|
|
|
|
Gogirlgo
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 4777
Location: No deal, stalker.
|
| Back to top
|
|
 Posted: 06/30/04 - 11:51 Post subject:
| brethelm wrote: | | What in the world?! What do you think the UN resolution was all about? |
Which resolution--1546? The one that looks like it gives the interim gov sovereignty when it actually doesn't? The one that puts that gov as equal to the coalition forces/occupiers in terms of say-so about what occurs in their own country and doesn't include a mechanism for what happens when the two entities disagree? The resolution that was more about getting the US and the UN out of a bind than anything else? I don't think there's much about it that's obvious.
|
|
|
|
|
Pug
The Movie Geek
|
|
|
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 8924
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/30/04 - 12:08 Post subject:
| AlaninTX wrote: | | Cappy wrote: | | Gogirlgo wrote: |
3. I haven't heard him say that No Child Left Behind is really just a front to end unions. |
I think unions in general have outlived their use and purpose. Unions lost my respect when they started getting involved in politics. Especially in Philadelphia. The Electricians Union practically runs this city.
Unions should not be involved in politics, or if they are, don't use dues from members to support candidates. |
The best way to clean up money and politics would be to institute public financing of all campagins. Of course, that of course brings to bear a new set of dilemmas, such as are you intruding on individual free speech rights? Should "fringe" canidates be allowed the same amount of money as "mainstream" canidates? Who would decide which canidate is fringe and who is mainstream? How do you prevent campagins from becoming a new form of biannual welfare/entitlement?
If you do away with union political money, you also have to do away with all political action committees such as the NRA. |
Ooh, fringe candidates! Absolutely give them money.
But the trouble is: where does it end? Can i become a fringe candidate and get some public money? I promise i won't use all of it to pay off my loans.
There would have to be some fair to to determine which parties can get funding.
|
|
|
|
|
AlaninTX
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 6582
Location: Austin, Texas
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/30/04 - 12:08 Post subject:
| Cappy wrote: | | AlaninTX wrote: | | If you do away with union political money, you also have to do away with all political action committees such as the NRA. |
I disagree with the union political money. Organizations like the NRA, Boy Scouts, Trial Lawyers, and other groups that have PAC's, people join or are affiliated will have a vested interest in that organization and its agenda. Often times the union members have little to do with who the union endorses nor do they have any say in how much of a donation said political group gets. Also, if its a closed shop and you want to work at the particular business, you have no choice but to join the union. |
In right to work states the law prohibits closed shops, or at least makes it tougher for the unions to close a shop. But these laws are made by elected officals, thus are a reflection of the wishes of the people. Some states citizens support pro-union laws, others do not. But all PACs, and I do mean each and every one (NRA and Trial Lawyers) never have complete consensus amongst all their membership on who to support. The internal politics of a PAC decision can be very, very fasinating--then I am a bit of a geek in this area.
|
|
|
|
|
brethelm
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 06 Dec 2002
Posts: 429
Location: Somewhere - Lost in Rod Blagojevich's Hairpiece
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/30/04 - 14:08 Post subject:
| Gogirlgo wrote: | | brethelm wrote: | | What in the world?! What do you think the UN resolution was all about? |
Which resolution--1546? |
No, silly! UN resolution 1441. The one that said "do it or else." After Hussein continued to jack around the WMD inspectors (I imagine while he was shipping the WMD to Syria or some such place), the UN wouldn't lay the hammer down (read: Oil for Food Scandal), so we had to do it. Thank God, we've got an honest man in George W. Bush to do what's right!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Gogirlgo
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 4777
Location: No deal, stalker.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/30/04 - 14:15 Post subject:
| brethelm wrote: | | Gogirlgo wrote: | | brethelm wrote: | | What in the world?! What do you think the UN resolution was all about? |
Which resolution--1546? |
... the UN wouldn't lay the hammer down (read: Oil for Food Scandal), so we had to do it. |
That's funny. I don't recall seeing anywhere in 1441 where it implores the US to violate international law and illegally occupy another country. Can you point that part out to me?
On a related matter, what did you think of Carol Coleman's interview?
|
|
|
|
|
sonnylax
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
Posts: 2942
Location: Living in a lollipop and unicorn world
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/30/04 - 15:10 Post subject:
| Gogirlgo wrote: | where it implores the US to violate international law and illegally occupy another country. Can you point that part out to me?
|
Can you point which international law we have violated?
|
|
|
|
|
Gogirlgo
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 4777
Location: No deal, stalker.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/30/04 - 15:34 Post subject:
| sonnylax wrote: | | Gogirlgo wrote: | where it implores the US to violate international law and illegally occupy another country. Can you point that part out to me?
|
Can you point which international law we have violated? |
Sure can. We violated Chapter 1 Article 2 sub 4 and Chapter 7 Article 39 of the Charter of the United Nations; and Articles 3, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
|
|
|
|
|
sonnylax
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
Posts: 2942
Location: Living in a lollipop and unicorn world
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/30/04 - 15:45 Post subject:
| Gogirlgo wrote: | | Sure can. We violated Chapter 1 Article 2 sub 4 and Chapter 7 Article 39 of the Charter of the United Nations; and Articles 3, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. |
Sorry... Those documents are pretty much a complete joke. I have a hard time accepting a document that states that our American Freedom of Speech are superceeded by the UN's rights to regulate said content -- "These (freedom of speech) rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations." (See Article 29- 3 of UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights.)
|
|
|
|
|
Pug
The Movie Geek
|
|
|
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 8924
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/30/04 - 15:47 Post subject:
| sonnylax wrote: | | Gogirlgo wrote: | | Sure can. We violated Chapter 1 Article 2 sub 4 and Chapter 7 Article 39 of the Charter of the United Nations; and Articles 3, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. |
Sorry... Those documents are pretty much a complete joke. I have a hard time accepting a document that states that our American Freedom of Speech are superceeded by the UN's rights to regulate said content -- "These (freedom of speech) rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations." (See Article 29- 3 of UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights.) |
If the United States signs the charter of the United Nations, or signs that Declaration, wouldn't that mean that the United States is to be held to that standard?
This is an honest question, i don't know how this works with international law and the UN.
|
|
|
|
|
Gogirlgo
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 4777
Location: No deal, stalker.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/30/04 - 15:58 Post subject:
Yes, Pug, that's exactly how it works. Moreover, even if the US didn't sign it and the rest of the world followed a particular stance, we'd be held to it. That's called customary international law.
Sonny, whether you find it acceptable or not is hardly the question. They're not a joke. They're international law.
|
|
|
|
|
Gogirlgo
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 4777
Location: No deal, stalker.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/30/04 - 16:09 Post subject:
And just so we're clear, int'l law trumps domestic.
|
|
|
|
|
gretriever
Hipster Doofus
|
|
|
Joined: 16 Jul 2003
Posts: 19385
Location: A moving target in a firing range.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/30/04 - 16:10 Post subject:
| AlaninTX wrote: | The best way to clean up money and politics would be to institute public financing of all campagins. Of course, that of course brings to bear a new set of dilemmas, such as are you intruding on individual free speech rights? Should "fringe" canidates be allowed the same amount of money as "mainstream" canidates? Who would decide which canidate is fringe and who is mainstream? How do you prevent campagins from becoming a new form of biannual welfare/entitlement?
If you do away with union political money, you also have to do away with all political action committees such as the NRA. |
Public financing won't work. PACs and other interest groups will always find ways to get money to the politicians they want to influence. The law isn't going to stop them - they'll scream "freedom of speech" in the courts (even though it's an entity we're talking about, not a person. And they'll get what they want.
Hard money/soft money, "I'm Joe Blow, and I approved this message", none of this stuff works. It all comes to "screw the voter, we'll have power and influence no matter who's in what office."
All this said, admitting I don't know of an alternative that could work.
|
|
|
|
|
Pug
The Movie Geek
|
|
|
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 8924
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/30/04 - 16:13 Post subject:
| Gogirlgo wrote: | | And just so we're clear, int'l law trumps domestic. |
Makes sense. That's how we (a very generic "we") are able to decry the "human rights violations" of various regimes around the world, from China to Iraq.
|
|
|
|
|
brethelm
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 06 Dec 2002
Posts: 429
Location: Somewhere - Lost in Rod Blagojevich's Hairpiece
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/30/04 - 16:20 Post subject:
| Gogirlgo wrote: | | brethelm wrote: | | Gogirlgo wrote: | | brethelm wrote: | | What in the world?! What do you think the UN resolution was all about? |
Which resolution--1546? |
... the UN wouldn't lay the hammer down (read: Oil for Food Scandal), so we had to do it. |
That's funny. I don't recall seeing anywhere in 1441 where it implores the US to violate international law and illegally occupy another country. Can you point that part out to me?
On a related matter, what did you think of Carol Coleman's interview? |
Huh?! I'm not sure why this is so difficult for you to understand. Bush 41 declared a unilateral ceasefire on Feb. 28 1991. That ceasefire was conditioned upon Hussein obeying certain resolutions put forth by the UN. 1441 was actually overkill, because it was basically a reiteration of resolutions put forth previously. Hussein broke most or all of the resolutions, so the US was perfectly justified in delivering what the UN balked on doing...but surely you know all this from your international law studies.
|
|
|
|
|
Gogirlgo
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 4777
Location: No deal, stalker.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/30/04 - 16:23 Post subject:
Way to not answer my questions.
|
|
|
|
