Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 46
  1.    #1  
    ...the President abusing power in governing this nation, or the President ceding power to the United Nations?
  2. #2  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    ...the President abusing power in governing this nation, or the President ceding power to the United Nations?
    false choice Shop -- in most cases helping the UN empowers america.

    The UN inspectors were absolutely correct in their evaluation of Sadamm's WMD -- and of having originally supervised their destruction.

    The peace forces that separate combatents only have credibility because of international participation.

    Agreements like the Law of the Sea Treaty (which I know little about ) that junior idiotically refuses to be a part of, was an example of compromise between poor and powerful nations ...
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  3. #3  
    Which is worse?

    Let's see, oh I know.......

    A person that is a Democrat and a Palm Victim all at the same time...

    Sorry Shop... I couldn't resist....just a little equal time with the in house Repub bashers

  4.    #4  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    false choice Shop -- in most cases helping the UN empowers america.

    ...
    I can see the value of intervention via a UN-organized international brigade. I can even see value in having an international think tank. What, though, if the UN is empowered as an ruling body? Would that an empowering scenario for America?
  5. #5  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    ...the President abusing power in governing this nation, or the President ceding power to the United Nations?
    What abuses of power by your personal estimation.
  6.    #6  
    There were no particular abuses that prompted this thread. Rather, in reading the thread about Executive Orders, I found it interesting that there is outcry about the potential for abuse. Yet, the Mideast "peace" process which is not a negotiation between states but implementation of UN resolutions (de facto establishment of jurisdictional authority) raises no concern.
  7. #7  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    There were no particular abuses that prompted this thread.
    Without definition, neither side of your question has any meaning.

    Rather, in reading the thread about Executive Orders, I found it interesting that there is outcry about the potential for abuse.
    Interesting, was it? Also, interesting is that you believe the thread was about 'Executive Orders'.

    Yet, the Mideast "peace" process which is not a negotiation between states but implementation of UN resolutions (de facto establishment of jurisdictional authority) raises no concern.
    The West has sliced and diced the Middle East too many times to count during the 19th/20th/21st centuries. Take a shot of courage and just state what you really think of the UN.
  8. #8  
    Amazing, none of them answering the original question. Short statements with no meaning. Typical.
  9. #9  
    By far, ceding further power to the UN is a danger to our and has all hurt us. We fund the UN and get nothing but sorrow from it. As for SALT - did any of you read it?
  10. #10  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    Amazing, none of them answering the original question. Short statements with no meaning. Typical.
    The question is an ink-blot test. Fill-in the details according to your inclinations, and the answer changes. The question is meaningless.

    "abusing power" = ?
    "ceding power to UN" = ?
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  11. #11  
    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad View Post
    The question is an ink-blot test. Fill-in the details according to your inclinations, and the answer changes. The question is meaningless.

    "abusing power" = ?
    "ceding power to UN" = ?
    In other words, this thread was an engraved invitation to a free-for-all. A fact which I'm certain did not escape shopharim.
  12. #12  
    Yes, but not aggressively titled as such.
  13. #13  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    Yes, but not aggressively titled as such.
    Still taking the easy way out, eh?
  14. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #14  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    false choice Shop -- in most cases helping the UN empowers america.
    Your finest bit of comedy Barye.
  15. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #15  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    ...the President abusing power in governing this nation, or the President ceding power to the United Nations?
    The question casts a broad net, but we can draw a conclusion or two.

    Considering the legendary and unparalleled ineptitude of the United Nations ever since its founding in 1945, this is clearly a bad scenario under all circumstances.

    That leaves us with the first part of the question, and this option is preferable for the simple reason that it is, in practice (not in theory), a political question that depends to a great extent which member of which party you happen to be talking too.
  16. #16  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    Which is worse... the President abusing power in governing this nation, or the President ceding power to the United Nations?
    Here's a simple answer which I am sure will be ignored.

    When the president is abusing power (I take it unlawfully) he is betraying the trust of the whole nation, whereas ceding power to the UN would presumably be with the consent of the nation and an expression of the trust placed in his office.

    It seems ceding power to the UN is being placed on the same level as criminal actions, when I am sure its just part of the normal process of government, through the various treaties governing trade, commerce, defense, international aid and peace keeping etc.

    So, in short, abuse of power by the trusted officials of government is worse, much worse.

    Surur
  17.    #17  
    Quote Originally Posted by Surur
    ...whereas ceding power to the UN would presumably be with the consent of the nation and an expression of the trust placed in his office...
    I don't that there is a legal way to cede power to the UN. I'm under the impression our Constitution authorizes negotiation with other nations, rather than a caucus of nations.

    If another nation deviates from an agreement, we can levy sanctions or war or various things in between. With an abusive President, there is impeachment and an election process.

    What recourse is there for the US if the UN does not abide by an agreement?
  18. #18  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur View Post
    Here's a simple answer which I am sure will be ignored.

    When the president is abusing power (I take it unlawfully) he is betraying the trust of the whole nation, whereas ceding power to the UN would presumably be with the consent of the nation and an expression of the trust placed in his office.

    It seems ceding power to the UN is being placed on the same level as criminal actions, when I am sure its just part of the normal process of government, through the various treaties governing trade, commerce, defense, international aid and peace keeping etc.

    So, in short, abuse of power by the trusted officials of government is worse, much worse.

    Surur
    Perfectly spot on! As a nation of Laws, not of men, from its inception, our government is held to the highest of standards. When it fails to meet its own standards, or worse, dilutes the standards to be held, we, as a nation have both the obligation to correct such actions and to speak out with the full authority of our unique constitution. Every other relationship the US has is secondary to its obligation to its people.
  19. #19  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    I don't that there is a legal way to cede power to the UN. I'm under the impression our Constitution authorizes negotiation with other nations, rather than a caucus of nations.

    If another nation deviates from an agreement, we can levy sanctions or war or various things in between. With an abusive President, there is impeachment and an election process.
    What about the WTO. Isn't that just a caucus of nations? I am beginning to think that when you say cede power you mean ALL power. I dont think thats how it works.

    What recourse is there for the US if the UN does not abide by an agreement?
    Withdrawing from the agreement. If its no longer mutually beneficial (and a net positive) then countries tend to withdraw from treaties, as I am sure the US has itself done on a number of occasions.

    Surur
  20. #20  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur View Post
    What about the WTO. Isn't that just a caucus of nations? I am beginning to think that when you say cede power you mean ALL power. I dont think thats how it works.
    ... Which underscores just how disingenuous the 'question' is, as its unstated intent is an agenda of anti-Democratic bias, considering that courage of conviction is required to define scales of gravity.
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions