of the current pandemic was in cities linked to Ft. Detrick, Maryland. I had dismissed this possibility because I found no evidence suggesting otherwise.
I support FREE SPEECH. If that means having to deal with a bunch of nutcases who do not reach a wide audience and are publically reviled anyway, so be it.
But you are correct, I simply do not believe in limiting public discourse, and I agree with Thomas Paine: He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself.
Jennifer_SFBA
05/13/07, 11:55 pm
Not when it's cleaverly controlled:
http://covertmatrix.50webs.com/tavistock.html
http://covertmatrix.50webs.com/tavistock.html
Jennifer_SFBA
05/14/07, 01:48 am
Fascism is to those other parties as the Republican Party is. They are NOT equivalant to the NAZI National Socialist Party. It's very hard to beat what Nazi's were and did. Unlike in America with the American Republican Party, they are small in number of government representatives because of the Parliamentary System of government they have with multiple political parties represented.
Fort Dietrick - George W. Merck was a key member of the panel advising President Roosevelt in the development "of defensive mechanisms against biological attack; and they were to develop weapons "in kind" if attacked by an enemy which deployed biological weapons." George Merck put the Bio-warfare center there at Fort Dietrick together.
For Fort Dietrick's 25TH aniversary, an international symposium was planned dealing with "entry and control of foreign neucleic acid" into cells during (the process of human and animal immunosuppression)." The symposium didn't happen because of widespead protest from within and outside, but it does show that Fort Dietrick was working on it, and it does indcate how far they had advanced.
There were CIA contracts all over the country for various related immunosuppressant research (it's in the book), so research wasn't confined to Fort Dietrick, though Fort Dietrick is implicated by its' funding and associations as well as its' research.
There was a "homosexual" hepatitis B vacine study grant that had been supported by the "Department of Virus and Cell Biology of Merck, Sharp and Dohme Research Laboratories, Westpoint, PA." The "National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, of the United States Public Health Service's National Institutes of Health" also provided grant money for that project.
Merck produced the hepatitis B vaccine that had the AIDS virus in it. The CIA distributed the hepatitis B vaccine that had the AIDS virus in it.
Centers of AIDS infection under epidemiological studies were New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Saint Louis, Huston and Chicago. Denver was included in the study, but was not considered an especially high AIDS case area. Those are primary cities where the AIDS virus the United States government created with OUR tax money was murderously injected into homosexual men through hepatitis B vaccine they had trusted.
Collin Strecker says, "PLEASE WAKE UP! In 1969 the United States Defense Department requested and got $10 Million dollars to make the AIDS virus in labs as a political/ethnic weapon to be used mainly against black (and it was, in Africa, BIG TIME through a United Nations, World Health Organization vaccine program). The feasability program and labs were to have been completed by 1974 - 1975, the virus between 1974 - 1979. The World Health Organization started to inject AIDS-laced smallpox vaccine into over 100,000,000 Africans (population reduction) in 1977 and in 1978 2000 young male homosexuals under operation Trojan Horse were injected with AIDS-laced hepatitis B vaccine through the Centers for Disease Control/New York Blood Center."
Here we have Gallo working on autoimmune suppression beginning in 1968, and in 1984, Gallo is credited with discovering the AIDS virus in people at the National Cancer Institute where he had been working on devolping the AIDS virus to attack the autoimmune cells of human beings since 1968.
Fort Dietrick - George W. Merck was a key member of the panel advising President Roosevelt in the development "of defensive mechanisms against biological attack; and they were to develop weapons "in kind" if attacked by an enemy which deployed biological weapons." George Merck put the Bio-warfare center there at Fort Dietrick together.
For Fort Dietrick's 25TH aniversary, an international symposium was planned dealing with "entry and control of foreign neucleic acid" into cells during (the process of human and animal immunosuppression)." The symposium didn't happen because of widespead protest from within and outside, but it does show that Fort Dietrick was working on it, and it does indcate how far they had advanced.
There were CIA contracts all over the country for various related immunosuppressant research (it's in the book), so research wasn't confined to Fort Dietrick, though Fort Dietrick is implicated by its' funding and associations as well as its' research.
There was a "homosexual" hepatitis B vacine study grant that had been supported by the "Department of Virus and Cell Biology of Merck, Sharp and Dohme Research Laboratories, Westpoint, PA." The "National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, of the United States Public Health Service's National Institutes of Health" also provided grant money for that project.
Merck produced the hepatitis B vaccine that had the AIDS virus in it. The CIA distributed the hepatitis B vaccine that had the AIDS virus in it.
Centers of AIDS infection under epidemiological studies were New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Saint Louis, Huston and Chicago. Denver was included in the study, but was not considered an especially high AIDS case area. Those are primary cities where the AIDS virus the United States government created with OUR tax money was murderously injected into homosexual men through hepatitis B vaccine they had trusted.
Collin Strecker says, "PLEASE WAKE UP! In 1969 the United States Defense Department requested and got $10 Million dollars to make the AIDS virus in labs as a political/ethnic weapon to be used mainly against black (and it was, in Africa, BIG TIME through a United Nations, World Health Organization vaccine program). The feasability program and labs were to have been completed by 1974 - 1975, the virus between 1974 - 1979. The World Health Organization started to inject AIDS-laced smallpox vaccine into over 100,000,000 Africans (population reduction) in 1977 and in 1978 2000 young male homosexuals under operation Trojan Horse were injected with AIDS-laced hepatitis B vaccine through the Centers for Disease Control/New York Blood Center."
Here we have Gallo working on autoimmune suppression beginning in 1968, and in 1984, Gallo is credited with discovering the AIDS virus in people at the National Cancer Institute where he had been working on devolping the AIDS virus to attack the autoimmune cells of human beings since 1968.
Jennifer_SFBA
05/14/07, 03:11 am
There is more to the story, and this part is even worse and involves all human beings on Earth.
In 1954, Eisenhower met with Zetas, Grays (extraterrestials), the ones people Earth commonly talk about having abducted them. He traded military technology and advanced knowledge from the Grays for permission by the Grays to have limited access to American citizens who they use for genetic experimentation to improve their species because they are a desperate and dying race. Another part of the deal is that he provided the Grays secure, classified, deep underground facilities where they conduct experiments on unwilling human beings and where they live to this day. Because of their advanced technology and because they are in secure facilites far underground, our government, our military is not able to exterminate them, and they, the Grays, do have plans for our planet, Earth, that are disasterous to we who are human.
The part about AIDS is this: Working under the instructions of the humanoids from Rigel (constellation Orion, the star at the bottom right of the constellation), CIA and former NAZI scientists have developed and deployed malignant strains of bacteria and viruses, including AIDS. The rationale from the fascist point of view is to exterminate portions of the population considered to be undesirable. The rationale from the Rigelian point of view is to decimate the human population to such an extent that the survivors would accept [not resist] open control by the Rigelians ...
To read the whole transcript about this, please go the the New Age Room, the "I Saw A UFO" thread. All of humanity is in real danger as a result of Eisenhower's deal with the Grays who are here, and the Grays' intentions are very far advanced.
In 1954, Eisenhower met with Zetas, Grays (extraterrestials), the ones people Earth commonly talk about having abducted them. He traded military technology and advanced knowledge from the Grays for permission by the Grays to have limited access to American citizens who they use for genetic experimentation to improve their species because they are a desperate and dying race. Another part of the deal is that he provided the Grays secure, classified, deep underground facilities where they conduct experiments on unwilling human beings and where they live to this day. Because of their advanced technology and because they are in secure facilites far underground, our government, our military is not able to exterminate them, and they, the Grays, do have plans for our planet, Earth, that are disasterous to we who are human.
The part about AIDS is this: Working under the instructions of the humanoids from Rigel (constellation Orion, the star at the bottom right of the constellation), CIA and former NAZI scientists have developed and deployed malignant strains of bacteria and viruses, including AIDS. The rationale from the fascist point of view is to exterminate portions of the population considered to be undesirable. The rationale from the Rigelian point of view is to decimate the human population to such an extent that the survivors would accept [not resist] open control by the Rigelians ...
To read the whole transcript about this, please go the the New Age Room, the "I Saw A UFO" thread. All of humanity is in real danger as a result of Eisenhower's deal with the Grays who are here, and the Grays' intentions are very far advanced.
Jennifer_SFBA
05/14/07, 03:27 am
So, our government got the AIDS virus from the Grays, but then had to learn how to make it live in human cells, how to get the AIDS virus RNA, not DNA, to bind to human and animal autoimmune cells. That's where all the research to do that was involved.
The link below is a picture of the Constellation Orion. Rigel is the very bright star (stars are suns) in the Orion Constellation at the lower right. Grays come from a solar system that revolves around Rigel:
http://www.allthesky.com/constellations/orion/
The link below is a picture of the Constellation Orion. Rigel is the very bright star (stars are suns) in the Orion Constellation at the lower right. Grays come from a solar system that revolves around Rigel:
http://www.allthesky.com/constellations/orion/
Jumpin Jupiter
05/14/07, 07:56 am
Whether the lesbian woman who is NOT the biological parent of the child is obligated to pay child support, or not depends on what the law says. If gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and transsexual people are granted equal inclusion in law, then, YES, they would be equally as equally obligated as a step parent would be for child support of the child. If not included in law - rights and obligations - then, the lesbian woman who is NOT the biological parent of the child is NOT legally obligated to pay child support because of legal exclusion. It's that simple.
This is what I was trying to get across to you all. Thats why here in PA they are very agressive to make sure the child gets taken care of. I hope I am able to follow up on this case. It will decide the future for many people.
Dont worry about where I get the news from or how you think its twisted, just run with the topic and discuss/debate it.
TOOOOO many of you all cant see the forest for the trees here!
This is what I was trying to get across to you all. Thats why here in PA they are very agressive to make sure the child gets taken care of. I hope I am able to follow up on this case. It will decide the future for many people.
Dont worry about where I get the news from or how you think its twisted, just run with the topic and discuss/debate it.
TOOOOO many of you all cant see the forest for the trees here!
Jennifer_SFBA
05/14/07, 08:27 pm
Mostly, wp, I'm posting this for the record for other people who read this thread:
Wp, as to the number of people who died in World War II, I relied on my memory, such as it is. I'm close to retirement now, but at a time some while back, I did look up the number of people who died in World War II, maybe it was something I learned in school, maybe it was a number I read. Just for you today, wp, since you brought it up, I looked it up again, and the numbers do vary widely. I was certain that and comfortable with the number I used, 20 Million who died in that war would be a real number, a number that was no exageration. Really, who knows after so many years where I got the human death toll numbers from I was taught or read back then. No matter how you look at it, 20 Million people who died in World War II, or 80 Million people who died in World War II, it's an hellacious number! That was the point, not "some correct, absolute number" that is NOT known for certain anyway. Here's what I found in my search:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_Americans_died_in_World_War_2
These figures are rarely agreed upon with any of the nations involved, probably the most reliable figure is 300.000 dead and a similar number wounded, others put the figure at 550.000 dead, its amazing that there isnt an agreed upon figure, but it gives you some idea, below is a list of military deaths in WW2 that is supposed to be acurate.
USSR: 10.0M Germany: 3.5M China: 2.05M Japan: 1.5M USA: 0.4M Romania: 0.3M Yugoslavia: 0.3M UK: 0.28M Italy: 0.23M France: 0.21M Hungary: 0.14M Poland: 0.125M
I will just add that no figures can ever be completely acurate and only include deaths of combatants.
It is interesting to see how this number breaks out between the various fronts. Roughly into thirds, one third was killed in the Pacific campaign against Japan. Another third died in the air war over Europe against Germany. The final third died in land combat in N Africa and Europe.
and
It is impossible to give true stats on this because many soldiers were unaccounted for (too badly wounded and not even a dog tag could be retrieved) and, of course, there is no way one possibly could know how many innocent civilians were lost (civilians usually have a higher loss than any armed force of any country.)
United States 292,000 soldiers
Canada lost 37,000 soldiers
China lost 1.5 - 2.2 million
Poland had 6 million deaths including 6 million Jews, roughly 20% of it's prewar population.
Germany lost 4 million soldiers and 2 million civilians, many of them women.
Japan had 1.2 million battle deaths and another 1.4 million soldiers listed as missing, almost 1 million
civilians were killed in the bombing raids between 1944 and 1945.
Over 1.7 million Yugoslavs and 500,000 Greeks died in the war.
France lost 200,000 soldiers and 400,000 civilians.
Italy lost 330,000 people.
Hungary lost 147,000 men in combat.
Bulgaria lost 19,000 in combat.
Romania lost 73,000 in combat.
Great Britain lost 264,000 soldiers and 60,000 civilians in bombing raids.
The Dutch lost 10,000 soldiers and 190,000 civilians.
Australia lost 23,000 men in combat.
India lost 24,000 men in battle.
New Zealand lost 10,000
South Africa lost 6,000.
The Soviet Union lost the most with 25 million deaths, but only about a third were combat related.
Wp, as to the number of people who died in World War II, I relied on my memory, such as it is. I'm close to retirement now, but at a time some while back, I did look up the number of people who died in World War II, maybe it was something I learned in school, maybe it was a number I read. Just for you today, wp, since you brought it up, I looked it up again, and the numbers do vary widely. I was certain that and comfortable with the number I used, 20 Million who died in that war would be a real number, a number that was no exageration. Really, who knows after so many years where I got the human death toll numbers from I was taught or read back then. No matter how you look at it, 20 Million people who died in World War II, or 80 Million people who died in World War II, it's an hellacious number! That was the point, not "some correct, absolute number" that is NOT known for certain anyway. Here's what I found in my search:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_Americans_died_in_World_War_2
These figures are rarely agreed upon with any of the nations involved, probably the most reliable figure is 300.000 dead and a similar number wounded, others put the figure at 550.000 dead, its amazing that there isnt an agreed upon figure, but it gives you some idea, below is a list of military deaths in WW2 that is supposed to be acurate.
USSR: 10.0M Germany: 3.5M China: 2.05M Japan: 1.5M USA: 0.4M Romania: 0.3M Yugoslavia: 0.3M UK: 0.28M Italy: 0.23M France: 0.21M Hungary: 0.14M Poland: 0.125M
I will just add that no figures can ever be completely acurate and only include deaths of combatants.
It is interesting to see how this number breaks out between the various fronts. Roughly into thirds, one third was killed in the Pacific campaign against Japan. Another third died in the air war over Europe against Germany. The final third died in land combat in N Africa and Europe.
and
It is impossible to give true stats on this because many soldiers were unaccounted for (too badly wounded and not even a dog tag could be retrieved) and, of course, there is no way one possibly could know how many innocent civilians were lost (civilians usually have a higher loss than any armed force of any country.)
United States 292,000 soldiers
Canada lost 37,000 soldiers
China lost 1.5 - 2.2 million
Poland had 6 million deaths including 6 million Jews, roughly 20% of it's prewar population.
Germany lost 4 million soldiers and 2 million civilians, many of them women.
Japan had 1.2 million battle deaths and another 1.4 million soldiers listed as missing, almost 1 million
civilians were killed in the bombing raids between 1944 and 1945.
Over 1.7 million Yugoslavs and 500,000 Greeks died in the war.
France lost 200,000 soldiers and 400,000 civilians.
Italy lost 330,000 people.
Hungary lost 147,000 men in combat.
Bulgaria lost 19,000 in combat.
Romania lost 73,000 in combat.
Great Britain lost 264,000 soldiers and 60,000 civilians in bombing raids.
The Dutch lost 10,000 soldiers and 190,000 civilians.
Australia lost 23,000 men in combat.
India lost 24,000 men in battle.
New Zealand lost 10,000
South Africa lost 6,000.
The Soviet Union lost the most with 25 million deaths, but only about a third were combat related.
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.