Posted on 04/08/2009 7:17:34 PM PDT by Lorianne
see post for link to story
For example - a Caucasian American ( the laws there are different for different racial and religious groups) can drink alcohol in a Dubai hotel. But if he gets in his car and is stopped for a traffic violation AND the police smell alcohol on his breath (maybe he drank half a beer) he is taken to jail on the spot. Where he'll serve two years.
The law is not "drunk driving", or driving while impaired - it's driving while smelling like you've had a drink.
That one is not a surprise. It’s a Muslim country. This would not be an issue if they didnt have all the money and we didnt have all the debt. Who would go to Dubai except for the money?
No judge, no jury, not even enough alcohol to impair him while driving? Just the "smell" of alcohol - and it's not a "surprise" to you sickoflibs?
He was served the alcohol legally. When the cops smelled it they just put the guy in the back seat of a police car and drove him to the jail.
No! it's a foreign Muslim country. If you need the $$$ there, don't drink. If you want a vacation, go to Thailand. Again, it's the money that is the attraction.
A shame the USA is not the attractor of businesses. Obama is now on amnesty, planning on getting that voter-government-dependency up so future joblessness and inflation pays off with a solid majority voting base.It's called having nothing but power.
Instead of bankruptcy we have bailouts.
Did you read the article?
Yes I did. Now could you answer my question?
Do you think that there are people in the USA who are being exploited like the people described in the article? Do you think Americans, even very poor Americans are worse off than people being exploited in as described in the article?
A lot of people have made a lot of money in Dubai. That IS the draw. But, as everything else in life, there are trade offs. Some people like to gamble.
The slavery of the dark haired, dark eyed people seems pretty bad to me, if the article is accurate.
I find it interesting that Tiger Woods has not been questioned on his business interests in Dubai. For all the talk about how “Tiger’s changing the world”, I just don’t see it.
There's a main taxi cab company in Dubai - and having left a wallet in the back of a cab, my friend went there to get the wallet back. The room ( which most citizens don't see) was covered with "wanted" posters of people trying to escape: people in debt or who's two year construction contracts weren't up etc...
I didn't ask, but I assume the cabbies (who also live in "dorms" outside the city) - get rewards for turning people in. While dorms for cabbies are better than for construction workers, they're still horrid.
Each cabbie shares a bed with a person who works a different shift. Workers don't even get a bed - just a time when they can sleep in one. And construction workers - they die like flies. Airports have an abandoned car problem. Housing prices fell recently and people just leave everything - car, furniture, everything and tell the authorities they are going on vacation. The lucky ones get out and never come back.
My friend was once a multiculturlist - feeling that all cultures were equal. This person ( who's still a liberal) now feels all cultures have some things of value, but is firmly in the camp of "the United States being (all things considered) the best place to live" - "we won the lotto just being born here"...
That's why my question...
Well then, we seem to agree.
Even the poorest and most put upon person in the USA is better off than 80% of the world’s population.
The number one nutrition related problem of the “poor” in America is not malnutrition, it is obesity.
When being “poor” means you are actually more likely to be fat, being “poor” obviously doesn’t mean the same thing as it used to for most of human history.
I think you confused me with someone else - I didn’t say anything about child support... please check the thread - and you’ll see it’s NOT me. My comments were about Dubai - and the almost slave like working conditions there.
If the shoe was on the other foot - a woman lost her job, the courts would never let her get away with letting her children starve to death because she "didn't have the money". She would have to figure it out. Same for the man.
The slavery - or very close to it - that exists in Dubai - is NOTHING like paying to support your own children. Sickoflibs is great on many issues - love his economic stuff, but I don't see his stance on child support.
In fact, many of the people working in Dubai are there to support their children - children living in countries that are hell on earth for the poor. They work to send money home - and what's left of the 25 to 50 cents an hour they earn, they "live" on. Many of these good men who go to Dubai for work to feed their families will die there in the process.
Hard for me to feel too sorry for some American dad who doesn't want to support his kids - knowing that the working men who go to Dubai to send money home for their kids - often give up their lives for their children.
They are not paying to support their children, that's another common lie to support the debtors prison. The money goes exclusively to the mother, not the child. She gets exclusive control over it. She can use some of it to support that new boyfriend, in fact that comes up regularly on the judge TV shows where they buy gifts for boyfriends with the money. The judges ACT outraged but can do nothing. They miss that it removes their so called purpose. protect the kids. It's pure slavery. Furthermore, the mom can be the one that broke up the family and get that reward.
Imagine the Dubai father in America forced into family court for the crime of his child's mother leaving him. He's ordered to pay the legal fees of her lawyer, even if not married, he refuses and is thrown in jail with no trial, no due process, no rights. Our version of Dubai justice.His crime? Sex while being a man.
Add that the woman can kill his unbborn child(abortion) , but if she doesnt he is a marked man. Where is HIS right to privacy after having sex with her? It's a joke, the product of deluded moral outrage and feminists that knew how tio break up families.
BTW: Thanks for throwing in the complement! :)
Men wanted no-fault divorce. Male legislators passed these laws. Men did it to themselves.
If you think it compares with Islam, you’re in for a shock.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.