DescentBB

"If you believe that this this country, not the United Nations, is best hope for Democracy, then you are a Republican."

-Arnold

I'd have to say that this has been the highlight of the RNC for me thus far. So thoughtless it's almost laughable.

I believe that the united nations is the best hope for wasting our time!

Then why did we create it?

Arnie kicked azz.

My highlight (or lowlight, depending on your perspective) was Mike Al-Moore giving the *loser* sign to John McCain (the man the Dems tried to draft as VP).

If you watched McCain's speech last night, and you watched it closely, you could see he didnt mean half of the sh*t he was shoveling.

And oh man, I thought the DNC was all song and dance, they aint got nothing on these jokers.

Heh....The DNC WAS all song and dance....literally.

I find it disgusting that both sides try to find celebrities to get to speak. Can't people think for themselves? Are there actually people out there that will take advice from a movie/music star? If so, I don't know if Bush is the worst person on the face of the earth anymore.

I'd agree with his statement in the sense that a self governing free people are a source of hope for democracy.
The UN is the same orginazation that put Saddam Hussain's Iraq in charge of their Human Rights Commision...

So, for me, the laughable factor lies in your thoughtless interpretation of his statement.
I'd say even MTV is a better hope for democracy than the U.N.!!!

So, let me get this straight: the United Nations, the democratic forum for the countries of this world, is bad for Democracy, but unilateral action (which isn't democratic) is good for Democracy?

Seems like "Democracy" is beginning to mean "American interests" to me. If not the United Nations, then what democratic forum should we have for the world?

The UN has worked for the last 50 years but now it's laughable huh? They responded to many conflicts, Korea, Kosovo, Somalia, the Gulf War, they aren't afraid to commit to battle but when they ask questions about a Texan's tough talk, they become obsolete. They disagreed with the US's war cry and they proved to be correct, the immediate mushroom cloud danger turned out to be wishful thinking.

My fellow immigrants, my fellow Americans, how do you know if you are a Republican? I'll tell you how. If you believe that government should be accountable to the people, not the people to the government--then you are a Republican! If you believe a person should be treated as an individual, not as a member of an interest group--then you are a Republican! If you believe your family knows how to spend your money better than the government does--then you are a Republican! If you believe our educational system should be held accountable for the progress of our children--then you are a Republican! If you believe this country, not the United Nations is the best hope of democracy in the world--then you are a Republican!

Funny...Rebublicans converted the government to where the people are accountable to it. Republicans also have been the heaviest lobbyist-accepting party I've heard about, Rebublicans reps were the ones everyone battled to 'stay out of my wallet, and out of my bedroom', and the ones who screwed up the education system in the first place! Damn, talk about propaganda, he would do Hitler proud. Does he really believe all this? Reagan and Bush Sr set all the corporate raping precedents during their terms (from way back in the 80's), and opened the floodgates for governmental control of the population in the first place, and doggedly continue today to make Orwell a reality. Thanks to hate-filled, religion-blinded, "you can't have fun" conservatives, it will be a reality, and they will deserve it. Thing is, they're dragging me down their hellhole with them.

Testiculese wrote:Funny...Rebublicans converted the government to where the people are accountable to it. Republicans also have been the heaviest lobbyist-accepting party I've heard about, Rebublicans reps were the ones everyone battled to 'stay out of my wallet, and out of my bedroom', and the ones who screwed up the education system in the first place! Damn, talk about propaganda, he would do Hitler proud. Does he really believe all this? Reagan and Bush Sr set all the corporate raping precedents during their terms (from way back in the 80's), and opened the floodgates for governmental control of the population in the first place, and doggedly continue today to make Orwell a reality. Thanks to hate-filled, religion-blinded, "you can't have fun" conservatives, it will be a reality, and they will deserve it. Thing is, they're dragging me down their hellhole with them.

Sorry, dude, I'm sure you're an OK guy in real life, but this kind of rant is exactly the problem with a great big part of your party these days. And you guys are claiming that it's REPUBLICANS that are the ones who have divided the country.

Now, be honest, right or wrong, a Republican says something and you come back with that. And that's supposed to make the Rep take heart and better understand your viewpoints? LMFAO!

