Sat, Apr 19, 2014, 5:48 AM EDT - U.S. Markets closed


% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Altria Group Inc. Message Board

btdt100 51 posts  |  Last Activity: Feb 3, 2014 11:31 PM Member since: Nov 30, 2005
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • “Slavery Law” Passes Final Vote
    Update:May 18, 2011
    Slavery Law

    An amendment to the Israel Entry Law – infamously known as the “Slavery Law” –passed its final vote in Knesset on Monday, 16 May 2011, in a 26-6 vote, despite wide opposition from human rights organizations and leading legal experts. The law was passed on the very first day of the Knesset’s Summer Session.

    The new law severely harms fundamental human rights of approximately 55,000 migrant workers in the nursing professions in Israel, the majority of which are women. The law enables the Minister of Interior to restrict the number of times a migrant caregiver can change employers, to limit workers to specific geographical areas, and to confine them to specific subsections of the nursing services. The amendment constitutes an attempt to circumvent the High Court of Justice and to restore an earlier “binding arrangement” of migrant workers to their employers, which the High Court has already criticized in 2006 for “creating a modern form of slavery” following a petition by five human rights organizations.

    During the Knesset’s recess in the past month, ACRI and other organizations have worked together and generated some public discussion regarding this pending bill – having initiated a powerful letter by Israeli jurists, followed by a support letter by American-Jewish counterparts (organized by the New Israel Fund) and a subsequent letter from Israeli public opinion leaders – all condemning the bill for severely violating basic human rights, and urging decision-makers to stop it.

  • btdt100 btdt100 Jan 24, 2014 5:01 PM Flag

    To the new comers who have yet to get to know rotardo (al.gore27), she likes to do it with sheep.

  • btdt100 btdt100 Jan 24, 2014 5:00 PM Flag

    "In the US, I'm pretty sure it was the Union Army jamming a gun up the #$%$ of Robert E Lee."

    Affirming the fact you support totalitarian military rule for the US, same as you did in Russia.

  • btdt100 btdt100 Jan 24, 2014 3:50 PM Flag

    idiot rotard. Pathetic try. Telling people to honor their agreements, even if they have an a hole boss, is not supporting the boss. Slaves do not equal slave owners.

    Once again, Christians are responsible for the abolition of slavery. Slavery today still exists in African countries. Israel is one of the worse centers of the sex slave industry.

    Of course, you will never admit you are wrong and have been caught AGAIN in your lies.

  • btdt100 btdt100 Jan 24, 2014 3:03 PM Flag

    well rotardo, claiming I said something that I did not say (that Jews lie) hardly proves your argument. You are the one who has now called Jews liars, not me. It is but more of your own racism promoting the negative stereotype. I only made reference to interpretations of scripture by the Pharisees of Christ's day.

    Nor do the sentences you have pulled out of context from the New Testament prove that Christianity supported slavery. Your quotes ONLY address how one should conduct themselves if they are a "slave". Your incredibly simplistic and shallow intellectual style actually likens you to the creationists you so often mock.

    To go further, while you reference ENGLISH Bibles, you have three problems. The first is that you pull out of context of the whole. Your second problem is in translations. The term in the original New Testament was dou'lo", a term that in earlier centuries usually referred to one who sold himself into slavery. In Christ's time, even educated people would sell themselves on commitment to perform particular functions such as rearing or educating the others' children. Very similar to indentured servants. Your other problem is in literacy of Roman law which was the rule at Christ's time, and grasping that both Judaism and Christianity were religions, NOT political movements.

    I will remind you again that the abolitionist movement in this country and the people responsible for politically, socially, and morally rejecting slavery as occurred in this country and Europe were CHRISTIANS - most specifically Quakers, motivated and driven by scripture of the New Testament.

    I will add another tidbit to the near empty volume inside your skull and tell you that one of the conflicts over the many preceding centuries between Christians and Jews in Europe was the Jewish habit of owning slaves. (You know, those periods of "persecution" of the Jews.)

  • btdt100 btdt100 Jan 24, 2014 12:19 PM Flag

    Part 4

    I was interviewed by the Select Committee and its staff, who were professional and thorough. I explained this sequence of events. For some reason, my explanation did not make it into the Senate report.

    To sum up: Chris Stevens was not responsible for the reduction in security personnel. His requests for additional security were denied or ignored. Officials at the State and Defense Departments in Washington made the decisions that resulted in reduced security. Sen. Lindsey Graham stated on the Senate floor last week that Chris "was in Benghazi because that is where he was supposed to be doing what America wanted him to do: Try to hold Libya together." He added, "Quit blaming the dead guy."

    Mr. Hicks served as Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli from July 31 to Dec. 7, 2012.

  • btdt100 btdt100 Jan 24, 2014 12:17 PM Flag

    Part 3

    According to the National Defense Authorization Act, the Defense Department needed Chris's concurrence to change the special forces mission. But soon after the Aug. 1 meeting, and as a complete surprise to us at the embassy, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta signed the order without Chris's concurrence.

    The SenateIntelligence Committee's report accurately notes that on Aug. 6, after the transfer of authority, two special forces team members in a diplomatic vehicle were forced off the road in Tripoli and attacked. Only because of their courage, skills and training did they escape unharmed. But the incident highlighted the risks associated with having military personnel in Libya unprotected by diplomatic immunity or a status of forces agreement. As a result of this incident, Chris was forced to agree with Gen. Ham's withdrawal of most of the special forces team from Tripoli until the Libyan government formally approved their new training mission and granted them diplomatic immunity.

