UN to Have Say

[Fla._Deadheader]

  UN summit: corn on table or in tank?


  Can't scroll the whole page, and have no idea why that Link] shows up on the beginning of the URL ???

[Don_Papenburg]

The UN has no place in this race .  We have given them so much surplus corn and they cannot get it to the people that need it .  The UN tends to dump it at the dictators stoop and leave . 

[olyman]

The UN has no place in this race .  We have given them so much surplus corn and they cannot get it to the people that need it .  The UN tends to dump it at the dictators stoop and leave . 

un??? the most worthless despot org ever--nuts with them---when pat buchanan ran for pres--said the first thing hed do after elected was  to send all the despots back to where they come from, and blow that bldg to the ground--sounded like a good plan to me----

[Toolman]

SCREW THE U.N. !!!!!


They are'nt our elected officials. We don't need to answer to these creeps. U.N. represents governments that are dictatorships, communist and civil rights violators. I have no respect for their hypocracy and corruption. We have enough of that in Washington. I'm all for tearing down that U.N. building and getting away from that organized criminal empire.

Sorry If I offended anyone, but some things just have to be said.

[Handy Andy]

  I heard pres Bush say something about an organiztions of democracies the other day.  Maybe the big shots are thinking about getting rid of the UN american organization too.

[Tom]

 :P  The UN isn't an American oranization.  ???

[Toolman]

Read an article recently where the UN wants the U.S. and other members to contribute .7% of their nations gross national product to this organization for "so called" humanitarian aid. An interview with Barak Obama recently had him saying he supported this and he thought "it was the right thing to do". God help us.  Remember the oil for food scandal?
Socialism placed upon us one inch at a time. Marxism would be more accurate. This crap is'nt what my Grandfather fought for back in 1942. >:( >:(

[Osric]

hmmm....I always thought we were fighting Nazism/Fascism in WWII.  Those far RIGHT organizations which spouted nationalism to the extreme.  Didn't realize we were fighting communism/Marxism.  Pretty sure we were allies with those guys in 42....

[ely]

i am not gonna argue about what we were fighting for or who we were fighting with in 42.
i will say that i aggree with the UN being a worthless group as a whole. the US does not need anyone outside telling them how to conduct business on our soil.
i hear all the time how the UN wants global gun control, of course they do.
i have no use for a politician that aggrees with the UN too.
not too sure i have a use for a politician that opposes the UN ;D

[Toolman]

Whether it is Nazism/Fascism or Communism/Marxism. They are both worthless entities. The UN represents all of them. It is a waste of tax dollars cozying up to any of it. It's bad enough we're trading with China. What a slap in the face to those who died fighting against communism all these years. That's all I'm gonna say about that.

I don't speak for left or right. I speak as an American. That's it. I stand behind the Constitution, that's it. Nothing more, nothing less.
You have to stand for something, or you'll fall for anything. I stand for freedom and Capitalism. 8) 8) Those elitist in the UN certainly don't. ;) ;)

[OneWithWood]

The UN serves a purpose for communicating when diplomatic channels are otherwise closed.
It is important that the countries of the world have these channels or diplomacy is near impossible.
I know we do not like others telling us what to do - We sure don't have a problem with telling the rest of the world what they should do  :D

Look around, The US is part of the global community.  It does not serve the country well to attempt to use force to get our way.  Diplomacy pays far greater dividends.

Yes, the UN can seem frustrating at times but to not have such an organization would be much more frustrating and a lot more dangerous.

[Dan_Shade]

I'm certainly no supporter of the UN, but I've come to realize that we are citizens of a sovreign nation, but we are not subjects under the UN (regardless of what Europe would like us to believe).  If we like what they are doing, our administration normally goes along with it, if we don't like it, we don't go along with it. 

All in all, we are in a position to pick and choose what we want to abide by with the UN. 

It's not all bad.

[zopi]

you can't spell unamerican without UN...

I got a strongly worded letter from the UN last week as well as a parking ticket from Ivor VA....I paid the parking ticket.

and besides...those blue berets are....ummm....a poor accessory..lol

[Toolman]

As far as diplomacy is concerned, we have embassys in virtually every country we have relations with. Diplomacy is conducted through those channels. We are the most generous nation on the planet. When an eartquake, tsunami, or any other disaster occurs, we are are usually the first ones to offer ground  and financial support. Heck, we helped Iran a few short years back when they had that big earthquake. We did'nt need the UN to accomplish that mission. We don't need UN for actions of diplomacy. We give millions of dollars a year to this elitist, corrupt organization. This is money that could be used to help those that are in need, not to those that are into greed.  We used to belong to a similar organization called The League of Nations years ago and it collapsed due to corruption and inability to get anything done. Hopefully history will repeat itself, it usually always does.