My party? I don't have a party. I hate both sides. Lying, inconsiderate, self-serving..I can go on and on.

The only difference I see is that Republicans are more corporate-criminal than Democrats. The reason this country is so screwed up is because of...corporate criminals.

For me, the highlights so far have been Ahnold's stated affection for Nixon, and Jenna and the other one's brilliant analysis of the issues of the day.

Testiculese wrote:My party? I don't have a party. I hate both sides. Lying, inconsiderate, self-serving..I can go on and on.

The only difference I see is that Republicans are more corporate-criminal than Democrats. The reason this country is so screwed up is because of...corporate criminals.

Wow... hating way more than half of the country. How's that workin' for ya?

kufyit wrote:Seems like "Democracy" is beginning to mean "American interests" to me.

Oh crap, he figured out the code. Now he must be liquidated!

The UN has never been a democratic body. If it were all decisions would be made by the General Assembly and not by the Security Council. As it stands the GA has almost no authority beyond being the pool from which the permanent SC members draw and rotate temporary SC members from.

But we digress...

How does one become a delegate to the UN anyway? I dont recall seeing an option for a UN delegate on either of the last two ballots I filled out for an election. Seems might undemocratic to me.

Ahnold calling the Democrats "Economic gurly men" and quoting from his movie True Lies. This isn't politics, its such Hollywood bullshiz...its a mockery.

The Bush/Kerry daughters were on the VMAs the other night (dunno if anyone has talked about this yet because I skim this forum) but everyone was booing them. MTV had to almost completely tune out the crowd. nobody has faith in the system anymore because of ridiculousness like Arnold's speech; like Giuliani and McKain talking about September 11th in EVERY OTHER SENTENCE.

I find it funny that they had preformers doing showtunes...I thought the GOP was anti-gay. Hmmm

Its just a big joke. Washington and Hollywood are one and the same.

kufyit wrote:So, let me get this straight: the United Nations, the democratic forum for the countries of this world, is bad for Democracy, but unilateral action (which isn't democratic) is good for Democracy?

The 'democratic forum' or the concept of all the worlds nations working together is great...in theory. In reality it is nothing like you seem to assume it is and so in reality america *has* been good for democracy and consistantly more so than the U.N. ....in reality.

Arnold may have been a bit of a tool to imply republicans are the ones who understand americas potential but his trying to steer credit to only his party doesn't take away from the fact that america *is* good for democracy. And just because idealistic kids *think* of the U. N. as something like the Justice League...super heros working together for the good of the planet under the leadership of Superman etc. doesn't mean it's really not a collection of thugs and dictators more than it's the home of democracy and justice!!
Just do an inventory of the U.N. member countries and count the democracy's represented compared to the dictatorships, theocracy's, warlords, etc.
Just count them up and get back to me OK.
Remember, making Iraq the U.N.'s leader on human rights isn't the only contribution the 'wonderful' U.N. has given the world. The whole oil for food scam is typical of their efforts. What good has the U.N ever done of it's own volition anyway? I really can't think of anything substantial...bunch of thugs extorting each other for the rubber stamp.

************************

Zuruck, what has the U.N. actually done for Somalia...Kosovo....etc!? What action did they initiate? What resolution did they back with action? Did they do *anything* for Somalia yet other than count the dead and say "Oh my!"
They send in a few troops a few years too late then pull out in time for tea....Heh!

"Remember, making Iraq the U.N.'s leader on human rights isn't the only contribution the 'wonderful' U.N. has given the world."

Remember, the USA was integral in Saddam Hussain gaining power and obtaining the weapons used to create mass graves.

We armed him to kill Iranians. He did just that. We picked the right guy for the job...we did a good job.

We later disarmed him before he became too powerful to interfere with our interests...we did a good job... again.

Our methods were imperfect and short sighted but we had a reason for it.

The U.N. picked him for human rights leader...why?
What reason would the so called pinacle of democracy have for making Saddam Hussain Human Rights Czar?

Zuruck wrote:...they aren't afraid to commit to battle...

