Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 178
  1. #21  
    "Originally posted by Toby
    No, money and TV time is why there aren't any third party candidates in the White House. The Big Two don't have the balls to debate someone outside of their party on national TV (unless it's a total loon like Perot)."

    Ross Perot... no money?!?

    "Name one stance that either the Democrats or Repulicans have which is non-compromisable and does not originate from another 'third-party' candidate."

    Are you joking? Tax cuts, Abortion and size of government to name a few.


    "A choice between a blue bag of sh*t and a red bag of sh*t is still a bag of sh*t when you get down to it."

    First you use such poor language to describe the leaders of our country AND THEN follow up with this...


    "Try to actually deal with people as individuals rather than just trotting out propaganda and stereotypes, if you don't mind."


    Just a wee bit of hyprocrisy here.


    You might want to re-read your post before hitting the old send button next time.


    With all due respect,

    Rod
    "Happy are they whose sins are forgiven, whose wrongs are pardoned"

    Romans 4:7
  2. #22  
    Originally posted by terrysalmi
    Well, what is the marketing and advertising there to do? Win elections.
    No, it's to sell a product. The election is peripheral. Look at the last presidential one for evidence. While I certainly don't think Gore deserved to win his suit (because of the methods he used, i.e. if only the ones he were suing for were counted, Bush still won, but if the whole state would have recounted, he likely could have won), the fact is that the votes did not matter.
    You'd be suprised, as you probably haven't taken Government in a while.
    No, I probably wouldn't be surprised given the positions you're espousing.
    I am big into politics (and my brother is a state co-chairman for the Young Republicans), and the system is pretty close-on.
    Close-on to what?
    It's people like you
    Meaning? What stereotype are you trying to stick me in?
    that distort the facts.
    Which facts have I distorted?
    Hmm - I'd quote what I said before. "Well, what is the marketing and advertising there to do? Win elections." The Big Two haven't faced any worthwile competitition that they SHOULD debate.
    Any competition is worthwhile.
    Democrats: Bigger Government,
    Except when they're signing welfare reform bills or conducting 'streamlining government exercises' like the last administration.
    Blue-Collared Support,
    Who signed NAFTA into being again? The one that blue collar workers hated?
    Higher Taxes, all the time.
    "Read my lips..."
    Republicans: Smaller Government,
    Name one government program whose budget has _really_ been cut (increasing spending by a smaller number doesn't count).
    Less Taxes, all the time.
    "Read my lips..."
    Yes, but if you don't vote, you have no right to complain about the person who gets elected.
    I do vote.
    If you do vote, you can be glad you helped take part in the system, and you can write letters and call the candidate that did so they don't forget your issues.
    I'm sure they remember the issues (and will likely trot them out again next election). I'm also sure they couldn't care less about them.
    Hmm...when I vote for Bush and not Gore, that is dealing with people as individuals.
    No, you're missing the point again. I'm talking about this discussion. You're not dealing with me or anyone else as individuals. You're just trying to make it an 'us or them' thing. I'm telling you that it's not that simple. It's quite possible that you and I agree on some things and disagree on others, but unless you actually want to talk about those things and not try to second guess what I'm going to say because I'm 'one of those people who think X', then you just as soon type this into a web page where no one can question it.
    When I voted against Nebraska Initiative 416 in 2000, banning same-sex marriages, I was going against the Republican tide. When I look at every race as a different one, and looking to see who will best represent ME, that is looking at the person.
    Again, you're missing my point.
    You want to look at Bush, as a person?
    No, because it's irrelevant to the bigger picture. Bush the President and Bush the person aren't the same thing. I'm sure that there are many things which Bush as a person would like to do (and probably promised to do during the campaign) which will never materialize from Bush the President. The party and its considerations won't stand for it.
    - He recieved a Bachelors Degree from Yale and a Masters in Business from Harvard
    - He actually served our countries military as an F-102 pilot in the Texas Air National Guard (while Clinton left the country to avoid the draft)
    - He was the first Texas Governor to be elected to two consecutive four-year terms, the second time, with 68% of the vote
    - When he was elected President, he put in his cabinet the strongest minds in the country, to help this country get on the right track.
    I guess he forgot to notice that the train is upside down. Spare me the propaganda, please.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  3. #23  
    I guess he forgot to notice that the train is upside down. Spare me the propaganda, please.
    What propaganda? Those are facts.

    Meaning? What stereotype are you trying to stick me in?
    You're a liberal.