    Because Mr. Kennedy had refused to extend the special forces security mission, State Department protocol required Chris to decline Gen. Ham's two offers to do so, which were made after Aug. 6. I have found the reporting of these so-called offers strange, since my recollection of events is that after the Aug. 6 incident, Gen. Ham wanted to withdraw the entire special forces team from Tripoli until they had Libyan government approval of their new mission and the diplomatic immunity necessary to perform their mission safely. However, Chris convinced Gen. Ham to leave six members of the team in Tripoli.

    When I arrived in Tripoli on July 31, we had over 30 security personnel, from the State Department and the U.S. military, assigned to protect the diplomatic mission to Libya. All were under the ambassador's authority. On Sept. 11, we had only nine diplomatic security agents under Chris's authority to protect our diplomatic personnel in Tripoli and Benghazi.


  • btdt100 btdt100 Jan 24, 2014 12:13 PM Flag

    Part 2

    However, on July 13, State Department Undersecretary Patrick Kennedy refused the Defense Department offer and thus Chris's July 9 request. His rationale was that Libyan guards would be hired to take over this responsibility. Because of Mr. Kennedy's refusal, Chris had to use diplomatic language at the video conference, such as expressing "reservations" about the transfer of authority.

    Chris's concern was significant. Transferring authority would immediately strip the special forces team of its diplomatic immunity. Moreover, the U.S. had no status of forces agreement with Libya. He explained to Rear Adm. Charles J. Leidig that if a member of the special forces team used weapons to protect U.S. facilities, personnel or themselves, he would be subject to Libyan law. The law would be administered by judges appointed to the bench by Moammar Gadhafi or, worse, tribal judges.

    Chris described an incident in Pakistan in 2011 when an American security contractor killed Pakistani citizens in self-defense, precipitating a crisis in U.S.-Pakistani relations. He also pointed out that four International Criminal Court staff, who had traveled to Libya in June 2012 to interview Gadhafi's oldest son, Saif al-Islam al-Qadhafi, were illegally detained by tribal authorities under suspicion of spying. This was another risk U.S. military personnel might face.

    During that video conference, Chris stressed that the only way to mitigate the risk was to ensure that U.S. military personnel serving in Libya would have diplomatic immunity, which should be done prior to any change of authority.

    Chris understood the importance of the special forces team to the security of our embassy personnel. He believed that by explaining his concerns, the Defense Department would postpone the decision so he could have time to work with the Libyan government and get diplomatic immunity for the special forces.


  • By Gregory N. Hicks Part 1

    Last week the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence issued its report on the Sept. 11, 2012, terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya. The report concluded that the attack, which resulted in the murder of four Americans, was "preventable." Some have been suggesting that the blame for this tragedy lies at least partly with Ambassador Chris Stevens, who was killed in the attack. This is untrue: The blame lies entirely with Washington.

    The report states that retired Gen. Carter Ham, then-commander of the U.S. Africa Command (Africom) headquartered in Stuttgart, Germany, twice offered to "sustain" the special forces security team in Tripoli and that Chris twice "declined." Since Chris cannot speak, I want to explain the reasons and timing for his responses to Gen. Ham. As the deputy chief of mission, I was kept informed by Chris or was present throughout the process.

    On Aug. 1, 2012, the day after I arrived in Tripoli, Chris invited me to a video conference with Africom to discuss changing the mission of the U.S. Special Forces from protecting the U.S. Embassy and its personnel to training Libyan forces. This change in mission would result in the transfer of authority over the unit in Tripoli from Chris to Gen. Ham. In other words, the special forces would report to the Defense Department, not State.

    Chris wanted the decision postponed but could not say so directly. Chris had requested on July 9 by cable that Washington provide a minimum of 13 American security professionals for Libya over and above the diplomatic security complement of eight assigned to Tripoli and Benghazi. On July 11, the Defense Department, apparently in response to Chris's request, offered to extend the special forces mission to protect the U.S. Embassy.


  • btdt100 btdt100 Jan 24, 2014 11:58 AM Flag

    "Jesus said that he was not changing anything from the Old Testament. All laws were still in force. (If anyone finds inconsistencies, it is not my fault--I did not write the Bible"

    vermit, no one would ever accuse you of all people, of writing the Bible. Your problem is that you obviously have never read it. While Jesus did not state he was "changing" the Old Testament, he most certainly challenged the Pharisees and their interpretations of the Old Testament.

  • btdt100 btdt100 Jan 24, 2014 9:00 AM Flag

    The Bible does talk about slavery..

    It says for slaves to be submissive to their masters.

    Therefore Christianity is in favor of slavery. It's a redddnexxx religion.

    rotardo NEVER can get her facts correct. The First Testament - book of the Jews - justifies slavery, but not the Second Testament - book of the Christians.

    Therefore in rotardo's messed up logic and promotion of racism, she means to say "Judaism is in favor of slavery. It's a redddnexxx religion."

    Side note from the Jewish Virtual Library:
    Judah Benjamin (1811 - 1884)

    One of the most misunderstood figures in American Jewish history is Judah P. Benjamin, whom some historians have called “the brains of the Confederacy,” even as others tried to blame him for the South’s defeat.

38.45+0.09(+0.23%)Apr 17 4:00 PMEDT

Trending Tickers

Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.
AutoZone, Inc.
NYSEThu, Apr 17, 2014 4:00 PM EDT
AsiaInfo-Linkage, Inc.
NasdaqGSWed, Jan 15, 2014 4:00 PM EST