Remember a place called R'wanda? The genocide? While a million +, Tutsi and Hutu moderates were slaughtered, the UN debated.
Who was the head of the UN peacekeeping operations at that time, ...oh yes Kofe Annan!
Did a great job!
Name sound familiar? Present Secratary General of the United Nations.
Now another genocide is underway in Dafur in The Sudan.
The UN?
Still debating!

Beowulf wrote:talking about September 11th in EVERY OTHER SENTENCE.

*Cough* Micheal Moore. *Cough*

So Republicans can't do it too?

So let me get this straight: Putting saddam hussain in power was a good idea?

Let me get this straight: We needed saddam to keep Iran in check, yet now they are developing nuclear weapons. Now we have to either stay in Iraq to keep them in check, or leave it up to the fledging Iraq government.

Let me ask you this: How would you like it if another bigger country installed whoever they pleased whenever it was in their interest?

Birds, the US had nothing to do with Hussein's rise to power and only very little (late in the Iraq-Iran War) with providing military support. As far as WMDs, the fingers point elsewhere.

From a study by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute:

Origin of the Chemical Weapons

The UN report provides only negative evidence of the origin of the mustard gas sample. The absence in the sample analysed in Sweden and Switzerland of polysulphides and of more than a trace of sulphur indicates that it is not of past US-government manufacture, for all US mustard was made by the Levinstein process from ethylene and mixed sulphur chlorides. That process is also said to have been the one used by the USSR. From similar reasoning, British-made mustard, too, can probably be ruled out, even though substantial stocks were once held at British depots in the Middle East. For more positive evidence other sources of information must be used. Over the years since the mid-1960s quite a lot of information has been published purporting to describe Iraqi chemical weapons, but much of it is contradictory and all of it is of a reliability which SIPRI is in no position to judge. A major caveat must be entered: chemical warfare is such an emotive subject that it lends itself very readily to campaigns of disinformation and black propaganda, campaigns which the politics both of the Gulf War and of the current chemical-weapons negotiations have unquestionably stimulated to no small degree.

Indigenous or external sources of supply?

With the exceptions, maybe, of the last two of these different categories of putative Iraqi agent, sources of supply might as well be indigenous as external to Iraq, given the technology implied. Involvement of the last three categories would, in some circles, implicate the USSR as supplier, for the reason that the USSR is said, on evidence that has yet to be solidly substantiated but which has nonetheless attracted some firm believers, to have weaponized all three of them in recent years. For its part, the USSR has expressly denied supplying Iraq with toxic weapons. Reports of Soviet supply attributed to US and other intelligence sources have nonetheless recurred. The earliest predate reports of Iraqi use of chemical weapons in the Gulf War.

Official Iranian commentaries, too, have pointed to the USSR as a supplier of the Iraqi weapons. These sources have also accused Brazil, France and, most conspicuously, Britain of supplying the weapons. No basis for any of these Iranian accusations has been disclosed. France, alongside Czechoslovakia and both Germanies, is reportedly also rumoured, among "foreign military and diplomatic sources" in Baghdad, to have supplied Iraq with chemical precursors needed for an indigenous production effort. Unofficial published sources have cited Egypt as a possible supplier of actual chemical weapons. In the mid-1960s, when Iraq was alleged to be using chemical weapons against insurgent Kurdish forces, Swiss and German sources of supply were reported in the Western press.

http://projects.sipri.se/cbw/research/f ... -1984.html

USA <3 Cheney!

Dude, did they have his grand daughters make the signs?

Birdseye, I'm not trying to debate the pro's and cons of our support for Saddam when it served our interest. I'm just responding to your point in the context of the U.N. debate in this thread: I know why we helped Saddam, no matter how shortsighted or even counter productive it turned out to be, I know why we did it - to hurt our enemy.

I don't think I have even a guess as how it benefits democracy...world peace..or even just the good of the U.N. itself picking Iraq for anything related to human rights.

Short answer:
No matter how bad an idea it was using Saddam for our anti-Iranian activity it's beyond the realm of bad ideas to make Saddam in charge of human rights and that makes the U.N. even worse than the terribly evil U.S. Therefore your comments do nothing to make my case against the U.N. any weaker.