    Any competition is worthwhile.
    So if Pizza Hut and Dominoes had a contest to see who's pizza was better, would they invite Sir Rocky's Pizza from Libertyville, IL, to take part in the contest?

    "Read my lips..."
    He was forced into it by the Democrat-Controlled Congress. Note that Bush 43 has made a similar pledge: "Over my dead body will I raise your taxes"

    No, you're missing the point again. I'm talking about this discussion. You're not dealing with me or anyone else as individuals. You're just trying to make it an 'us or them' thing. I'm telling you that it's not that simple. It's quite possible that you and I agree on some things and disagree on others, but unless you actually want to talk about those things and not try to second guess what I'm going to say because I'm 'one of those people who think X', then you just as soon type this into a web page where no one can question it.
    Hmm...us or them. I try to talk about those things, but also, second-guessing is what you started doing by taking every two words of mine, quoting it, and trying to show me how I am wrong when I say "I support"



    No, because it's irrelevant to the bigger picture. Bush the President and Bush the person aren't the same thing. I'm sure that there are many things which Bush as a person would like to do (and probably promised to do during the campaign) which will never materialize from Bush the President. The party and its considerations won't stand for it.
    So why did you say lets look at this person by person? How are there two Bush's? I'm sure Clinton would of loved to legalize Pot, but that doesn't mean he would of done it. Bush is a human, that is why he is the way he is. (Gore was a machine, and I won't get into that side of the story...)
    Blue Visor Deluxe ~ Clie T615 ~ Zire 71 ~ Treo 650 ~ Palm Centro
  4. #24  
    Originally posted by Veloslave
    Ross Perot... no money?!?
    No, I never said Ross Perot had no money. Read it again. Money is the main reason Perot got into the picture _at_all_. They only let him into the debate after he repeatedly rented his own TV time and showed how loony he was.
    Are you joking?
    No.
    Tax cuts,
    That's obviously compromisable, isn't it? "Read my lips..."
    Abortion
    What is the official party position on abortion?
    and size of government to name a few.
    So, how is not wanting the government to grow as much as the Dems exactly a non-compromisable stance?
    First you use such poor language to describe the leaders of our country AND THEN follow up with this...
    Newsflash: being elected/appointed to a public office does not make one better than the lowest citizen which one _serves_. AAMOF, it's the opposite.
    Just a wee bit of hyprocrisy here.
    How so? I'm treating you and Terry as people. I'm not writing you off as some Republican drones despite your trying to prove me wrong. Don't mistake my view of the Republican and Democratic _parties_ for how I see Republicans or Democrats as individuals. The catch is that at the national level, the party is what really counts since they're the only ones with the clout to fight/reinforce media portrayal.
    You might want to re-read your post before hitting the old send button next time.
    I did. Maybe you should try and understand what I'm saying before you reply? I bet you couldn't even guess which party I belong to.
    With all due respect,
    Somehow I don't get the impression of any (nor do I consider myself due any particular amount).
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  5. #25  
    Originally posted by terrysalmi
    What propaganda? Those are facts.
    And they are irrelevant to his being President.
    You're a liberal.
    ROFLMAO...nope. I'm no more a liberal than I am a conservative (unless you want to consider me a reactionary to revolutionary times).
    So if Pizza Hut and Dominoes had a contest to see who's pizza was better, would they invite Sir Rocky's Pizza from Libertyville, IL, to take part in the contest?
    If they really wanted to determine whose pizza was the best, they would, but that's a bad analogy. Government isn't supposed to be a business (despite what many 'conservatives' think). It's also not supposed to be a family (despite what many 'liberals' think).
    He was forced into it by the Democrat-Controlled Congress.
    Nope. He could have vetoed it and made them take all the blame.
    Note that Bush 43 has made a similar pledge: "Over my dead body will I raise your taxes"
    Keep that in mind for when it happens after the 2002 elections.
    Hmm...us or them. I try to talk about those things, but also, second-guessing is what you started doing by taking every two words of mine, quoting it, and trying to show me how I am wrong when I say "I support"
    No, I never said that you were wrong for saying that _you_ supported Bush. I said you were wrong when you said that "All the users that claim they live in the USA so far have supported Bush here, so we must know what we are talking about (we live here, don't we?)". That's simply not true.
    So why did you say lets look at this person by person?
    I never said that either. I'm saying that you're dealing with a gray issue as black or white. I don't 'support' Bush in the same sense that you do, so don't try to use some sort of numbers or geography argument to shout down people who disagree with you when it isn't accurate.
    How are there two Bush's?
    There are actually at least three, but if you don't grok two, why bother.
    I'm sure Clinton would of loved to legalize Pot, but that doesn't mean he would of done it.
    What makes you think Clinton would have cared about legalizing pot personally? ...and what does it have to do with anything?
    Bush is a human, that is why he is the way he is. (Gore was a machine, and I won't get into that side of the story...)
    Tell you what, why don't you drop the comparisons to the Dems. They're really not helping anything.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  6. #26  
    If we are at or started from the point of no due respect then we need to cool off and move back onto PDA's. There should be no reason why there would be any less respect here on the web than compared to being friends sharing a cold one out somewhere debating face to face.

    If I have personally shown a lack of respect, I apoligize. Politics ALWAYS makes a pretty sticky coversation if there are opposing viewpoints.


    Sorry for any offending remarks and for the record I enjoy the dialog. It is just so hard to communicate intended feelings thru type and a lot easier to ignore feelings online.


    Respectfully yours

    Rod
    "Happy are they whose sins are forgiven, whose wrongs are pardoned"

    Romans 4:7
  7. #27  
    Originally posted by Veloslave
    If we are at or started from the point of no due respect then we need to cool off and move back onto PDA's.
    Well, I'm really not heated. I just tend to view someone saying 'with all due respect' after calling me hypocritical as being a little sarcastic. No biggie if that's not the way it was meant.
    There should be no reason why there would be any less respect here on the web than compared to being friends sharing a cold one out somewhere debating face to face.
    Now you've made me thirsty. I hope I have beer in the fridge when I get home.
    If I have personally shown a lack of respect, I apoligize. Politics ALWAYS makes a pretty sticky coversation if there are opposing viewpoints.
    That's the catch though. I'm probably _not_ an opposing viewpoint. I'm just a _different_ one.
    Sorry for any offending remarks and for the record I enjoy the dialog. It is just so hard to communicate intended feelings thru type and a lot easier to ignore feelings online.
    I've no problem with people ignoring feelings online. I'm more perturbed when they put some somewhere where they weren't supposed to be.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  8. #28  
    Well, I'm really not heated. I just tend to view someone saying 'with all due respect' after calling me hypocritical as being a little sarcastic. No biggie if that's not the way it was meant.
    FTR, I never said "with all due respect" to you, personally. I said it to the foreigners in the group who were bashing Bush, when they have no reason to since they don't live in this country.
    Blue Visor Deluxe ~ Clie T615 ~ Zire 71 ~ Treo 650 ~ Palm Centro
  9. #29  
    Originally posted by terrysalmi
    FTR, I never said "with all due respect" to you, personally. [...]
    Nor did I claim you did. Rod said it, and he's the one I was addressing my comments there to. It's not all about you, Terry.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  10. #30  
    Originally posted by terrysalmi

    FTR, I never said "with all due respect" to you, personally. I said it to the foreigners in the group who were bashing Bush, when they have no reason to since they don't live in this country.
    three things:
    -This is a public International forum... you post something, any member has the right to respond...
    -We were not Bashin Bush, merely stating our views.. I don't consider saying you don't trust a person as bashing..
    -I have just as much right to voice my opinion on Bush as Bush has to interfere with my world...
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  11. #31  
    Ok - I respect your opinion, Toolkit, though it really doesn't matter

    Lets end this now before it gets (even more) out of hand

    We all know how great Bush is...let's leave it at that.

    Isn't it amazing how quick this thread grew?
    Blue Visor Deluxe ~ Clie T615 ~ Zire 71 ~ Treo 650 ~ Palm Centro
  12. #32  
    Originally posted by terrysalmi
    Ok - I respect your opinion, Toolkit, though it really doesn't matter
    My opinion is just as important as yours, or anybody else on this topic... Just because I don't vote in the US does not mean I can't have an informed opinion. Also being foreign I can show a different view on things..
    IMHO a lot of americans could really benefit from a bigger perspective...but let's not get off topic on that one..

    Originally posted by terrysalmi
    Lets end this now before it gets (even more) out of hand
    Let's leave that decision up to the Mod's...If you feel I'm not impartial over here anymore please send a note to one of the other mods to take over...
    So far thing have been fairly polite and I don't see any reason yet to shut it down... discusion is good as long as we all play according the rules...

