|
The New Yorker cover of Obama (pg. 8)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
No it's not. The UN Charter grants all state's the right of self-determination. Being the world's superpower is not an excuse to tell other nations how to run their country. |
myopic: the UN has dragged itself into all sorts of armed conflict throughout their entire history defending their own charter. they grant self-determination in the absence of any human rights violations or violations of international law, treaties and their own resolutions.
| quote: | | Iran is stronger because it doesn't have its regional arch enemy to worry about anymore. Now we have to be that arch enemy. And they know we are tied down in a two front war. |
myopic: their "arch enemy" for over a decade after the Gulf War couldn't move a helicopter without being on by the UN and it's memebers, including the United States. HOW WAS IRAN NOT STRONGER THEN?
prior to the Mar 2003 Iran did what the f**k they wanted because no one cared. HOW ARE THEY STRONGER NOW COMPARITIVELY?
| quote: | | Is it because I actually respect the sovereignty of other nations? |
selfish: you use the word sovereignty like a bumper sticker. it only means something to you if it doesn't cost you anything or you don't accept the costs it requires. you use it basically for arguments sake, without any respect for history, the PEOPLE from whom the country actually derives it's sovereignty or what it really takes to become truly sovereign.
SOVEREIGNTY, in this day and age means you don't give anybody any reason to f**k with your "sovereignty" |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
I still don't believe Dems are uncomprimising, nor are they responsible for high oil prices. |
Did you see this today? If so, does it change at all your thoughs on our wonderful democratic congress? (i'm seriously asking, that's not rhetorical)
| quote: | With Americans driving less, the highway fund faces even more severe shortfalls than expected from lost gas-tax revenue — and so the Democrats plan to hike it up by ten cents a gallon. Despite calls from the presidential campaign trail for a Memorial Day-to-Labor Day tax freeze, lawmakers quickly concluded — with a prod from the construction industry — that having $9 billion less to spend on highways could create a pre-election specter of thousands of lost jobs. Now, lawmakers quietly are talking about raising fuel taxes by a dime from the current 18.4 cents a gallon on gasoline and 24.3 cents on diesel fuel.
Oberstar, D-Minn., said his committee is working on the next long-term highway bill. He estimated it will take between $450 billion and $500 billion over six years to address safety and congestion issues with highways, bridges and transit systems.
“We’ll put all things on the table,” Oberstar said, but the gas tax “is the cornerstone. Nothing else will work without the underpinning of the higher user fee gas tax.” |
This is exactly like the they pulled here in NC... there was a drought, people used less water as instructed, and the govt. wasn't getting the tax revanue they wanted, so they raised the cost to equal what we would have been spending if we used more water. ing rediculous. Here's the follow up commentary... spot on (IMO):
"The problem with the transportation bill isn’t a lack of funds, it’s a lack of fiscal discipline. Oberstar figures prominently in this, earmarking transportation funds for projects like bike and walking path, visitor centers, and other nonsense instead of focusing on the infrastructural needs he decries. Over twelve percent of the last transportation bill consisted of earmarks, with projects like a North Dakota peace garden, a Montana baseball stadium and a Las Vegas history museum.
Pork is the cholesterol of infrastructure. Whenever Congress attempts to address legitimate infrastructure needs, it signals open season on the taxpayers. In that bill last year, over $8 billion got spent on earmarks — the same amount that Congress says will be the shortfall this year for transportation needs, and the deficit they need to erase by raising the gas tax.
When gas was inexpensive, Congress could get away with that. Now that fuel prices have shot through the roof, taxpayers want relief, not a greedy Congress looking to get a piece of the action. If Congress demands sacrifice, then let it start with Congress and eliminate their pet projects from future transportation bills. The gas-tax holiday may be a silly idea, but a gas-tax penalty at this point in time has to set a record for political stupidity." |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
myopic: the UN has dragged itself into all sorts of armed conflict throughout their entire history defending their own charter. they grant self-determination in the absence of any human rights violations or violations of international law, treaties and their own resolutions. |
The UN has engaged in "conflicts" to counter any nation which launches a war of aggression (i.e. Iraq's invasion of Kuwait), or to engage in peacekeeping operations. No where in the charter is the right of self-determination revoked because of a violation to international law, a treay, or Resolution.
| quote: | | myopic: their "arch enemy" for over a decade after the Gulf War couldn't move a helicopter without being on by the UN and it's memebers, including the United States. how was Iran not stronger then? prior to the Mar 2003 Iran did what the f**k they wanted because no one cared. how are they stronger now comparitively? |
They were still enemies. Iran was basically surrounded by Sunni Muslim regimes (Taliban & Baath Party). They had much to worry about. Until both were deposed by the US. Now all Iran has to worry about is an overstretched American military.
| quote: | | selfish: you use the word sovereignty like a bumper sticker. it only means something to you if it doesn't cost you anything or you don't accept the costs it requires. you use it basically for arguments sake, without any respect for history or what it really takes to become truly sovereign. |
And you use the word myopic in almost every one of your posts, as if it adds anything important. The basis of international law and order is the respect of sovereignty and self-determination of a nation's state. Nation's which violate this respect are agressor nations, no different from Nazi Germany, Baathist Iraq, or Nepoleonic France. The concept of national sovereignty was laid out to end the endless wars of Europe during the 1500/1600's. It's called the Treaty of Westphalia (1648), with the concept of sovereignty called Westphalian sovereignty. In modern times, the UN Charter guarentees all recognized states the right of sovereignty and self-determination. If that is something you don't accept, tough luck. It's international law & order.
| quote: | | SOVEREIGNTY, in this day and age means you don't give anybody any reason to f**k with your "sovereignty" |
Or opposing American hegemony? |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
Did you see this today? If so, does it change at all your thoughs on our wonderful democratic congress? (i'm seriously asking, that's not rhetorical) |
Nope..;)
| quote: | This is exactly like the they pulled here in NC... there was a drought, people used less water as instructed, and the govt. wasn't getting the tax revanue they wanted, so they raised the cost to equal what we would have been spending if we used more water. ing rediculous. Here's the follow up commentary... spot on (IMO):
"The problem with the transportation bill isn’t a lack of funds, it’s a lack of fiscal discipline. Oberstar figures prominently in this, earmarking transportation funds for projects like bike and walking path, visitor centers, and other nonsense instead of focusing on the infrastructural needs he decries. Over twelve percent of the last transportation bill consisted of earmarks, with projects like a North Dakota peace garden, a Montana baseball stadium and a Las Vegas history museum.
Pork is the cholesterol of infrastructure. Whenever Congress attempts to address legitimate infrastructure needs, it signals open season on the taxpayers. In that bill last year, over $8 billion got spent on earmarks — the same amount that Congress says will be the shortfall this year for transportation needs, and the deficit they need to erase by raising the gas tax.
When gas was inexpensive, Congress could get away with that. Now that fuel prices have shot through the roof, taxpayers want relief, not a greedy Congress looking to get a piece of the action. If Congress demands sacrifice, then let it start with Congress and eliminate their pet projects from future transportation bills. The gas-tax holiday may be a silly idea, but a gas-tax penalty at this point in time has to set a record for political stupidity." |
So where are the Democrats not comprimising...? :conf:
I can also post instances of uncomprimising Republicans....
| quote: | Under the Republican dominated Congress (1995-2006)...
1. Extreme Centralization
The legislative agenda of the House is (and always has been) controlled by the Speaker and the Committee on Rules. Robert Kuttner explained that, unlike their Democratic predecessors, TOm Delay and House Speaker Dennis Hastert (whose chief of staff, Scott Palmer, he considered "as powerful as Delay") practically write laws themselves. "Drastic revisions to bills approved by committee are characteristically added by the leadership, often late in the evening," Kuttner observed. "Under the House rules, 48 hours are supposed to elapse before floor action. But in 2003, the leadership, 57 percent of the time, wrote rules declaring bills to be 'emergency' measures, allowing them to be considered with as little as '30 minutes' notice. On several measures, members literally did not know what they were voting for."
2. No Amendments
When the GOP took control of the House they promised they would do better than Democrats, assuring all "that at least 70 percent of bills would come to the floor with rules permitting amendments." That did not happen; in fact, the opposite occurred. The "proportion of bills prohibiting amendments has steadily increased," from 56 percent the first year Republicans took control to 76 percent when Kuttner last examined them. Even these numbers understate the situation, Kuttner explained, since "all major bills now come to the floor with rules prohibiting amendments."
3. ONE-PARTY CONFERENCES
The Republican-controlled Senate has not yet stopped floor amendments, so when a Senate bill differs from a House bill, members are appointed by each body to confer and resolve the differences. Republicans, however, have cut both House and Senate Democrats out of the conferences. THe Republicans meet, work out any differences, and then send a non-amendable bill back to each body for a quick up-or-down vote. Kuttner noted that members may be given a day to study bills exceeding a thousand pages, with "much of it written from scratch in conference." This is a practice that was once considered unacceptable by both parties.
4. No Legislative Hearings
Obviously, when laws are written in conference meetings, they have no been discusses during hearings. Even when hearings are held at the committee level, however, Republicans frequently write laws without any input from Democrats, and they vote down any Democratic efforts to amend legislation in committee. Unde Republicans, many laws are literally written by the special interests the laws seek to "regulate", an extraordinary outsourcing of the legislative process.
5. Appropriations Bill Abuses
If annual appropriations bills are not enacted, the government runs out of money and must close down. When Newt Gingrich shut down the government in 1995, pressuring President Clinton in a game of political chicken that Gingrich lose, lawmakers were notified that the public would not tolerate such games. Appropriations bills must pass - a president must not veto legislation, regardless of what objectionable provisions it might contain. Accordingly, Republicans add to these bills an endless array of spending for pet pork-berral projects. As one commentator noted, Republicans are spending "worse than drunken sailors". Under the GOP congressional leadership, "earmarked" (meaning pork) spending has soared. According to the Wall Street Journal, at the end of 2005 there were a staggering 13,998 earmarked expenses, costing $27.3 billion. When the Republicans took control in 1995 there were only 1,439 earmarked items. Needless to say, there is nothing conservative in these fiscal actions but there is much that is authoritarian about the wanton spending of these Republicans.
|
My view is the Republicans have run amok, and the only thing to change that is to let the opposition party balance the political equation in Washington. In the meantime, I suggest the Republican leadership shed its religious absolutism and authoritarism, if they want to win another election. I am totally for small government, low government expenditures, and free market policies; but they have currupted the basic tenets of conservatism, and they deserve to lose power because of that.
Give the Democrats a chance...;) |
|
|
| The17sss |
I should have not included the "compromise" part of your quote.... i was only referring to the part how you can't blame the Dems for high prices. My fault. But I'm sickened with the course of the GOP too... I think whoever is the next president in 2008 will be so bad, that 2012 will be the time when republican leadership comes back (I hope).
So you still don't think the Dem congress holds the cards in easing prices at the pump? |
|
|
| The17sss |
Edit:
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
but they have currupted the basic tenets of conservatism, and they deserve to lose power because of that. |
Glad we can agree on something:p Newt in 2012? :D |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
The UN has engaged in "conflicts" to counter any nation which launches a war of aggression (i.e. Iraq's invasion of Kuwait), or to engage in peacekeeping operations. |
first off, don't confuse what the UN does and what the UN gives power to the Security Council to do. from the Charter:
| quote: | Investigate any situation threatening international peace;
Recommend procedures for peaceful resolution of a dispute;
Call upon other member nations to completely or partially interrupt economic relations as well as sea, air, postal, and radio communications, or to sever diplomatic relations; and
Enforce its decisions militarily, or by any means necessary. |
second, the Security Council has the power to summon NATO or any coalitions of the willing to resolve conflict involving "threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, or acts of aggression".
sorry, but sometimes soveriegnty takes a back seat under your beloved UN.
| quote: | | No where in the charter is the right of self-determination revoked because of a violation to international law, a treay, or Resolution. |
read UN Res. 1674.
| quote: | | Iran was basically surrounded by Sunni Muslim regimes (Taliban & Baath Party). They had much to worry about. |
they had nothing to "worry about" with the Taliban. gimme a f**kin break, now your just making up.
| quote: | | Now all Iran has to worry about is an overstretched American military. |
...and Israel and sanctions by the International community.
speaking about American Military, when your boy Obama is sitting behind the desk in the Oval Office next year do you think Iran will be stronger then?
i ask that because if "worrying", by your logic, is some sort of barometer on how "strong" they are how strong would they be if they have one less thing to "worry about"?
| quote: | | And you use the word myopic in almost every one of your posts, as if it adds anything important. The basis of international law and order is the respect of sovereignty and self-determination of a nation's state. |
up until they break international law and treaty and become a threat to their neighbors and allaround suck a treating their own people. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
I think whoever is the next president in 2008 will be so bad, that 2012 will be the time when republican leadership comes back (I hope). |
If the Republicans get back to their traditional stances, they have my vote.
| quote: | | So you still don't think the Dem congress holds the cards in easing prices at the pump? |
I see the Democrats reigning in speculation on the crude oil, because speculation is the #1 force in oil futures contracts, which before, airlines and governments were #1. I also see a Democratic presidency, one which does not engage in war mongering, to have an effect on the oil "risk premium". I also see much more increased government support for large scale alternative energy projects. I see more pressure on oil companies, especially Exxon Mobil, on using more of their profits on alternative energy R&D projects. Right now, Exxon Mobil contributed a miserable $100 million to such projects, whereas Shell Oil Company has spent billions on R&D of alternative energy projects. But all of this should not be opposed by Republicans, unless they have Big Oil special interests on their backs, I don't see why both parties couldn't comprimise on lowering American dependence on foreign oil. |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
If the Republicans get back to their traditional stances, they have my vote.
I see the Democrats reigning in speculation on the crude oil, because speculation is the #1 force in oil futures contracts, which before, airlines and governments were #1. I also see a Democratic presidency, one which does not engage in war mongering, to have an effect on the oil "risk premium". I also see much more increased government support for large scale alternative energy projects. I see more pressure on oil companies, especially Exxon Mobil, on using more of their profits on alternative energy R&D projects. Right now, Exxon Mobil contributed a miserable $100 million to such projects, whereas Shell Oil Company has spent billions on R&D of alternative energy projects. But all of this should not be opposed by Republicans, unless they have Big Oil special interests on their backs, I don't see why both parties couldn't comprimise on lowering American dependence on foreign oil. |
It seems like the Dems want to find any possible method OTHER than the most simple, which is increase our own supply by allowing us to get it now from ourselves. They're just making it so much more difficult by coming up with all these extravagant ideas and complicated, multifaceted strategies to do everything else but. Look how oil prices dropped like a rock in the last few days once Bush lifted the executive ban... imagine how far they'll go down if ANWAR, shale, and the OCS get the green light for drilling. Congress is standing in the way... they're the only ones. I'm about 2 weeks from trading in my gas guzzler if this continues, and I want to keep it!
:stongue: |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
Edit:
Glad we can agree on something:p Newt in 2012? :D |
Newt? lol, absolutely not!
Here is my dirt on Mr. Gingrich..
| quote: | People who knew Gingrinch early in his political career have described him - and because he is a man who still wants to be president of United States such assessments remain relevant - in less than glowing terms. David Osbourne spoke with many of them when he was preparing his telling profile for Mother Jones magazine, and he was given information descriptive of an authoritarian leader. Osbourne reported that Gingrich was dominating, opposed to equality, desirous of personal power, and amoral; he can be a bully, hedonistic, exploitive, manipulative, a cheater, prejudiced toward women, and mean-spirited, and he uses religion for political purposes; he also wants others to submit to his authority and is aggressive on behalf of authority. A number of Gingrich observers described his nature:
1. Lew Howell (a former press secretary): "Gingrich has a tendency to chew people up and spit them out, and when he doesn't need you anymore he throws you away. Very candidly, I don't think Newt Gingrich has many principles, except for what's best for him."
2. Chip Kahn (who managed Gingrich's first two campaigns): "Ambitious bastard."
3. Mary Kahn (a reporter who covered Gingrich before marrying Chip): "Newt uses people and then discards them as useless. He's like a leech. He really is a man with no conscience. He just doesn't seem to care who he hurts or why."
4. L.H. Carter (once a close friend and advisor): on returing to Georgia after Newt was elected: "[H]e turned in my car and looked at me and he said, ' you guys. I don't need your anymore'" Carter added, "The important thing you have to understand about Newt Gingrich is that he is amoral. There isn't any right or wrong, there isn't any conservative or liberal. There's only what will work best for Newt Gingrich. He's probably one of the most dangerous people for the future of this country that you can possibly imagine. He Richard Nixon, glib." |
|
|
|
| The17sss |
| haha... I like him. He hasn't abandoned his conservative principles, is a brilliant man, and has real success with his "contract with america" while speaker. His American Solutions group comes up with real strategies for progress... he's rock solid with understanding the lessons from history that need to be learned, and is a long term planner, not all knee-jerk like Bush (or McCain). Don't sweat the anecdotal stuff... in truth, we have no idea what really happened at the time and there are 2 sides to those kinds of stories. LOL reminds me of when some woman told Churchill he was a drunk, and he said, "Yeah? Well I can sober up tomorrow, but you'll always be ugly." |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
first off, don't confuse what the UN does and what the UN gives power to the Security Council to do. from the Charter:
second, the Security Council has the power to summon NATO or any coalitions of the willing to resolve conflict involving "threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, or acts of aggression".
sorry, but sometimes soveriegnty takes a back seat under your beloved UN. |
Ok, AND? I already said the UN engages in conflicts which are started by aggressor nations starting a war of aggression, which is a breach of peace. Please tell me where I was wrong. If one nation violates unjustifiably, the sovereignty of another nation, then that is a breach of international law, and their sovereignty should likewise be annulled. I have always agreed with this enforcement.
It says the world has a responsibility "...to help protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity." Notice how it also says, "The international community, through the United Nations, also has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with Chapter VI and VIII of the Charter,..."
| quote: | | they had nothing to "worry about" with the Taliban. gimme a f**kin break, now your just making up. |
I guess the Taliban massacre of Shiites and killing of 7 Iranian diplomats in Mazar-e-sharif (1998) is nothing to worry about.
| quote: | | ...and Israel and sanctions by the International community. |
Niether are right on the border of Iran, which was the context of my statement.
| quote: | | speaking about American Military, when your boy Obama is sitting behind the desk in the Oval Office next year do you think Iran will be stronger then? |
If Iran launchs a war of aggression, then they will pay a heavy price. Let's stop playing international bogeyman. Iran hasn't launched a war of aggression in at least the past 100 years. Obama would do something your beloved Mr. Bush never did. Sit down and talk with our enemies. We talked with the North Koreans. We talked with the North Vietnamese. WE TALKED WITH THE SOVIET UNION. Please explain to how sabre rattling and diplomatic isolation has EVER worked??
| quote: | | i ask that because if "worrying", by your logic, is some sort of barometer on how "strong" they are how strong would they be if they have one less thing to "worry about"? |
You seem to think Iran is the next "Nazi Germany". Let me say again. If Iran launchs a war of aggression, then they will pay a heavy price.
| quote: | | up until they break international law and treaty and become a threat to their neighbors and allaround suck a treating their own people. |
And what? The USA is the holy liberator of the world? Get real dude. Our government is guilty of torture, unjustified war, proxy wars, launching coups of foreign governments, and I tend to consider all of these violations of international law. So let's not get all high and mighty here.
And what threat is Iran to its neighbors? They haven't invaded anymore for more than 100 years. The government isn't carrying out a genocide for Allah's sake.
No one is denying Iran's government fails to meet international human rights standards. But guess what? Niether does our favorite trading partner China. We still talk to them don't we? How about we allow the Reformist Movement to do its job of reforming the country from WITHIN. I also lament the fact that, even after Reformist-ruled Iran helped us topple the Taliban, Mr. Bush chose to call them part of an "Axis of Evil". That mistake doomed the Reformists for years to come. Enraged Iranians turned to a nationalist firebrand Mr. Ahmadinijad. See where things are going Q? |
|
|
|
|
