In the news

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think it seems like the first thing new fathers need, to be able to spend a month with his new baby, if he wants to.

To be fair, the law already says new dads must take 2 weeks off or get nothing, so the real difference is that they get twice as much time off (not the "get nothing" bit).
And Laura Perrins of the group Mothers at Home Matter, said: ‘This sounds like another example of liberal dictatorship. Politicians should leave it for families to decide who cares for their children.
‘The majority of mothers want to stay at home themselves. Mums and dads are not just interchangeable car engines for their kids.
'Mums give very special care, particularly to young children.’
I see, so it's up to families to decide who cares for their children... unless they decide it's the dad, who presumably can't give that "special care" that mums can.
Anyway it seems like a positive move to me, it makes women seem like less of a liability to employers and gives dads the freedom to spend more time with their families if they choose.
 
That's all a new mum and her baby needs, a grumpy man hanging around for a month, wanting to get back to work.

It's a shame the "Y" chromosome prevents males from being able to aid in the care of children.

Oh well, guess guys will have to be dedicated to their careers, while the gals will stick to child raising.

/sarcasm.
 
It's a shame the "Y" chromosome prevents males from being able to aid in the care of children.

Oh well, guess guys will have to be dedicated to their careers, while the gals will stick to child raising.

/sarcasm.

Wouldn't it be better if the man could take a couple of days off work each weeks for ten weeks?
 
Good news, America! Some Muslims were killed in Yemen:
A US drone strike has killed at least four suspected al-Qaeda fighters in Yemen's eastern Marib province, a tribal source has told the AFP news agency.

The raid targeted their vehicle "and turned it into a ball of fire, immediately killing the four, all of whom are Yemeni", the source said on Tuesday.

There wasn't a trial or anything, but I'm sure they all had, like, Muslim-y beards and stuff.
 
Good news, America! Some Muslims were killed in Yemen:


There wasn't a trial or anything, but I'm sure they all had, like, Muslim-y beards and stuff.

From the article:
"Among those killed in the drone strike was an al-Qaeda operative listed by Yemeni authorities on Monday, the source said.
Yemen's official Saba news agency confirmed "the death of four al-Qaeda militants in Wadi Abida in Marib"
 
Wouldn't it be better if the man could take a couple of days off work each weeks for ten weeks?

That depends on what your goals are, and what the circumstances are.

From the article:
"Among those killed in the drone strike was an al-Qaeda operative listed by Yemeni authorities on Monday, the source said.
Yemen's official Saba news agency confirmed "the death of four al-Qaeda militants in Wadi Abida in Marib"

Well, if Yemeni officials said they were al-Qaeda, it must be true.
 
Two parents smoke pot while their child sleeps. The child is taken away by CPS and put into two abusive foster homes. The child ends up dying and the foster parent charged.
 
Ok, so there is corruption in Yemmen. And that proves that those 4 people were innocent victims?

Corruption doesn't prove that they were innocent. But I think you're approaching the problem from the wrong angle. We shouldn't be killing people just because we can't prove they are innocent. We should be killing people only when we can prove that they are guilty, they represent a high and immediate danger to the US, and there are no other plausible means to stop them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ledboots
Corruption doesn't prove that they were innocent. But I think you're approaching the problem from the wrong angle. We shouldn't be killing people just because we can't prove they are innocent. We should be killing people only when we can prove that they are guilty, they represent a high and immediate danger to the US, and there are no other plausible means to stop them.

You're assuming that the U.S is randomly targeting "people with beards" which is probably not the case. From what I've heard, the U.S. checks different sources to verify the target's identity before an attack is made, especially after a number of high profile mistakes. They don't soley rely on the drone's camera. I don't think it would be very efficient or effective to arrest every known al-Qaeda operative and put them on trial, given that most of them aren't on U.S. soil.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.