    Originally posted by terrysalmi
    We all know how great Bush is...let's leave it at that.
    Let's agree to disagree

    Originally posted by terrysalmi
    Isn't it amazing how quick this thread grew?
    Yep, nothing better than a good political discusion to get things going
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  13.    #33  
    Being from Canada...which we consider a state of America, and I am sure some top Americans think the same way, all our natural resources, wouldn't you just Love them?? Anyways. Being from Canada I not only get CNN (Which I don't watch very often) but I also get ABC, NBC, BBC, Some local (Seattle) Channels, and even PBS from Seattle AND Detroit. And what do you mean the Kyoto Accord was UNAMERICAN? of course it was, it was put together by the Japanese because our world is heating up...we need to do something about it. I realize you Americans (Canadians included) Don't have the environment as our biggest worry, what with our SUVs and Junk, but it SHOULD be. If Anything, America is one of the worst polluted regions of the world, need I mention Love Canal, Three Mile Island, various chemical dumps (I think a total of 70 or so) and the Hanford Nuclear Site. I have followed all this stuff closely (No, I am not an environmentalist, just someone who loves chaos and dissarray, long story). The only place worse polluted than you guys is Russia and that's only nuclear waste, AND they're spending more cleaning it up than you are. Sure the other presidents have done some stupid things, but comparing Bush to them is actually a fallacy and therefore not a valid part of an argument. Ever heard of the International Criminal Court? Of course not becuase Bush revoked Clinton's signature on it, you know why? Because Bush is worried that the US might get dragged to court over some of the things they have/are doing overseas, that's the same reason that those "Terroists" in Cuba haven't been brought to America. Not too mention that now the police/FBI/CIA/anyone in law enforcement can come to your house and arrest you, go through your house, and hold you for an indefinite amount of time without even telling you why. They don't even need arrest or search warrants. Since October when the law was passed some 5000 people have "disappeared" become unpersons as Orwell would've put it. They're also planning to fingerprint and document all people coming to America from the Middle East, even when on vacation. It's scary stuff, it's happening in Canada too, and everybody is just accepting it. So much for Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happy Meals..oops I mean Happiness. Maybe I should mention the Sept. 11 conspiracy that's gaining strength....I agree you guys are screwed between no intellect, Bush, and no emotion, Gore, but to call Bush a Hero???
    Alex.

    P.S. Go onto the internet, goto www.canada.com and www.cbc.ca and search for softwood lumber and Free trade too see how your heroic government is screwing over Canada....at the cost of your government...

    P.S.S. What kind of Hero is Bush? During WWII, Winston Churchill would go onto the roof of his headquarters DURING The bombing runs, even when a building beside his was hit, to show his faith in his country. When the terroists struck, what did Bush do? He flew away on an airplane, he ran.

    P.S.S.S. If Bush is so heroic, why did his government back off on pressuring Pakistan when they started rattling their nukes.

    P.S.S.S.S. Toolkit, did you know that something like 60% of Americans can't even find Afghanistan on a map? Not to mention 57% think that Canada in it's entirety is covered in permafrost or snow...it's quite humourous seeing people come up from California in July with Ski's on the roof of their car while we're walking around in shorts in 80F weather.
    Last edited by tantousha; 06/06/2002 at 08:37 PM.
  14. #34  
    The International Criminal Court? Now that is definitily UnAmerican. Why did Bush revoke Clinton's signature? Because the court would take away Constitutional rights of Americans.

    Specifically, the court threatens to diminish America's sovereignty, produce arbitrary and highly politicized "justice," and grow into a jurisdictional leviathan. Already some supporters of the proposed court want to give it the authority to prosecute drug trafficking as well as such vague offenses as "serious threats to the environment" and "committing outrages on personal dignity." Even if such expansive authority is not given to the ICC initially, the potential for jurisdictional creep is considerable and worrisome. Moreover, it appears that many of the legal safeguards American citizens enjoy under the U.S. Constitution would be suspended if they were brought before the court. Endangered constitutional protections include the prohibition against double jeopardy, the right to trial by an impartial jury of his/her peers, and the right of the accused to confront the witnesses against him.
    Last edited by terrysalmi; 06/06/2002 at 08:45 PM.
    Blue Visor Deluxe ~ Clie T615 ~ Zire 71 ~ Treo 650 ~ Palm Centro
  15. #35  
    Originally posted by terrysalmi

    Thank god he did, it was a very UNAMERICAN treaty.
    That's right.. Global heating is eeehm GLOBAL... and for those of you who did not realize it the US is part of the Global environment...

    But Bush thinks that the economy in the 4 years he is president is more important than the world we live in forever after...
    Also it sets a presedent...You can't trust the US governement... if one president signs a threaty and the next one cancels it, how much is that signature worth? I think for international affairs that was a very bad move by Bush...

    p.s. thanx tantousha for reminding me that I forgot to respond to this one...
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  16.    #36  
    Bush has run amok of foreign policy. I think it's really sad, the American's are closing themselves off from the world. Already the EU and Japan have mentioned closing off their borders to Americans and their trade if they don't smarten up. As for the ICC I know that the American's have been taught it goes against their constitutional freedoms. But what constitutional freedoms? The right to commit crimes in other countries and then run back to their home country? America said that they would retrieve people at all costs, couldn't you just imagine a troop of marines running into the Hague? I think it would be an embarrasment. Besides, not signing the ICC is a sign of fear and cowardice. It shows that the American government has something hide. IE: Did you know that the whole Enron scandal really took place in Sept. shortly after Sept 11? that's right, they took advantage of America in mourning too drain billions into private accounts. And why did the government never hear about it? Well the Republican's biggest donar during the election was Enron, it was even the CEO's jet that Bush flew around on! Apparently they are just starting to unearth signs of money being transfered to politician's private accounts. Man, if that's true, I gotta get into Politics.
    Alex.

    P.S. When the ICC comes into effect, they have already stated that because enough countries signed, America will not have immunity, welcome to the WORLD America, a place where you are no longer the biggest bully! I betcha Bush will threaten to use the nukes now...oh wait, he ALREADY HAS!
  17. #37  
    Originally posted by terrysalmi
    The International Criminal Court? Now that is definitily UnAmerican. Why did Bush revoke Clinton's signature? Because the court would take away Constitutional rights of Americans.

    Specifically, the court threatens to diminish America's sovereignty, produce arbitrary and highly politicized "justice," and grow into a jurisdictional leviathan. Already some supporters of the proposed court want to give it the authority to prosecute drug trafficking as well as such vague offenses as "serious threats to the environment" and "committing outrages on personal dignity." Even if such expansive authority is not given to the ICC initially, the potential for jurisdictional creep is considerable and worrisome. Moreover, it appears that many of the legal safeguards American citizens enjoy under the U.S. Constitution would be suspended if they were brought before the court. Endangered constitutional protections include the prohibition against double jeopardy, the right to trial by an impartial jury, and the right of the accused to confront the witnesses against him.
    You are right on 1 account, it would diminish 'America's sovereignty', actually that is the whole point isn't it? Taking away the sovereignty of people who make the laws? that way people cannot change their own laws to justify crimes against humanity..
    By backing out of that threaty Bush gives himself freehand to do whatever he thinks is right in say Afganistan... Kind of scary if you ask me...
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  18. #38  
    Originally posted by ToolkiT

    That's right.. Global heating is eeehm GLOBAL... and for those of you who did not realize it the US is part of the Global environment...

    But Bush thinks that the economy in the 4 years he is president is more important than the world we live in forever after...
    Also it sets a presedent...You can't trust the US governement... if one president signs a threaty and the next one cancels it, how much is that signature worth? I think for international affairs that was a very bad move by Bush...

    p.s. thanx tantousha for reminding me that I forgot to respond to this one...
    Just a few points of interest: (some taken from an article by S. Fred Singer)
    - During the Election, Bush pledged to go against this treaty. He has not wavered
    - The United States Senate (of which the President's Party only has 49 seats) voted 95-0 to reject this treaty.
    - The treaty would cause severe economic damage to the U.S., but exempt the rest of the world (President Bush puts America first, rightfully so, especially after 9-11)
    - The Kyoto Protocol is too expensive for the US to undertake. Cost estimates range anywhere from $5 to more than $400 per ton of emissions reductions. This translates into $0.05 per gallon to more than $1.00 per gallon in additional costs for gasoline. A recent Time/CNN Poll reflects half of Americans would be unwilling to pay even a 25 cent increase in gasoline prices that would be forced by the treaty.
    - Cutting energy use by 35% is very unrealistic
    - The USA already has energy problems, including cases of rolling blackouts in California. Should we get rid of California to satisfy the treaty?
    - The treaty is fatally flawed because it exempts developing countries (which can be as bad, or worse than the rest, not to mention what happens after the treaties exit the developing stage)
    - The causes of global warming require more study before the U.S. commits itself to mandatory reductions in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
    - One may argue Europe faces stricter actions, and as a result, they are using Bicycle travel. This simply isn't possible in a country three times the size as Europe, where everything is more spread out.
    Blue Visor Deluxe ~ Clie T615 ~ Zire 71 ~ Treo 650 ~ Palm Centro
  19. #39  
    Originally posted by ToolkiT

