California to become first state to ban gay teen 'conversion' therapy [ournewsa.blogspot.com]
An Exclusive Interview with Hon. Sam RainsyAn Exclusive Interview with Hon. Sam Rainsy on the current political situation, rights to publish and receive news, human and religious rights in Cambodia. Hon. Sam Rainsy is the member of Parliament in Cambodia, president of the Sam Rainsy Party, Opposition Leader and former Minister of Finance and Economics.
Published September 30, 2012
Associated Press
-
FILE: Sept.12, 2012 : California Gov, Jerry Brown at a news conference in Los Angeles where he signed into law sweeping pension changes.AP
SACRAMENTO, Calif. â€"  California will become the first state to ban a controversial form of psychotherapy aimed at making gay teenagers straight.
Gov. Jerry Brown announced Sunday that he had signed SB1172 by Democratic Senator Ted Lieu of Torrance. Lieu says the law will prevent children from being psychologically abused.
Effective Jan. 1, the state will prohibit what is known as reparative or conversion therapy for minors.
Brown says the therapies "have no basis in science or medicine and they will now be relegated to the dustbin of quackery."
Gay rights groups say the practice is dangerous because it can put youth at higher risk of depression and suicide.
Conservative religious groups and some Republicans argue that banning conversion therapy would hinder parents' right to provide psychological care for children experiencing gender confusion.
Find More California to become first state to ban gay teen 'conversion' therapy Articles Question by Lisa Jacobs: Even if we "Win" the war in Iraq, don't we still lose? No matter what government the Iraqi people vote for, it will probably be Anti-American: Sunni: allies of Bin Laden Shia: allies of Iran **** So even after we re-build their country, how do we know that the future Iraq is going to be a US ally?? In the real world of "Real politic" those Iraqi's are only going to blame them us for ANYTHING that goes wrong, and will give no credit to the US of A for ANYTHING we do for them. **** Can we count of these muslims to "be grateful"??....look at Afghanistan's fight with USSR...we helped them, and what do they do? they turned Anti-American at the drop of a hat, Bottom line we cant trust them, and no matter what we do for them they are going to blame us for all their problems and burn our flag on their streets, SO what is the point of "helping" a people that hate us no matter what?? What is the point of helping a people will only betray us (as if they aren't betraying us already? There is just no winning with them! I know that al-Sadr may not bow to the Iranian's, BUT he is hardly a US ally!!!!!! Best answer for Even if we "Win" the war in Iraq, don't we still lose?:
Answer by Best-Of-Enemies
This was was lost before it started. We lost money, lives, a media with a pulse and any semblance of popularity or support we had around the world. Thanks, right-wingers and conservative media that never raised any questions about the lies! The people who planned this war were either simpletons or knew they would create more enemies and went ahead anyway.
Answer by sickle seller
In wars...everyone is a loser... loser of lives and everything really
Answer by MenifeeManiac
You hit the nail right on the head! We are in a no-win situation. Thus, it is time to take our losses, bring our service people back home, and move on to reducing the national debt...
Answer by pinkyismygirlfriendniluvhur
probly right if you send soldiers and bombs someplace, it can be difficult to make them like you
Answer by chappye7
You just answered the Democrats problem, good research pas it on to Reid.
Answer by JackO07
You summed it up quite well. ungrateful bunch of coconuts over there..the ones that wear white sheets and make their women wear bee-keeper outfits...how dare they?
Answer by Ben
There is no way to actually win. It's not in black & white. No referee comes out, holds the arm of the victor up and declares them as the winner. Either way, the troops lost won't come back, and lives will have been taken away. You're right, we still lose. The Sunnis and the Shiites are only making it harder to finish whatever our plan is at this point.
Answer by Al_ide
Well, firstly, why should Iraq be beholden to the US, a nation who invaded them an occupied the country without sufficient numbers to maintain the borders and internal law & order? Add to that, they removed all government institutions with no clear plan to replace them, and bombed the sh*t out of the countries amenities(sewage/water/electricity/roads all f*cked up). They have troops whose language they can't understand driving tanks up and down their streets. Even if you take the the mid point between the extreme estimates of civilian casualties, it would gave taken Saddam almost a hundred years t notch up that body count. You have brought them nothing but death and insecurity, thanks to the warlord - I mean President - Bush.
Answer by Drake
All we did in Afghanistan in the 80's was dump money and weapons. that never works and never makes friends. Just ask the Europeans when they arm certain groups in africa.
Answer by KERMIT M
Yep... for me this is the classic episode of Monty Hall...We had Saddam on stage and then of course W wanted to see what was the behind curtain #2 and guess what...that's right Bloody Chaos was behind curtain #2..... Sometimes a dictator in hand is better than total and massive murder, chaos, and other assorted mayhem.
Answer by arctic_whirlwind
You present very valid points. At this moment, the best we can hope to do is stabilize the country well enough so that the government functions on some level. What I am surprised at is the number of individuals willing to blow themselves up. There seems to no shortage of suicide bombers.
Answer by ShootingStar
"Saddam’s goal … is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed."â€"Madeline Albright, 1998. "(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983"â€"National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998. "Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement."â€"Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002. "The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow."â€"Bill Clinton in 1998. "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security."â€"Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002. "I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out."â€"Clinton’s Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003. "Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people."â€"Tom Daschle in 1998. "Saddam Hussein’s regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal."â€"John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002. \ "I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."â€"John F. Kerry, Oct 2002.
Simpsonovi vs. Český politici 100% kvalita!!the simpsons, vs, czech politic 100%
0 comments:
Post a Comment