To answer your question: "Let me ask you this: How would you like it if another bigger country installed whoever they pleased whenever it was in their interest?"

I wouldn't and I strongly support the kind of leadership that will maintain our strength so we can deter that from happening when it doesn't serve our interests.
I'm not about fair, I'm about winning, this is not a sport.
My recipe for success. One planet, one culture. Only then world peace, *then* luxuries like fairness.

Did anyone watch Zell Miller get torn up on CNN, and then MSNBC 5 minutes later? Oh man. I think he challenged Chris Matthews to a duel!

I wish I had

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/mar20 ... -m29.shtml

I don't see very little involvement bash. Of course, I'm probably reading a liberal site and you're a wealth of knowledge so what's the point right?

Zuruck, if for one minute you're going to try to pass off the "World Socialist International" as a source you're not going to get very far.

Is that the website? I didn't really look. It had information on what I was looking for. The first websites that came up when I searched were iranchamber.com and I knew that wouldn't get far. Oh well, they all say the same thing. What site could I use DCrazy that you guys would accept?

I dunno, I actually think books might be a better source of information than the Internet.

Vander wrote:Did anyone watch Zell Miller get torn up on CNN, and then MSNBC 5 minutes later? Oh man. I think he challenged Chris Matthews to a duel!

I watched the MSNBC video on their website after hearing a lot of talk about it. It seemed like the two had a lot of trouble hearing each other.

I liked when he told Matthews to shut up and let him answer. I think that's the first time he's ever let any guest answer a question without interrupting. He did look a bit more angry than I'd hoped, though the duel bit sounded like a total joke. He's definitely an old southerner with the voice of a preacher -- I half expected to hear someone shout "AMEN!" at the high points of his speech.

His actual speech (Video transcript) was quite good. I'm surprised at all the "wow, Cheney and Miller were angry" comments I've heard -- sounds like people were reading partial transcripts and Democratic websites, rather than watching the speeches themselves. Cheney's speech (Video transcript) was very calm, and didn't contain a lot of statements about Kerry until near the end, where he says "[Kerry] speaks often of his service in Vietnam, and we honor him for it. But there is also a record of more than three decades since." Cheney then outlines Kerry's record over the last 3 decades -- and I've noticed nobody has challenged the substance of his statements, only the tone.

As for the UN: how can an organization where only about 25% of the member states are anything close to "democracies" be considered the world's best hope for democracy? In theory, the UN should be a lot of things, but in practice, it's simply ineffective.

"I'm surprised at all the "wow, Cheney and Miller were angry" comments I've heard -- sounds like people were reading partial transcripts and Democratic websites, rather than watching the speeches themselves."

I don't see how anyone can be suprised that someone might find Miller's speech "angry." Good lord, Man! Did we watch the same speech? Miller scared me! I believe my exact words to my roommate were "this guy is scaring the ★■◆● outta me." I thought I was watching the Dark Lord of the Sith! (which is a characterization now floating around lefty websites, but I thought so in real time, honest!) Not to mention the half truths both Miller and Cheney spouted. Both speeches were attack speeches, and can easily be interpreted as "angry" IMO.

As far as Miller on MSNBC is concerned, I agree that there was some communication difficulty going on that contributed to Miller's anger, but Miller was in a similarly agitated state during his CNN interview a few minutes before. He just couldn't back his ★■◆● up when confronted to explain himself. He kept reaching for his sheet of paper that contained more documentation than the Library of Congress.(a line he used in both interviews) I think this probably set him up to lose his cool with Matthews.

And Bush, well, I just gave up on watching his speech.

Woah...did you see that? Some woman was getting hauled out violently during bushs speech.

Yeah, the Secret Service probably doesn't take kindly to violent trespassers.

All around I would give the RNC pwnage over the DNC. Better speeches, better organization, clearer message and better looking women. That said, both Kerry and Bush' speeches were too long and too tedious. The debates will be far more interesting.

Bush's speech really built up toward the end. It's a shame you gave up on it, V.

W wrote:Some folks look at me and see a certain swagger, which in Texas is called.... "walking."