    You are right on 1 account, it would diminish 'America's sovereignty', actually that is the whole point isn't it? Taking away the sovereignty of people who make the laws? that way people cannot change their own laws to justify crimes against humanity..
    By backing out of that threaty Bush gives himself freehand to do whatever he thinks is right in say Afganistan... Kind of scary if you ask me...
    Ok - So America's laws and system, which have withstood over 200 years, are thrown out the window. Hey everyone - Lets let some old guys in the Hague make all our laws!

    Yeah good idea. Not. Bush does not give himself freehand to do whatever he thinks is right, because this country also has laws. Bush's actions are tightly watched by the world, and more importantly, the U.S. Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court. THe Congress (half of which does not like Bush, the Senate) keeps a careful eye on what Bush does. The Supreme Court keeps an eye on what is constitutional and what is not, and the President can face Impeachment and removal from office caused by the Congress, and he can also be defeated in the next election.

    For the record, President Bush was against this treaty long before the U.S. was in any wartime military action, and President Clinton recieved a lot of bad press for his signing the treaty in the first place.
    Blue Visor Deluxe ~ Clie T615 ~ Zire 71 ~ Treo 650 ~ Palm Centro
  20. #40  
    Originally posted by tantousha
    Bush has run amok of foreign policy. I think it's really sad, the American's are closing themselves off from the world. Already the EU and Japan have mentioned closing off their borders to Americans and their trade if they don't smarten up.
    Funny. Because in the 1800's and early 1900's, this is exactly what America wanted. Ever read the Monroe Doctrine?
    Cutting off borders? Won't happen. Americans spend way too much money in Europe and Japan. Not to mention the nuclear umbrella America spreads over its allies. Remember that little organization called NATO?

    As for the ICC I know that the American's have been taught it goes against their constitutional freedoms. But what constitutional freedoms? The right to commit crimes in other countries and then run back to their home country? America said that they would retrieve people at all costs, couldn't you just imagine a troop of marines running into the Hague? I think it would be an embarrasment. Besides, not signing the ICC is a sign of fear and cowardice. It shows that the American government has something hide.
    The freedom to recieve a trial by an impartial jury of their peers
    The freedom against Double Jeapordy - To be tried for a crime a second time
    The freedom to confront his/her accusor

    The exact freedoms America was based on.
    America has no right to commit crimes in other countries, and then to run back. This is absolutely ludicrous. American Military members are controlled by a very strict set of rules called the UCMJ - The Uniformed Code of Military Justice, that prevents them from doing that. As for American civilians, they can be tried in the country the crime was commited in, or in America, as has happened.

    If an American Military Member does get sent to the Hague, I will be counting down the hours until our Marines (more likely, Navy Seals) will be rescuing him/her.

    IE: Did you know that the whole Enron scandal really took place in Sept. shortly after Sept 11? that's right, they took advantage of America in mourning too drain billions into private accounts. And why did the government never hear about it? Well the Republican's biggest donar during the election was Enron, it was even the CEO's jet that Bush flew around on! Apparently they are just starting to unearth signs of money being transfered to politician's private accounts. Man, if that's true, I gotta get into Politics.
    Enron is not the American Government, it is a private organization
    Guess who the Democrat's biggest donor was? Enron. Enron covered all sides of the table, and gave money to over 70% of the 535 Congressional members (of which, Republicans are a little more than half)

    [/quote]P.S. When the ICC comes into effect, they have already stated that because enough countries signed, America will not have immunity, welcome to the WORLD America, a place where you are no longer the biggest bully! I betcha Bush will threaten to use the nukes now...oh wait, he ALREADY HAS! [/QUOTE]
    America won't have immunity? Yes we will. I like to call that Nuclear Weapons. As I recall, we have them for a reason, and that is not to have them sit around. Nuclear Weapons are used to protect and save American lives, and they have been threatened to be used by just about every President since Roosevelt. (Truman actually used them, and guess what? It saved about 2 million American lives, and about 2 million Japanese lives, that would of been taken if a D-Day style invasion of mainland Japan would of taken place, as was widely expected)
    Blue Visor Deluxe ~ Clie T615 ~ Zire 71 ~ Treo 650 ~ Palm Centro
Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions