Discussion Locked

Article on the United Nations.

0 helpful
155 replies
Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

More and more Americans are coming to the chilling realization that U.S. membership in the United Nations poses a very real threat to our survival as a free and independent nation. Here are some good reasons to be concerned:

1. The UN's basic philosophy is both anti-American and pro-totalitarian.
Our Declaration of Independence proclaims the "self-evident" truth that
"men ... are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights."
But, in its Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the UN ignores God's
existence, implies that it grants rights, and then repeatedly claims power
"as provided by law" to cancel them out of existence. If any government can
place restrictions on such fundamental rights as freedom of speech, the
right to keep and bear arms, freedoms of the press, association, movement,
and religion, soon there will be no such freedoms.

2. The UN was founded by Communists and CFR members whose common goal was a
socialist world government. Sixteen key U.S. officials who shaped the
policies leading to the creation of the UN were later exposed in sworn
testimony as secret Communists. These included Alger Hiss, chief planner of
the 1945 founding conference, and the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury,
Harry Dexter White. The Soviet Union under Stalin and the entire Communist
Party USA apparatus worked tirelessly to launch the UN. Since its beginning
in 1921, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) has always worked for world
government. The key CFR founder, Edward Mandell House, in his book, Philip
Dru: Administrator, called for "Socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx ..."
The CFR was an early promoter of the UN, and 43 members of the U.S.
delegation at the UN founding conference were or would become CFR members.

3. The UN has always chosen socialist one-worlders for leaders. The
Secretary-General at the UN founding conference was Soviet spy Alger Hiss.
He was followed as Secretary-General by Norwegian socialist Trygve Lie,
Swedish socialist Dag Hammarskjold, Burmese Marxist U Thant, Austrian
former Nazi Kurt Waldheim, Peruvian socialist Javier Perez deCuellar, and
Egyptian socialist Boutros Boutros-Ghali. Each has consistently used the
full resources of the UN to promote Communist and socialist causes around
the world. The Socialist International (which proudly traces its origins to
the First International headed by Karl Marx) today claims tens of millions
of members in 54 countries. At its 1962 Congress, it declared: "The
ultimate objective of the parties of the Socialist International is nothing
less than world government ... Membership of the United Nations must be
made universal ..." Almost all of the UN's "independent" commissions for
the last thirty years have been headed by members of the Socialist
International.

4. The UN seeks power to control the environment, population, children ...
the world. Both the 1972 UN Environmental Program and the 1992 UN
Conference on Environment and Development laid plans to whip up widespread
environmental concerns (some exaggerated, many completely fabricated).
These concerns would then be used as justification for increasing UN
authority on environmental issues. The statements and publications of these
UN programs leave little doubt that their goal is a world government with
the power to cancel national sovereignty, regulate economic activity, and
control the human race all, of course, under the banner of "protecting the
environment." In late 1994, UN planners meeting in Egypt approved a
20-year, $17 billion plan to "stabilize" the world's population. The UN's
goal is to reduce population selectively by encouraging abortion,
sterilization, and controlled human breeding. The UN Convention on the
Rights of the Child also claims power not only to grant rights but also to
cancel them "as provided by law." It claims that governments must guarantee
children "freedom of expression ... freedom to seek, receive, and impart
information ... freedom of thought, conscience, and religion," regardless
of the wishes of their parents.

5. The UN Charter outlines the path to world tyranny. After giving lip
service about not intervening "in matters which are essentially within the
domestic jurisdiction of any state ...," the UN Charter continues, "but
this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures
under Chapter VII." Chapter VII discusses sanctions and boycotts, but if
these are decided to "be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea,
or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international
peace and security." The UN used this broad assertion of authority as the
pretext for its armed intervention in the domestic turmoil in Somalia and
Haiti.

6. The UN is building its own army to enforce its will. In 1992, UN
Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali, fulfilling a directive from the UN
Security Council, unveiled An Agenda for Peace, a plan to strengthen UN
"peacekeeping" capabilities. The plan calls for armed forces to be made
available to the UN "on a permanent basis." It ominously warns, "The time
of absolute and exclusive sovereignty has passed" and proceeds to name a
long list of "risks for stability" that would be used to justify use of the
"permanent" UN army to enforce its will. Incredibly, U.S. leaders are using
America's military to pave the way for this UN army. In Bosnia, Somalia,
Haiti, and elsewhere, foreign UN commanders have controlled our troops.
When 15 Americans were killed over Iraq in mid-1994, Vice-President Gore
extended condolences "to the families of those who died in the service of
the United Nations." Even more incredibly, it has been the official policy
of the U.S. government since 1961 to disarm America and create a UN army.
This policy concludes: "progressive controlled disarmament would proceed to
the point where no nation would have the military power to challenge the
progressively strengthened UN Peace Force." (See State Department
publication 7277: Freedom From War.)
FREEDOM FROM WAR
http://www.mikenew.com/pub7277.html

7. The UN doesn't settle disputes - it makes them worse! Our ambassador to
the UN in 1982, although a UN supporter, admitted, "The UN has become an
arena in which countries are drawn into problems they might never have
become involved in. " Ask yourself: Should Seychelles or Benin or Guyana or
Barbados have to take sides in a clash that breaks out on the opposite side
of the world? When centuries-old animosities erupt in the former
Yugoslavia, why does the UN inject its presence with troops, blockades,
bombing, and a parade of speeches? American troops serving as globocops for
the UN become targets for criminals and terrorists. In 1983, 241 U.S.
Marines were blown to bits at the Beirut airport. Five years later, a U.S.
Marine Lieutenant Colonel was kidnapped and eventually murdered by Arab
terrorists while in a UN unit in Lebanon (he was unarmed - as required by
the UN). The UN "peacekeeping mission" in Somalia cost the lives of another
36 Americans in 1993.

8. The UN ignores Communist atrocities but targets non-Communist nations
and leaders. When Soviet tanks rolled into Hungary in the 1950s, when the
Chinese Communists were murdering Tibetans in the 1960s, when the Soviets
were butchering civilians in Afghanistan in the 1970s and 1980s, when
Chechnya was brutalized by the Russians in the 1990s, the UN did nothing!
But the UN declared tiny Rhodesia "a threat to international peace" in the
1960s, enabling pro-communist terrorist Robert Mugabe to seize power. And
it was a UN-led campaign that brought self-described Communist and
convicted terrorist Nelson Mandela to power in South Africa in the 1990s.

9. The UN embraces Communist China - history's most murderous criminal
regime. In 1949, anti-Communist Nationalist China, one of the UN's founding
members, was forced from the mainland to Taiwan by the Communists. In 1971,
the UN expelled Taiwan and embraced the brutal Red Chinese government - a
government responsible for over 35 million murders. When the vote admitting
Red China was announced, UN delegates danced in the aisles to show their
contempt for America and their joy at the triumph of Red China.

10. The UN is a moral cesspool filled with perverts and fat cats. In 1993,
the UN Economic and Social Council granted consultant status to the
International Gay and Lesbian Association which includes the North American
Man/Boy Love Association (advocates of child molestation) and the Dutch
group Vereniging Martijn (which also promotes use of children as sex
objects). In 1988, the top Belgian UN Children's Fund (UNICEF) official was
one of a group convicted of running a child sex ring. Moral bankruptcy is
commonplace in UN operations. In Zimbabwe, UNICEF-donated equipment helped
terrorists seize power. In Vietnam, the Communists received $13 million
from UNICEF while untold thousands of boat people fled for their lives. Fat
cats? UN employees are paid 40% more than comparable U.S. workers and have
subsidized rent. An ex-UNICEF official confirmed that "pampered and
cosseted staffs" of various aid agencies "absorb 80% of all UN
expenditures."

11. America supplies the money, the UN then finances tyrants and assorted
enemies of the U.S., and conditions in the nations "aided" grow worse. U.S.
taxpayers pay 25% of the UN budget plus 31% of the UN special-agency
budgets. Additional billions of our dollars go to the IMF, World Bank, and
other UN related lending agencies where they have been used for incredibly
wasteful and subversive UN projects. (Not surprising since these agencies
were designed by Soviet agent Harry Dexter White and Fabian Socialist John
Maynard Keynes.) Socialist International spokesman Hilary Marquand aptly
described the IMF as "in essence a Socialist conception." World Bank "aid"
funds went to brutal Marxist dictator Mengistu while he was causing
large-scale starvation and death in Ethiopia; to Tanzanian dictator Julius
Nyerere as he drove peasants off their land and burned their huts; and to
the Vietnamese Communists, sending thousands of boat people into the sea.
Even Newsweek magazine concluded that the UN's foreign aid programs tend
"to prop up incompetent governments or subsidize economies so they can
never stand on their own."

12. The UN is a war organization, NOT a peace organization. Article 42 of
the UN Charter claims authority to "take such action by air, sea, or land
forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and
security." But the UN definition of "peace" is never given. Tyrannical
regimes throughout history have defined "peace" as the absence of all
opposition. To achieve "peace" in Katanga in 1961, UN planes bombed
hospitals, schools, administrative buildings, and private homes. Katanga
was an anti-Communist province of the Belgian Congo seeking freedom from
the Communist-controlled central government. The UN is not now, and has
never been, a peace organization. It will use whatever military power it is
given to force all nations of the world to submit.
=============================================================
Destroy the sovereignty of the United States and the enslavement of the American
people within a U.N. one-world dictatorship is a complete and unknown mystery to the
vast majority of the American people. The reason for this unawareness of the
frightening danger to our country and to the entire free world is simple. The
masterminds behind this great conspiracy have absolute control of all of our
mass-communications media, especially television, the radio, the press, and
Hollywood. We all know that our State Department, the Pentagon, and the White
House have brazenly proclaimed that they have the right and the power to manage the
news, to tell us not the truth but what they want us to believe. They have seized
that power on orders from their masters of the great conspiracy and the objective
is to brainwash the people into accepting the phony peace bait to transform the
United States into an enslaved unit of the United Nations' one-world government.

155 replies

by garion11

in the article I think. I had to pick this up from another Message board and when I asked the guy where the source was, he said that it was in the article.

Imo, these paragraphs are from different sources. I agree with most of them of course. UN has definitely changed from its original purpose (but after reading this article I am not so sure that it has).

by jimhm

Screw the UN - and John Kerry who want the US to submit to them as the supreme law of the USA.

We can only pray that GWB (Not the best choice but better than Kerry or Nader choice) - get re-elected.

By their creator - not God not Ala not Buda - but their creator - which is whom ever you believe. Which says these rights can not be taken away - by the state as is done is so many other nations that follow the UN doctrine ..

I say Piss on the UN - US out of the UN - and kick them out of our country ... (NYC - good property for sale cheap)...

by maecuff

I seem to remember you having a melt down over John Kerry giving someone the finger..remember that? Remember that ENORMOUS jump you made? And this is paraphrasing, but it was something like, if John Kerry can't control his temper enough to keep from flipping someone off, what's to stop him from getting mad and pushing 'the button' and sending out nukes.

You've been strangely quiet about Cheney telling someone to go f*ck himself on the senate floor. Seems like he as a self control issue also. That's not a problem though, is it? hum. gee.

by sonicclang

Chene is only the vise president, he can't push the button. Kerry is running for president. :D :D :D hehe. Sorry, I just to point out the obvious. Stupid post, sorry.

by jimhm

When was that - didn't hear that one... figured he would of vapor locked - before getting that pissed ... but hey - I guess if its OK for a Liberal demoncrat to flip off an American Vet - its OK for the VP to tell someone to Bugger Off..

by scott

I reckon as an American you should be more concerned with the personal freedoms being eroded by our own government?have you read the fascist legislation known as the ?Patriot? Act? Don?t be fooled by the innocuous flag-waving connotations the name conjures up. The content is reminiscent of legislation ushered in by the Nazis during the mid 30?s.

Scott

by maecuff

But I can tell you now, saying that won't make a difference. People have their fingers in their ears and are humming. They don't want to hear that they are wrong, they don't want to hear that our rights are being stripped away from us, they don't want to hear any of that. I'll give you an example..

I saw Farenheit 9/11 this weekend. I hated it because the images were so disturbing and the grief of people who have lost their children in the war against Iraq was so raw that it was nearly impossible to watch. I hated that our president and our government has herded us like sheep.

Okay, watch now as Michael Moore gets ripped to shreds and I get told what a commie, liberal traitor I am...

by jimhm

Mike Moore is in it for the dollars - you are calling that movie a documentary - that pile of shit and untruths... even ABC and CBS labeled it as so many untruths that they couldn't recommend it.... And those are two very liberal media gaints...

One example of Moores lies - when he asks the senator about sending his kid to Iraqi... the senator replied that his son was to young - but his nephew was stationed in Aghanistan - but were those responses in the Movie ... NO!

Moore lies and others to blind and to f'en stupid believe him - they don't research they don't find their own answers they let ass holes like moore tell them that Bush is the devil...

The Patriot act was past by Congress and the Senate... it was not an executive order... or are you that f'en stupid... to blame that on Bush... That was Congress and the Senate... Hello -

And if you believe 9/11 then I guess you found loads of truth in his last movie about columbine - Moore lies and f'en stupid liberals like you Follow Blindy - without question like the liberal call the Conseratives -

Learn - Read - Research - Use that Brain God gave you - Stand up and give your Brain a chance to Breath... F'en liberal... what a loosing group of people ... Bring it on...

by jamesrl

Many of you may tell me that because I'm a Canadian, my opinion doesn't count. But sometimes an outside view is valuable - I have followed US politics since Nixon but haven't taken part.

I have also followed Michael Moore for years. Sure, he plays fast and loose sometimes. Some of it is dangerously close to libel.

But is it any worse than Bill O'Reilly, Pat Buchanan or Rush Limbaugh?

Seems to me the danger here is in those who would not defend Moore's right to state his piece. There are effective libel and slander laws in the US. The people Moore is attacking can certainly afford lawyers.

I will go see the movie and see for myself. I will also read the criticism of the movie for myself and make up my own mind.

People are pretty fast and loose with calling other people traitors. In order for a healthy democracy, there has to be debate, and that debate has to be protected as free speech. Being critical of the government is not being traitorous - otherwise all of you Bill Clinton haters would also be guilty of being a traitor. And a state of war does not supress all debate - if it did you wouldn't have elections in war time.

Critical thinkers will expose themselves to more than one side of the story, and be open to the opinions of others.

James

by sonicclang

Moore doesn't care about the truth. All he cares about is his personal agenda, and that is to get Bush out of office. He doesn't care what LIES he must tell to acheive his goal. Most of F9/11 is fabricated. In "Bowling for Columbine" he claimed that WELFARE REFORM was to blame for those kids killing all those people. He's WAY beyond a libaral. He is a socialist, boardering on communist, who believes contries like France and Canada are to be mirrored by the US. Well, if he hates the US so bad, GET OUT. We don't want him here.

by oz_media

Hi Maecuff, well you know even better than I do, as you are in the US, that there are two sides to every story.
Republican and Democratic, neither will ever credit the other with having good intentions or good ideas, no mater how much either side may change, it is simply a label people follow.

If GWB became a Decomcrat tomorrow, Reppublicans would STILL be Republicans as they simply cannot acept anything from the Democratic side.

There was an old bugs bunny cartoon (I think it was bugs) half the audience were elephants the other half donkeys, one side chanted "We accept it" the pther "We reject it". It just doesn't mater what they actually say at the podium, if it is one side "We accept it" the other "we reject it".

So if Michael Moore had actually taken a Republican favour in his movies, the Republicans would say he is God, he speaks the truth etc. While democrats would call him a liar and say he was twisting the truth.

Here's Michael Moore's take, (as close as I can remeber) 'Unlike Bowling for Columbine where I was unprepared for the itemized picking apart of the movie, I am completely ready for anyone who decides to call this movie untrue. My opinions are simply MY opinions and everyone has a different opinion, where I say it is FACT , it IS FACT and can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. THis time I am reay for the onslaught of contradiction as many will spend most of thier time trying to deiscount facts, but in this case there is only two things I offer in this movie. My opinion and hard facts.

So while we all agree that MM is strongly opposed to GWB and has personal bias against Republicans, any Repubican angle is equally as biased against him. He also raises a LOT of questions that people never ask. If this causes ONE single person to actually think twice and hold the president accountable for his actions, then it was a movie worth making.

by jimhm

The patriot act was passed by Congress and the Senate - Signed by Bush and it became law. It is not an Executive order - it was written by a Senator - endorsed by Democrats and liberals to protect those afraid to fight for their freedoms.

Those to cowardly to stand up to terrortis and spit in their eye.

The patriot act - did take away freedoms which I don't like - It did take away constitutional rights protecting me from the Government and its PC Police force - What it will do is Call All Patriots to act and restore the freedoms we were endowed with by our Creator!

I would rather live Free Like an Eagle than Protected Like a Parrokett in a cage... Give Me Freedom!

PS - You want to loose more Freedoms Vote for Kerry - he will put us under the UN Charter!

by nd_it

Just let me set the record straight that I am not a liberal, nor a conservative, but choose to think the way I want to think, whether it be left or right and I enjoy debating issues, not personally bashing someone because of their political beliefs. You talk about liberals "following blindly", but I think you are so blinded by your own hate of the left you start bashing the poster instead of a rubuttle of the discusion. Correct me if I am wrong here.

Now, IMO, I haven't seen Moore's movie yet, but I do think it is pretty one-sided. Of course conservatives are screaming and trying to even ban the movie, which is pretty stupid, what happened to the 1st amendment? I do think Moore is personally attacking Bush and getting a lot of support from the liberal media and Hollywood of course. But I haven't seen too many liberals back Moore. If you remember correctly, Congress gave Bush the authority to use force in Iraq. So if Moore is just attacking Bush for his foreign policy, he should be going after congress as well for giving the President the authority he needed. It was up to them. So, to sum up, I think this movie is all about propaganda, not a documentary.

by john_wills

You seem to be lumping together as "socialism" a lot of quite different ideologies. You need to do some quiet thinking: in silence we begin to make distinctions.

by hargerd

What! US= the land of the free?.....DONT MAKE ME LAUGH
US WOULD PREFER TO HAVE ALL THE POWER - LOOK @ IRAQ!!!!

by sonicclang

If you didn't notice we transferred sovereignty to Iraq this morning.

...And, the US is extremly free. If you're a conspircy theorist you may not believe that, or if you're a liberal you may not believe it, but for 99% of law obiding citizens it's as free as you make it.

by oz_media

YOU are outta there, like Afghanistan (where yo've pulled the majority of your troops from)but others are left to clean up the mess, AGAIN.

Canada still had a large number of forces in Iraq on "peace keeping" missions. How do you KEEP a peace that doesn't exist? How do you help people that don't trust your help?

Well at least some forward motion can begin now, with the USA out of Iraq, other governments are willing to participate in making Iraq a safer place that would not participate while the US was still there (probably fear of friendly fire).

I guess you're all done in Afghanistan then?
Now you're done 'fixing' Iraq?
GWB's backpocket company Haliburton has already made a killig shipping gas at $1.50 gallon (that you paid for yourself out of YOUR pocket) into Iraq and selling it for 5 cents gallon. Oil production is now under control, although not fully up to speed, so why does GWB need to stay? It's only people left, contracts have already been handed out, US companies are in there.

One issue that I saw raised last night, Canada has offered over 35 million in rebuilding support and contractors in Iraq, these comanies are refusing to send thier workers to Iraq though as it is far from stable yet. So we need to wait until the Suadi's have stepped in and Iraq's own government has made it safe to work in Iraq I suppose. Again I have to ask, what is it you guys did again??

by jimhm

Well little boy - did you read the paper ... The US turned over control of Iraqi last night - So I assume you don't know how to read - or are just to stupid to understand what turned control over means..

So Which one is it ... you are an uneducated fool with a computer - an don't know how to read - or are brain dead ... or as an old sitcom would say a MEAT HEAD - Dead from the neck Up..

God don't you just love the Uneducated -

by cactus pete

Jim posts the above message, but had already posted this one:

https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=3&threadID=154433&messageID=1618616

So which is it? Man, why do you always come down on someone personally during these discussion threads?

by jimhm

Yes - see for themselves - research this so call documentary - find out the truths for themselves.

Freedom of speech is what he uses - and that is his right, which I will not take away. But don't let anyone say he is doing it for other than the millions he is going to make..

I encourage anyone interested to see the movie and judge for themselves the truths and lies in it... research the facts - then make up their own mind...

by oz_media

Nobody including MM has called this movie a documentary.

YOU said it wasn't a documentary, now you are lambastnig others for suggesting it is a documentry. It isn't as MM states himself, it is personal opinion and facts. He is willing to supports those facts so instead of trying to debate it here, would you not be beter off researching these "so called" facts that you disbelieve and rebutting them yourself, instead of the he said/she said game?

Prove him wrong yourself Jim, you seem to know who belongs in the Us and why, get your ose into it and prove it worng. No, ABC and CBS don't count at all.

by jimhm

The media labeled it a documentary - thats why all the hype about it earning 22 million last weekend .... "First Documentary to earn first place" - I say its a docudrama - it is one mans op's -

You may believe otherwise - you can call me what you want - life is to short and you don't matter... so its no big deal - and I am sure you feel the same about me...

by sonicclang

I think you confuse the issue a little bit. What people like me hate about Moore is that he's lying, flat out lying. But I would die fighting for every person's right to stand on a soap box and tell his opinion, even if he is lying. I'm sure 99% of the people who can't stand Moore agree with me.

It does get to a point though that I just feel like saying to people like Moore, if you think it's SO bad and you think another country is better, then get the hell out... leave, and take your anti-american lies with you.

by oz_media

Democracy allows anyone who doesn't like a form of government has tha ability to oppose it and vote for another party when the election nears.
BUT...
You seem to think that if people oppose the American government they are Anti American and should leave the country?!?!?

I would like you personally to start providing case and point information to exactly what in 911 YOU feel MM is lying about. If it is his opinions, he has already stated clearly tyat these are HIS personal opinions. If it is FACTS, he has accpeted the fact that many will oppse them yet feels that he has substantial proof to support al his claims of FACT in 911. He has neither said this is a documentary or a movie of opinion. It is fact and opinion.

So get clicking and start supporting your claims, I am not saying I believe the whole movie, I am not saying I disbelieve it, I am saying there is a lot of truth a lot of bias, it is another way of actually looking at both sides of an issue and creating a basis for self study to form your own opinion. To discount it as MM biased is to cut yourself off from possibly seeing the real story or at least forming an educated opinion based on all the information available.

I would really like to see YOU, not some anti Moore website, provide links to documents that contradict what Michael Moore has stated is documented truth.

Can someone not be American if they don't favour your government? Did you support Nixon, Reagan and Clinton? Perhaps you should leave too.

Governments change, people don't, you are ALWAYS goingto have one side discount the other, YOU created a democracy and are so proud of it, you think EVERY other country in the world should follow your lead, if not, they are Nazis.

by sonicclang

I don't think everyone who disagrees with the government is anti-america. I just ask the question, if they're so unhappy why don't they leave?? If I hated a neighborhood so bad I'd probably just move away from that neighborhood. The Kim Basingers, Genine Gerofalos, Richard Geers, George Clooneys, Rosie O'Donnells, Barbara Streisands, and Alec Baldwins, all they do is complain complain complain about how bad the US government is. Seriously, if they hate it so bad why don't they leave? I'm not telling them to leave, but if they don't why should I have to listen to them complain? I tell you one thing, I don't support their movies/and or agendas.

Any link I give you, you'll discount as being "right wing" or "biased" and you won't listen anyway. I'm tired of this discussion for now.

by jimhm

Agree and I'll pay for his oneway ticket to either country ... as long as he promise never to come back to the USA again. May he live a health and long life in Canada or france ... but he is not welcome in the USA... He is an anti-american communist or nationalist or socialist - he lives off of capitalism and hates what that freedom proves for his Fat Ass - If he stay in America my his Fat Cause him an early and painful death..

by oz_media

Anything but Republican?

So if they don't agree with JIM's side of the story, which is always correct and simply based on the real facts the president shares with the people of America, it is not allowed in your country. Jim, your box gets smaller and smaller every time you type a response.

So after being a communist, nationalist and socialist, (which automatically makes people Anti-American somehow) he now lives off of capitalism.. Jim do you have ANY idea how stupid that sounds? Even a slight clue?

MM has no major corporate funding for his movies, no agents and lawyers behind the creation fo his movies, how is he usin capitalism? Because he makes a profit? This is only possible by capitalism? How do Canadian businesses survive?

Why France? Why is he now a Fat Ass? Does that mean everyone who is fat in the USA should be killed or sent to Canada or France? You'd have nobody left? Perhaps enough Rpubilcans to simply get GWB into office but your country would soon be overrun by an angry mob of allied countries in order to make the US a democracy again.

You spout al day and night about how right it is for freedom and democracy, then if someone shares an opposing view, they should be killed or exiled as a commie.

YOu are so retarded in your ideals Jim, it is pain ful to read and even more ridiculous that I actually respond to such crap.

Think of something worthwhile to say for a change instead of just shooting down EVERYONE as non-America if they don't agree with you. What kind of dictatorship are you trying to elect?

by maecuff

Have you seen the movie 'Tombstone'? (Really, there IS a point to this question..)

by jimhm

Oz when I start to think you have become a human - free thinking - you fall back into being an arus..

Or as the song goes - were you born an asshole or did you work at it your whole life... either way you say it - your an asshole for life...

What an ArusHole...

by mrbill-

Oz you said the same things I was thinking. He blasts everyone for being anti-american and then makes bigotted anti-american comments such as denying MM his freedom of speech or saying the guy should leave the country because MM does not agree with his views. I think all true Americans should get together and buy JimH a ticket off the planet! (how about that I sound like a republican or at least his version of one)

by oz_media

"who believes contries like France and Canada are to be mirrored by the US."

Now GWB or a Republican supoprted perspective would be:

"who believes countries like the US are to be mirrored by Canada and France, oh lets not forget Iraq while we are at it."

WHile you equate this movie to BFC, it was actuallly made on a completely different standard. MM has provided two things here, personal opinion, which we are ALL entitled to share freely without being lambasted for having an opinion, and fact.
Now while even MM admits there are personal opinions here, he also says that nulike BFC, all of the facts offered here are supported and he is ready to provide proof to anyone who contests this time.

I think what the main problem here is that Left can't see right and vice versa. There is NO middle ground, therefore there is no middle ground surrounding ANY discussion about politics or political views. Republicans will NEVER see anything that Democrtats say as the truth and Democrats would never see eye to eye on a single Republican issue. Do you really think that NEITHER side has any truth behind it?

Perhaps, US politics is actually getting to the point that it equates all other countries in that it is ALL BS, no leader can be followed ver batim, they do not always have YOUR best interests in mind, in fact it is VERY seldom that we actually see personal benefit no matter how we vote. Maybe one day you will all catch up and simply lump your politicians in with lawyers and realize that while they have the ability to help you, they are in it for themselves al the way.

by sonicclang

First off, on Moore, right, he'll back up everything with facts if anyone asks. My ass he will. I have no problem with someone created a film with opinions in it, just don't call it a documentary. F9/11 is being called a documentary... which is totally bogus. People go to see this movie and think it's fact. He's a liar and that's that.

On politics, I do believe every day people get benifits from our politicians. I believe those benifits can be very hard to see sometimes, but when you're as involved in listening as I am you pick certain things up. Just Saturday night I was having a cookout with friends and 2 different people with a different viewpoint from mine came to me with questions. I knew exactly what I believed for each question they asked, and I even convinced one of them of my viewpoint. I do not believe each side, left and right, are as blind as you think. I'm completely open to hearing the other side of any opinion. Someone else always sees something I didn't. I always say, "I'm wrong? Convince me why you're right." Sometimes I realize maybe I am wrong. Othertimes we have to agree to disagree.

As for the whole socialism, communism, capitolism, thing, I do believe those are very black and white issues with distinct differences. People like Moore believe income should be redistributed. If I kick ass for myself all my life and end up earning millions of dollars a year, people like Moore, or socialists, believe I am not entitled to that money and I should give it to people who are "less fortunate". Even though we all have the same opportunity to make that money. Moore believes health care should be socialzed. Meaning, we "all" pay for health care so that the homeless can get health care. By "all" of course they mean the tax paying, money earning, property owning members of society. They believe the people who actually earn a living should carry the country on their backs. "You don't feel like earning a living? Ok, go on welfare and the people who actually go to work every day will pick up the bill for you."

The way it was explained to me once, and I believe this to be true, is that most people are conservatives and they don't realize... and I'm only talking fiscally here. Take this example as a litmus test and see which side of it you fall. When you get paid you take that check to the bank and put it in your checking account. With that money you buy food, you pay bills, spend it on entertaiment. If you have a family you spend it on them. Basically, you spend it on yourself or save it for yourself because you earned it. What you do NOT do is take that check to the bank, CASH it, and walk up and down your street handing out your money to your neighbors. Even though people don't do that who call themselves democrats, they vote for people who pretty much want to do that for them. It's called income redistribution. Socialism in short.

by oz_media

IO haven't seen or heard a single word from MM that insinuates this is a documentary, yet alone says it outright.

MM actually said it is his personal opinion (which it is and that is completely acceptable in a democracy)mixed with fact that he is willing to support.

As for the rest it simply doesn't warrant a response, your points are antiquated and have been rehashed a thousand times here, yes it's left or right, left is correct to the left, right is correct to the right, but neither has ANY room to accept the other because most people will instantly discount the other as biased.

As for people helping each other, Welfare, Medical etc. I have seen millionaires end up on welfare, I have seen welfare recipients become millionaires, several times! For you to say that people each have an equal opportunity to earn millions is also unture, what about those who are unable to work that actually WOULD work?

What about those that HAVE worked for years only to have jobs outsourced and it taking 16 months to find a enw job? They paid taxes and earned income, are they now not allowed to get support? Ei doesn't carry them past 12 and in many cases it is better to collect welfare and retain your EI weeks.

When someone is hurt in America, perhaps a relative should they not recieve medical suppport regardless of who they are or where they came from?

Your veiws seem extremely self centered. You support the theory that your government should have the ability to decide who can or cannot be born. You believe your government can decide if someone THEY SUSPECT of a crime should be put to death. So you believe the government has the right to play God and control life by make desicions of life and death, but they cannot control YOUR life or YOUR money?

I think that is the part I dislike the most about the double standards of the Repubilcan party. Only the rich and able progress and everyone else should be left to suffer. Have you thought about forming your own uniqe and superior race? THen you could remove everyone who doesn't fit the mold, or simply place them in camps until needed for their abilities. Actually that was done before i think.

by jimhm

He maybe ready but he already lost that argument - ABC called the movie so full of lies and untruths they were shocked - CBS was basically the same - The "Truth Squad" found over 50 untruths in the movie..

So He Lies to make up for the lies that he already told... Oz - You are a man that searches for the truth - seek and ye shall find that MM is a lier ... ABC and CBS are a very liberal news agencies and they call him a lier...

But hell it made him over 30 million dollars so far much more than any of his other films ever did... for that kind of cash I guess it pays to lie..

by oz_media

YOu seem to forget that all you news agencies are owned by TWO media giants in the US, GWB had the FCC allow that last year.

Those same stations are also being paid millions (with and end figure over 2 BILLION) to air political campaign commercials, some will be GWB's others JK's etc. Depending on which BRANCH of the media is bought out.

TV stations ESPECIALLY THE NETWORKS, are on political payrolls, you cannot take anything they say as any more credible than Michael Moores own opinions. Again the US news and media is biased and controoled by the politicians. THank GWB for that, he changed the ownership laws that restricted such massive conglomerates to join at the hip.

So here agin, Jim, we see there are two sides to every story. Will you ever see another except yours?

by jimhm

Oz - ABC and CBS have so much negative about GWB when they do side with him - all of a sudden they are on his payroll ... god - you do exactly what you accuse other of -

What an Arus ...

by maxwell edison

.
In theory, a "United Nations" type organization sounds all good and wonderful. However, there's one thing that simply can't be removed from the equation, something that will doom any collectivist endeavor - human nature.

It's human nature to look out for one's own self interest over that of another. This applies equally to individual people or individual states. Moreover, nations of the world never share common goals, but only common interests - interests that advance their own individual interests that just "happen" to coincide with the interests of another.

I believe the "facts" are as follows (chime in if you disagree):

1. The USA must, first and foremost, protect and advance the interests of the citizens of the USA - PERIOD - no ifs, ands or buts about it. (The same applies, of course, to any and every nation.)

2. Each and every nation on earth will, first and foremost, protect and advance the interests of its own citizens - or its own "power brokers" (dictators, kings, etc.)

3. All nations, collectively, will never have the same "self-interests".

4. The "United Nations" will NEVER protect or advance the self-interests of the USA.

5. The United Nations' self-interests (often times) are in direct conflict with the self-interests of the USA.

6. There's no way any nation of the world will put its own "self interests" behind that of another nation.

7. As a "negotiating" body, the United Nations could be effective. As a "ruling" body, the United Nations will always be ineffective.

8. As a "negotiating" body, the United Nations is something that I can live with. As a "ruling" body, the United Nations will never rule over me or "my" America.

It was recently proposed that there be a "world poverty tax" - payable to the United Nations, of course - to fight "world poverty". If I am ever forced to pay a "world tax", I will refuse to pay. I would be jailed before I paid. I would be killed before I pay. I will NEVER pay a "world tax" to the United Nations. And if my government ever pays on my behalf, I'll start protesting by refusing to pay my federal income taxes. I'll vote the bumbs out and vote to repeal. I will do whatever I can to be a part of the "second revolution". I will never pay a "world tax" to the United Nations - NEVER.

The United Nations can go to %$#^&*

by garion11

The only way UN would work (besides changing the first paragraph) is if there were no nations or city states at ALL to begin with. If there was a UN at the start of civilization.

Do I agree with UN's first paragraph? (thats where I think the problem is) Absolutely not. If it used an American, ...umm..I mean the philosophy of John Locke (endowed by their creator, god given rights, so on so forth..) I would agree with UN. But their consitution translates into, these Freedoms are a privelage, which is EVIL. It opens the door to tyrants, dictators etc etc.

by admin

organizations over time tend to promote themselves...

I am not convinced at this time that the agenda of The United Nations is really a collective world governing body. I think it may have reached a point in it's history as an organization where it is more trying to go beyond the original intent of most of it's members in the time of it's origination. I seriously doubt whether it can succeed even if it did have US support in it's apparant new mission.

Although I would like to see it remain happily as a negotiating body, this is increasingly unrealistic. This is the natural course of organizations though- to first protect themselves, then promote themselves increasingly until they reach a point of being unable to control their gains, then drawing back, or imploding altogether. We, as a major world power do need to make sure that the UN does not become the world government, yet if they test, draw back and become a negotiating body then I am for them. That would be, IMO, a needed service on Earth right now.

by oz_media

If you stand facing people do they see you in 3D or are you simply half a man?

Firstly, this is nothing even remotely similar to BFC, the reference is invalid as is most of your post.

Your post is based 100% on YOUR opersonal opinion and those of a couple of news anchors (NOT entire Networks as you have suggested). Secondly, bOTH of those networks are owned by either Disney or GMI which are also being paid several million to air GWB campaign commmercials. Last year you government had the FCC ease ownership laws for media conglomerates. It seems that pretty much TWO companies own all the US Networks, radio stations etc. These companies receive more than 50% of campaign budgets, as the election nears, for TV advertisements. A show I watched on the weekend showed how GWB had spent over 25 million on TV spots in targeted areas of Florida (where he knows he actually lost the last election), they expect the TV budget for the rest of the race to near 2.5 Billion dollars or almost 53% of the total budget for each campaign.

So to take the word of a TV station and say it is evidence MM is not telling the truth, is like saying GWB doesn't agree, it means nothing, these paeople are on the payroll Jim, just as you suggest MM is.

Now MM himself has said this movie is NOTHING like BFC (which it isn't as I saw it a couple of weeks ago), he says there is personal opinion, which I am sure even YOU must agree is allowed. He also says there are many facts, which he is prepared to support, which he wasn't with BFC.

So before you pass such judgement (You may have well just said "I am Republican" instead of an actual response that simply mirrors your political support for GWB). You are simply the other side, you will never see their side nor will they see yours, what is the intent of you post? Are you trying to change someone's mind? Can't be done, never has never will on this topic. Or are you actually trying to say you only believe reports that come in favour of your own opinion, which is uneccessary, we all know that you see one view.

by maecuff

People who have not seen the movie (who do not use the brain that god gave them) are ready to pass judgement without seeing the film. If I could 'unsee' this movie, I would. I was terribly disturbed by the mutilated children, the grief of humans (American and Iraqis) who lost their loved ones. Regardless of the slant of the movie, the images don't lie, they can't be fabricated. What I took from this movie is this, If we ask young people from this country to fight and die for us, we better make sure it is for a just cause.

by jimhm

Were any of them a Just Cause - you had peace protester for every war or "Police Action" that the US was involve in ... From WWI to Iraqi Freedom.

Would everyone agree that every action the US sent troopes was Just -

You don't know - Saddam killed Hundreds of Thousands of his people - to some in the US that wasn't a just cause - but for an Iraqi it was a just cause... Hilter kill millions of Jews - but the US didn't get involved until Peril Harbor - and the Germans never attacked us - was that a just cause.

What about Korea - Nam - Desert Shield - Desert Storm - Kosovo - Hum ... We have to rely on our leaders to use common sense before sending our troopes into Harms way - as to the pictures in the movie - they can't be faked but they can be miss represented - they were taken elsewhere and said they were - something else...

Do you not think that 500,000 Iraqi lifes were worth a few hundred american lives - do you think that 400,000 american lifes were worth defeating Germany and Japan in WWII (Total death toll over 57,000,000 people world wide) ...

Where and what price to you call Just? Can you define it? - Why isn't 500,000 Iraqi lifes aren't worth 1,000 american lifes -

We can always hide in the corner and say let someone else do it ... Gee I think that was England / Canada / China and France at the beginning of WWII - The US said we had nothing to do with it... the peacenicks kept us out...

So Tell ME - What is JUST!

by maecuff

I guess we should just police the whole freaking world. Go ask any mother who had a child die there if she thinks it was just.

by oz_media

"You don't know - Saddam killed Hundreds of Thousands of his people - to some in the US that wasn't a just cause - but for an Iraqi it was a just cause... Hilter kill millions of Jews - but the US didn't get involved until Peril Harbor - and the Germans never attacked us - was that a just cause."

Who doesn't know Jim? Are you now suggesting that you knew about the mass graves the UK soldiers uncovered in Iraq all along? THAT was the reason you all went to Iraq? Mass graves that nobody was told about until they were stubmled on by the British? If not, how and why did YOU get involved? Perhaps you could show me the speech GWB made to justify the invasion of Iraq due to mass graves and the HUNDREDS of thousands they were killed? Can you then explain why you used to support Iraq's WMD program (if you don't support the government you shouldn't be in America, so I am now told) and now chose to oppose it?

As for WWII, You were part of an ALLIED force. The WORLD was at war against a eprson who decided that his form of dictatorship should be forced upon the world, not just the people of Germany.

The ALLIED force requested your support as this was of GLOBAL concern. ALLIED forces WERE fighting together, with out the US and were effectively wearing down Hitler and reducing his chances of success.

Iraq, Nam, etc. had nothing in common with WWII except soldiers and fighting.

Would you give YOUR life to save two Canadians? Sure you would Jim. You'd be protesting all the way to the Be-In.

by jamesrl

So when did Saddam kill thousands of his own people(no evidence of hundreds of thousands by the way).

Saddam gassed a Kurdish village in 1987. When Saddam was being supported with military and financial assistance by the US in the Iran/Iraq war. The US knew that Saddam had chemical weapons because they sold them to Saddam. They may have guessed they were going to use them, given they were in a prolonged and viscious war with Iran.
The causualty estimates range around 5,000 - pretty horrific to be sure.

What the British uncovered were another remnant of that war - thousands of soldiers, some Iranian prisoners, and some likely mutinous Iraqi conscripts. Yes there were thousands, but not tens of thousands. Again, the US was supporting Iraq at the time. The State department may or may have not known.

The last "massacre" came shortly after the end of the first Gulf war, after President Bush the first incited the Shia in and around Basra to revolt and overthrow Saddam. The US lead coalition maintained total control of the air over Iraq at the time. Basra was in the south, in what became part of the no fly zone. When the Shia started to revolt, Saddam got his ministers to clarify with the allies that helicopters were an exception to the no fly rules, and then Saddam used those helicopters to bomb and strafe the Shia into submission and move his elite troops around(the ones held back around Baghdad). Does anyone wonder why the Shia, who hated Saddam, distrust the US?

Find me the numbers which say Saddam slaughtered 500,000.

James

by oz_media

I'll ahve to dig up the guys name again but there is a REALLY pissed off former Repubilcan cabinet member who has made a film SO anti-US government that it makes Michael Moore's 911 look like a Dinsey special. I didn't even finish watching it it was so biased an opinionated, eve while showing documentaion and GWB's speeches to support it. Apparently it was banned by Two networks but the BBC aired it last year and it has REALLY turned Brits against the war (perhaps why it was baned in the USA).

by oz_media

It proves your inability to debate anything without simply calling the messenger names, maybe this is why nobody buys a word you say. You NEVER support a single coomment you make, as all your comments are simply rants and name calling. Do us all a favour, TRY and say something at least soemwhat intelligent for a change.

OR even better still, perhaps yuo could show where exactly in my post I said something OUTSIDE the ability to speak freely that prompted your response or the need for the names?

Again, Jim will have NO response except name calling.

by maxwell edison

.
I believe the original "source" for that article is information taken from the book, "The United Nations Exposed", by William F. Jasper.

The Internet "chain-letter" type distribution, that the thread originator posted, has its roots, I believe, in an article originally posted by The John Birch Society, picked up by the Free Republic and other conservative and libertarian groups and organizations. (The article used material from the book). After a few sites posted it, the article grew legs and spread like wildfire.

Book review:

http://www.triumphpro.com/united_nations_exposed.htm

by oz_media

Don't remeber it too well though, sorry.

But I bet if you say something and I don't l;ike it, I could just say you belong in France and that will be sufficient to support my viewpoint.
:-)

by maecuff

While reading the posts here.. Val Kilmer (Doc Holliday) debating with Ike Clanton.. "I know..let's have a spelling contest.."

Of course, what do I know, I'm a f*cking stupid, fat ass. Otherwise known as someone who doesn't agree with Jim.. the master debator..

by sonicclang

Give me a break man. Anyone in the US can do whatever you want to do in life. Yeah if you're speeding down the highway you'll get pulled over, you can't do THAT. But if you want to start a business you can. If you want to state your mind and make a movie against the government you can do that and not get beheaded. Women can go to school... GASP... You can get as high or low as you want. You can do whatever your imagination can think up. Give me a break with that "patriate act is infringing on my rights" B.S.

by maecuff

My bad. As long as you don't break the law..you are free. So, when (as dictated by the patriot act) a librarian is forced to turn over records regarding what types of books you read, the librarian will be a-ok. And if the librarian remembers that he/she cannot let the person whose records have been requested know that they are being investigated, the librarian will be fine. If not, it could mean jail time. Now, THAT is freedom. Let me guess what is coming next... In order to be SAFE, one must give up some FREEDOMS..

by sonicclang

Hey man, in that example I can't disagree with you. Just don't be a librarian! :D :D

Really though, you haven't convinced me yet. I still think America is the best nation in the world and you're as free as you can be. All governments make mistakes, and all administrations make mistakes. But on the whole America is the best, hands down. Sorry. The thing that saves GWB is that he stands by his convictions, and his convictions do not come from whatever way the political wind is blowing today, they come from an unworldly place that I don't fully understand. I'd rather have that than a "progressive" society where you stick your finger in the air to see which direction the wind is blowing today. "Oh, that law made sense yesterday but today we feel we should move on and be progressive so we're going to change it". No, that doesn't work for me.

by maxwell edison

.
Will you please post some specific examples of where the patriot act has allowed the things that you suggested - any of the things. And be specific. When? Where? Why? Who?

What librarian, for example, has been "forced" by the patriot act, as you suggested, to "turn over records regarding what types of books you (or anyone) read".

When and where did this happen? And to whom?

Going back to some previous discussions we've had on "exaggerations", it must have been the big-bellied starving childern roaming our streets who were turned into the feds by the librarians because of what they were reading.

Do we live in the same country? Why do you see things that I don't see? There are no "big-bellied" starving childing in America, and there are no librarians turning people into the feds because of the patriot act.

Oh, but wait, Michael Moore said it is so, so it must be so.

And if Michael Moore, an extremist to be sure, says one thing, while Ann Coulter, an extremist to the other degree, says another, who do you believe and why? And do you put balance into the presentation by seeing (reading) BOTH extremists' views? Do you look for support to either argument? If Michael Moore says something, for example, but NO ONE ELSE is saying it, why does that carry more weight than what MANY people are saying?

Here, have some balance:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/bowlingforcolumbine/scenes/hestoninterview.htm

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

http://www.moorelies.com/

http://www.bushcountry.org/news/columnists/jan_ireland/c_061704_j-ireland_michael_moore.htm

http://www.moorewatch.com/

(REMOVE pesky SPACES from the pasted URLs.)

------

People need to see Moore's docu-fictions for what they really are. (And docu-fiction is being kind. Docu-lies is Moore like it.)

But go ahead, believe that there are staring children in America, and believe that Michael Moore is genuine. But the way I see things, I believe otherwise.

by oz_media

You need to invade yourselves and oust GWB so you can operate as a free democracy again. People would be allowed to voice their opinion without being told to move to another country.
YOu would be free to speak your mind and make a movie about whatever you choose without being pambasted as anti-American.

Maybe Iraq owes YOU a favor, we could ask them to help invade the USA but I think everyone kows you will cause more harm to yourselves than anyone else in the long run.

by maxwell edison

.
It's not just a "label".

You have stated time and again that "conservative" and "liberal" (and others) are, as you put it, "a label people follow".

Oz, it's not a "label" people follow, but rather a philosophy by which people wish to live their lives.

Don't belittle it by saying it's just a label, because it's not. Except, of course, to those who can't (or won't) understand the underlying philosophy, or those who can't (or won't) take a stand on one or the other opposing philosophies.

So no, Oz, it's not just a "label", except to only those who don't - or can't - understand the difference between the underlying political philosophies.

And I'll go one step further by suggesting that you won't agree with my take on this because you don't want to agree with it. You will want to continue to use the "label" charge whenever you're tied down to picking one philosophy over the other. Collectivist or Individualist - Big Government or Smaller Government - Personal Responsibility or Not - Liberal or Conservative - One or the Other

So Oz, is it really just a "label"?

If you think it is, while I think it's not, who's mistaken, you or me - and why?

by oz_media

Political veiws are not labels, but people are labelled BY thier political views. If you suport Democrats, you then MUST support ....
Whereas the person (like you have agreed yourself) may not actually believe in every apsect of a government's policies but do agree to more than you do with the oposition.

BUT when you say you are Republican, everyone LABELS you by assuming you support all Republican government policies, which I know you don't.

Therefore, YOUR political beliefs are NOT a label, but you ARE labelled because of you political beliefs. What I see here too often is a Republican saying that something is untrue because it is Democratic or Commie or...,you know all the rest of the labels. So people are unwilling to hear alternate views because they will instantly LABEL the opposition and discount it as such.

So you are right, your political views are NOT a label, but you ARE labelled because of your political views, certainly you cannot deny that.
I have never shared my political views here, BUT I am labelled as a socialist (we don't have a socialist government in Canada)a Commie (don't know what field that was from) etc.

People in the US, insiat of placing labels on people in order to accept or reject thier opinions, instead of listening to the opinion itself.

by maxwell edison

.
Labels can indeed be helpful - and telling - in identifying where a person is coming from. A person, for example, with the underlying philosophy that big government is the solution to the individuals' problems will certainly have a different "opinion" (on some sub-set of an issue) than a person with the underlying philosophy that big government is NOT the solution to the individuals' problems. A "liberal" opinion (the former) will be different than a "conservative" opinion (the latter), but the real difference is in the underlying principle, or at least it should be, not in the particular issue.

How can two people, for example, have a legitimate discussion or debate on the merits of government provided "school lunches", without touching on the basic underlying principle? All too often people try, and that's when inconsistencies arise. A "big government" (liberal) proponent will see things one way, and a "smaller government" (conservative) person will see things in a different way. They will disagree, and there will be no compromise - the government either buys the lunch or not. Who's responsible to buy this kid his lunch, the government (liberal answer) or the parents (conservative answer)? When there is an irreconcilable difference, such as that, and there is no compromise, one must take a step back in the argument and look at the premise - the underlying principles, and then discuss or debate that underlying issue to reconcile that particular issue. And in this case, who is responsible for that child's rearing - period - the parents (conservative), or the government (liberal)? Establish that basic premise, and be willing to live with the responsibilities of accepting that premise, and just let the chips fall where they may.

Liberals rarely admit to being liberals because it's always a "position by position" thing, whereas conservatives, generally, proudly admit to being conservative because it's always a "principle" thing. Liberals rarely want to admit their "big government" preferences as a matter of "principle", but they always look to bigger government for the solution. I challenge you to find one "liberal" position on any individual problem that does not involve the government to implement a solution. As Ronald Reagan said, government isn't the solution to the problem, government IS the problem. (Liberal's creed, by contrast: "Big business" and "the rich" are the problem, and government is always the solution.)

The problem that I see with people who usually take the "liberal" position on various issues, is that they won't admit to having a "liberal" principle on which that position is based. Even worse, they will contradict themselves on principle when deciding various positions. For example - a "pro choice" position describes a person's opinion that a woman has a right to "choose" whether or not to have an abortion. Great - fine and dandy - pro choice. But where is the "pro choice" basis in principle when it comes time to choose for that child one school over another, or a prayer in school over none. Where this "liberal" will advocate "pro choice" in one area, he/she will advocate "no choice" in others. Which is it? Where's the underlying principles? Why is it that a woman has a right to "choose" whether or not to deliver that baby, but is denied the right to "choose" what school that child attends (should she decide not to abort the child)? Pro-choice and No-choice, both liberal positions.

Opinions should be based on principles, not preferences. From my experience, liberals - especially the ones who won't admit to being a liberal - base their opinions on preferences, while conservatives base theirs on principle. This is a generalization, to be sure, but I sure do see it a lot.

Too many people argue "position" and not "principle" (or premise).

WANTED: A LIBERAL who will.........establish that basic premise, and be willing to live with the responsibilities of accepting that premise, and just let the chips fall where they may. (The catch phrase that scares the you-know-what outta' all too many people - and be willing to live with the responsibilities of accepting that premise.)

by maecuff

I am one of those fortunate women who've been allowed an education (not a man). And I would also agree that this is a wonderful country, I am proud of this country and would not want to live anywhere else. And I also agree, the alternative to GWB is not all that attractive. However, I am so against so many things that this administration has done, that I will vote ABB..

by sonicclang

Who is ABB? Sorry, all these abbreviations are getting confusing.

Bush or Kerry... ehh, neither is all that great as far as I'm concerned. I'd love to have a Ragean right now. When I look at Kerry and listen to him, I just cannot see putting him in the white house. "I actually DID vote for the $87 billion... before I voted against it." He actually said that? I wouldn't think a child would say something so stupid. That guy in the oval office, no thanks.

by sonicclang

Although I don't agree with outsourcing, and I feel something should be done to put tougher rules on companies so it's not so easy to outsource, that is not an argument for socialism. My brother was laid off by a company who decided to outsource his job. Now, you might not think that would have too much affect on me, but considering we own a house together it had a HUGE impact on me. If he didn't find a job we were going to lose the house. Well, he did find a job, even if he had to take a crap job for a few months. Eventually after about 6 months he found a good job and now he's kicking ass. Bottom line, I was absolutely directly affected by the situation you're talking about and never once did I think we should socialise anything. I'm not self centered, that was a little mean. If we had lost the house we would have survived. I would found some place cheaper.

If you're talking to me here... I don't know where you get the whole "government playing God" thing. I didn't mention anything about the death penalty, you just reached for that one.

by jimhm

I know many gold star moms that are proud of their sons that died - My Grandmother for one - I lost two uncles in WWII ... She was a 5 blue star mom - then a 2 gold and 3 blue..

Are you saying that my Grandmother shouldn't be proud of her loss ... she wasn't happy - she was very sad for a long time - but very very proud when she talk of her boys - one died at Baton and other on the invasion of Lusan...

You saying these mom's shouldn't be proud of their sons sacrface ??? - I am sure your not saying that ... but yes I know many - proud parent of gold star WWII - and many proud parents of the boys killed in Vietnam - and Korea - and Desert Shield / Storm - and PA area has lost its share in this war and those parents are proud -

They aren't happy - that their son paid the ultmate price for the freedom of another - but if your aren't brave enought to fight for it - then others will and are willing to pay the price for your freedom -

My parents were proud when I server - they were scared I wouldn't come home - but proud that I servered... and willing to risk my life for anothers freedom ...

by jimhm

Well thats good I didn't disappoint you - I just had more import things to do over the weekend ... than sit around and watch the television ...

Ah yea - thats right your a women wouldn't understand going to a auto race - baseball games with the boys - dance lessons with the girls - golf - taking care of the home (yard work) - and making the wife happy with a little pickel tickle..

by oz_media

Give your head a shake man and get a grip!!!

What the hell are you on about you bigoted chauvenistic arse-wart. It is people such as yourself that give MEN a bad name. Now I know you've been accused of giving Americans a bad name but now you are shootingdown half the wolrd's population. You are the first person one would expect to come out of the closet and admit to being gay one day. Your post is SO far off base it isn't funny, in fact (correct me if I am wrong) maecuff really like to hang-out and be 'one of the guys'. She has shown greater ability to understand and debate than you ever have or could hope to have , she has demonstrated listening and comprehension skills that you are unable to. She can see both sides of the coin to your 'tails only'. You have no right whatsoever, as an American, a human or a man to speak of women that way, you take us back to the dark ages with such tripe, you are a real man's worst enemy, yet you consider yourself a man because you actualy went to nam. How many eggs did you scramble, how many potatoes did you peel while the real men went to war?

You were against women in the military for the most retarded reasons too, why don't you grow up and realize your archaic thougth process just doesn't fly anymore.

How dare you belittle a felow TR peer by discrediting their sex? Your almost as bad as the guy who was pissed when a gay man was allowed into his "mens/IT club" at work, a freak of nature that just didn't keep up to speed with the rest of the world.

I just can't believe you said that!

by maecuff

Did I say ANYTHING about pride?? You can twist up just about anything, can't you?

by oz_media

I knew it was coming, I even said so in a peer mail a while back. The tides would turn and now Saddam will be equated to hitler in order to justify the unjustified war.

You guys have tried EVERYTHING to justify this war and still no 'single' justification has been given. WMD, Liberation, freeing Iraqi's, Building a democracy, now it is because LIKE Hitler, Saddam was mass killing people.

Saddam and Hitler are not the same. person fighting in WWII was fighting for a clear and known cause, HITLER was trying to take over the world, and MAY have succeeded without an Allied assault for five and a half years.

So now you artrying to say that US parents who's kids died in Iraq must be proud because when someone died in WWI the parents were pround?

Get a clue at least, stop for even 15 seconds before posting so you can ACTUALLY try to formulate a logical response.

by jimhm

You do have that right - but I believe you are wasting your vote - we need valid canidates - and the three we have are like Moe/Larry/Curly - and Moe is the best out of the three - I to do not agree with everything GWB has done or has planned but Kerry is so Socialistic its scary...

He wants universal healthcare but He has no plans for it. we will get everyone medical coverage - hasn't a clue how ... but bend over I'll bet your taxes will go up (mr & mrs middle class) Remember he's married to a Heniz - over 200 million.

He's going to stop the outsourcing to India - no plan of how ... but we are going to keep job in America ... How much you want to be it will be increase taxes...(still a $5.00 an hour worker compared to $20 an hour... still cheaper to ship that job overseass, and you will never stop the globalization of the economy)..

What a senmior prescription drug plan - but again doesn't have plan - but everyone will have one ... bend over again mr&mrs middle class america we are going to up your taxes higher...

Kerry now courting the middle of the road - went from Liberal to middle conserative - Hum Don't they call him "FLIPPER". Flipped from Liberal to Middle conserative - then he'll flip back - then back again - who is the real John Kerry..

And Nader - Oh as long as its Green - to hell with the human race - if your a bird or a river you will be OK - forget about anymore power plants ... dams or other things... not under Nader..

by maecuff

No doubt about that..:)

What PATRIOT 215 Does
Section 215 allows the FBI secretly to order anyone to turn over business records or any other "tangible things," so long as the FBI tells the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court that the information sought is "for an authorized investigation...to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities." These demands for records come with a "gag order" prohibiting the recipient from telling anyone, ever, that they received a Section 215 order.

How PATRIOT 215 Changed the Law
Secret orders to turn over business records were available from the FISA court before the PATRIOT Act. However, this extreme power secretly to demand private records was checked by two key safeguards.

First, the FBI could only get a few types of records that were of particular use in investigating terrorists and spies -- records belonging to hotels, motels, car and truck rental agencies, and storage rental facilities. Second, the FBI had to present to the FISA court "specific and articulable facts giving reason to believe that the person to whom the records pertain[ed]" was a spy or terrorist.

Section 215 removed these safeguards. Now, the FBI can use a secret order to get anything, "including books, records, papers, documents, and other items." Nor does the FBI still need actual facts to show that you may be a spy or terrorist. Instead, these secret orders can now be used to investigate anyone, even a U.S. citizen not suspected of any crime, so long as the FBI certifies to the FISA court that the records are sought for a terrorism or espionage investigation. The FISA court must issue the order if the FBI so certifies, even when there are no facts to back it up.

...To answer your question with as little effort on my part as possible.. section 215.

by oz_media

Because the whole basis of democracy is that if you don't like your government you can do something about it and FIX it.

You assume I won't read your links if you posted them, an easy cop-out for something you simply cannot provide.

I am not a left wing supporter so why would you say I would discount your views as Right wing?

So go get some rest, you tire easy. It's amazing that Republicans can win an election if you all tire before making your point or supporting your allegations!

by sonicclang

No one is telling anyone to move, we're simply asking them why they don't. And btw, it's not the government telling the dissenters to shut up or move, it's just regular people, and regular people are allowed to disagree. No one wants a government telling people what to think.

Keep in mind that while Clinton was redirecting hundreds of FBI agents to investigate his scandles, all the people like me and all the right wingers were in the same boat the democrats are in right now. We were the ones being told to shut up. That it's ok for our president to lie under oath. "If you don't like the president why don't you move?" So we already know a thing or two about how it feels.

You're trying to throw all these blankets over these topics and it just doesn't work that way.

by maecuff

As far as the librarian thing goes, that had nothing to do with information from Michael Moore. And as far as starving children with distended stomachs go..No, I haven't seen such a thing. However, many children do go without necessities in this country. I don't understand why you're bringing that up?

by sonicclang

Ahh Oz, you amuse me. Who said anything about republicans winning an election? :D haha.

Really, the only reason I'm tired of this coversation is because I'm at work, and I really should be getting back to looking for an answer to my neworking problem.

by sonicclang

I really do think it's amazing that people with that scewed opinion are out there. And people who believe what they want about what is really happening. Just because you decided not to like GWB you find reasons to support your decision.

Whatever man. Lame. This coversation has gone down the tubes.

by cactus pete

This country is built upon the backs of those who left already, or who were thrown out.

The building blocks were arrange such that if you don't like it, you have the right to try and change it. Hence, free speech, et al.

I found it somewhat ironic that you would be willing to die to preserve the right of someone to speak their mind - but when they do, you suggest they go somewhere else.

I apologize in advance for anyone who doesn't like the tone, but I call that half-assed patriotism.

by sonicclang

dpetrak, I'll say it again, all I'm doing is asking, if they hate it so badly why don't they leave? I'm talking about the Moores and the Clooneys, who don't just talk about the government as being bad, but they sit there and call all white males in middle class morons. Well since so many Americans fall under their umbrella, what do they have here to stay for? I'm just asking, if they hate it so badly, why not leave? Believe me, I'm thick skinned enough to take it, I'm not going to die from their insults.

by cactus pete

They have the right to say what they want. They have the right to try to change the ways of the government if they feel strongly about it.

Just because you don't like some particular aspects of the government doesn't mean you can't love your country.

Some people don't like taxes - they don't leave, they vote to change the system. Some people don't like certain subject matters in various socially displayed media - they don't leave, they press for laws to rate lyrics, movies and games.

Some people don't like how the country appears to be depending on foreign oil, they try to change that. Some people don't like not feeling protected by carrying concealed weapons, they vote for special gun laws [and against others].

That's why we love this country.

If you don't get it, perhaps you should leave?

by jimhm

??? You Said " guess we should just police the whole freaking world. Go ask any mother who had a child die there if she thinks it was just" - what do you mean by Just then - That they die for a reason -

Explain you definition of JUST.

by jimhm

You find it difficult to understand how someone can ask the question - of if you hate something so bad that your life is missrable - why don't they move somewhere else. But would defend their right to disagree and complain.

How is that difficult to understand - One is a right - the other is a question. If I wake every morning hating the neighborhood I live it - have tried to change it and it doesn't change - you think you would get tired of hitting your head off a brick wall and move to a new neighborhood more to your life style or beliefs..

Where as you are defending a person freedoms.. as defined in the constitution and bill of rights - its not difficult -

by cactus pete

I said nothing about hate. You did. I said love.

So, if a person lived in a neighborhood they loved, but didn't like the trashed lot on the corner, why shouldn't they keep trying to change things?

Or if they loved living there, near all of their family and friends, and a good schoold district with high quality, low cost stores - but a gang moved in - Why should they just leave? Why not try to do something to fix it.

Of course, the other good thing about this country is that you CAN leave if you want to. [Under almost all circumstances...] But you have the right to stay.

Or were you just trying to be contradictory?

No US citizen should ever be told to leave.

And for those who ask the question, "if you don't like it, why don't you just move to another country?" ... well, they're just caving in on the debate.

How can anyone say that yes, you have the right to stay, now why don't you leave?

by cactus pete

...and regular people are saying, "Because I have a right to stay here." ...which should be enough to get you to stop asking, yes?

by maecuff

What MY definition of just is? You won't agree, and anything I say will just cause you to tell me how stupid I am. It's ridiculous to even try to debate with you.

by maxwell edison

.
I bring up the "starving children" thing as an analogy to the "patriot act" thing.

At one time (in a different and unrelated thread) you said something about spending more money on America's starving children, or something like that, and I challenged you to find even one of these "starving children" roaming our streets. Your "starving children" concern was, as it turned out to be (at least in my opinion), an exaggeration to say the least.

And now take the analogy to the "librarian" thing. You posted the text of the patriot act, but that's not what I asked for. I asked you to cite even ONE CASE where a librarian was actually forced to turn someone's library records over to the feds. You made the claim, not me. I just asked you to provide to facts of the exact case of that happening. Just like not finding any "starving children" in our streets, you won't find a single case such as the one about a librarian as you suggested. (By the way, Laura Bush, the president's wife, was a professional librarian. I wonder what she thinks about this?)

Whether your opinion was swayed by Michael Moore or not isn't the point. But what Michael Moore will do, and many others as well, is to take an ounce of truth or fact, and then twist and turn it in such a way to come up with a pound of blatant lies. It's disingenuous at best, and downright misleading at worst. Michael Moore knows he's doing it. Unfortunately, many "uninformed" people pick up the banner and carry it even further without even realizing that they're spreading lies.

Prove it or don't say it, that's what I say.

You couldn't "prove" the starving children" claim, and you can't "prove" the librarian scenario. I'm sure your intentions are honorable, but I think your reasoning is a little skewed. You're not unlike all too many people who repeat over and over again things they "heard", but have yet to see proof. Prove it or don't say it. If that was the "law of the land", people like Michael Moore would be nothing but the college drop-out that he was.

By the way, the same people who scream bloody murder over the patriot act are the very same people who are screaming bloody murder because the administration didn't do anything (or enough) to prevent 9-11. Gee, if the patriot act had been in place in July or August 2001, perhaps 9-11 would have been averted. After all, isn't that what it was designed to do? And why on Earth do you think that it's intended to do more?

by maecuff

one of those who is screaming that not enough was done to prevent 9/11 from happening. I don't think it could have been prevented. And as for examples: ala.org.

by oz_media

Stats on a news broadcast some time ago (about a year)were that only 7% of Americans actually own a passport. In order to have over half of your population (the non-Bush/AntiAmericans) to leave, you would have to get over 43% of your population to get a passport.

This also shows just exactly how you don't understand how the rest of the world sees you and how some even think others want to live in America. America (sorry MOST of America) looks inward and sees themselves from a US perspective, therefore there is no way in hel you could ever hope to have an idea of how you look from OUTSIDE the country.

how can you possibly state your opinions on other country's governments,? How can you possibly speak with any credibility about any other part of the world? All MOST people have to go on is what they are told, which is censored by the White House, downplayed as left or right wing or even discounted by the president if it seems fitting. Either way, you have so little access to outside information that you are simply left in the dark.

This explains exactly why every country OUTSIDE America is on the same page as far as what is going on in Iraq, and how Americans see a completely different story.

Freedom? What freedom? Just like a mouse in a shoebox house, while the rest of the world is looking in at you, you are trying to peer out through the airholes in your shoebox so you can dictate how the rest of the world should react.