[olyman]

As far as diplomacy is concerned, we have embassys in virtually every country we have relations with. Diplomacy is conducted through those channels. We are the most generous nation on the planet. When an eartquake, tsunami, or any other disaster occurs, we are are usually the first ones to offer ground  and financial support. Heck, we helped Iran a few short years back when they had that big earthquake. We did'nt need the UN to accomplish that mission. We don't need UN for actions of diplomacy. We give millions of dollars a year to this elitist, corrupt organization. This is money that could be used to help those that are in need, not to those that are into greed.  We used to belong to a similar organization called The League of Nations years ago and it collapsed due to corruption and inability to get anything done. Hopefully history will repeat itself, it usually always does.

tomorrow morning wouldnt be soon enough--maybe the muslims that blew the twin towers--will make a mistake, and hit the un bldg--------------------

[Toolman]

I doubt muslim extremists would attack the same building that houses those that support them and their cause

[beenthere]

.............................
tomorrow morning wouldnt be soon enough--maybe the muslims that blew the twin towers--will make a mistake, and hit the un bldg--------------------

I don't like that thought at all... any life is more important than that.

[zopi]

.............................
tomorrow morning wouldnt be soon enough--maybe the muslims that blew the twin towers--will make a mistake, and hit the un bldg--------------------

I don't like that thought at all... any life is more important than that.

I must agree...despite my general agreement with the Bard..

[OneWithWood]

Actually we do not have embassies in the countries we most need to keep some open channel of communication with.  Iran and N. Korea come to mind.  This is why being able to use th UN as a diplomatic channel is so important.  The reps at the UN can and do talk directly to one another without the need to filter through some country that has official relations with countries we do not.

There are bad players in every organization.  Why let them win the day by turning our back on the promise of dialogue.  We have nothing to loose by continuing our support of the UN and much to loose if such an organization did not exist.  The world is suffering from a clash of ideologies.  Those differences are best aired in a neutral environment with open dialogue.  Minds are never opened by war, but deep seated hatreds are definately spawned when one power attempts to force its ideology on another.  It is the controlling by force that gives rise to and nourishes insurgency. 

The promise of the United States lies not in its military prowess or 'my way or the highway' bravado.  The promise of this great country is manifested in leading by example.  We should utilize the UN to set a good example and lead accordingly.  Despots are seen to be despots only when there is something of recognized good to compare them to.

[ARKANSAWYER]

  The UN is a waste of time and money.  Their "Millennium Goals"  Is a good one.  They want to end poverty by 2015.  Take from the rich countrys and give it to the poor.  I can see the Shiek of some Arab country driving the same car as me or leaving his large mansion to move into the mobile home next door.   Treating all genders the same.  Yep I can see the Muslim guys taking that one to heart and embracing it.  How come the mighty UN does not do something about Dunfar in the Sudan or what ever it is where the ones are killing the others and the UN is feeding the countrys with the free food we give them.
  You know we was doing pretty good till we stepped into WWII and thought we had to save the World.  There was a time when the USA minded it own business for the most part.  Since we kicked the Brits out and settled our own affairs we was doing pretty good.
  Some times you have to let other peoples settle their own affairs.  We do not like folks a messing with us. 

[Osric]

  You know we was doing pretty good till we stepped into WWII and thought we had to save the World.  There was a time when the USA minded it own business for the most part.  Since we kicked the Brits out and settled our own affairs we was doing pretty good.
  Some times you have to let other peoples settle their own affairs.  We do not like folks a messing with us. 

While I agree with the sentiment that sometimes you need to let people settle their own affairs, I have to wonder by what standard you think we had it pretty good until WWII?  The USA was pretty much an under performing backwater that (while thought as a "sleeping giant"), was pretty insignificant by any industrialized standard.

[Toolman]

Osric,

I am not quite sure where you are getting your info., But I remember my grandfather tellling me how disappointed he was with this country when he passed on 7 yrs. ago. He was a life long factory worker, a simple person who hated the thought of a government handout, including social security. Simple math will prove social security is the biggest rip off and poor investment of hard earned money. But, he would tell me how self sufficient this country was up to and including the years of WWII. Nearly everything that most households used was made here in the U.S. During the WWII everyone pulled together and rationed metals, clothe, and food to supply materials to produce equipment for military. Wives worked in steel mills and other factories while their husbands fought the war. We produced most of what we used. It wasnt stamped made in China. The country started going ass backwards when Roosevelt, who was a flaming liberal, duped us with the income tax. He called it the "Victory Tax".. It was only to remain until the war was over. It was supposed to help pay for the war. I quess were still paying for that war because it never went away. Then, he enacted the social security tax, which was supposed to pay benefits for retirement. After the U.S. Supreme court shot that down twice, he had it ok'd
by those he appointed throughout his 4 terms as president. Suddenly after his appointees were put in place, the social security law was deemed constitutional by his appointed Supreme court. The Supreme court previously ruled that it is unconstitutional to force an American to pay for a benefit that he/she does not choose to participate in. Today, our goveernment calls that a monopoly, when they do it, they call it a beneficial program.

So, today things are certainly worse off. Most products`produced overseas, loss of freedom of choice, and a society that is more concerned about how outsiders think of us, instead of us taking care of our own. I've read alot about the 1940's and it's obvious we we're a true super power then.

[Ron Wenrich]

My great uncle used to tell me if our forefathers had as much gumption as the people of the day, they never would have gotten beyond the Susquehanna river.  That was in 1964.

A liittle history, just to improve accuracy of any rants.   ;)  The income tax was proposed by Adam Smith in 1776 in The Wealth of Nations.  He proposed a progressive tax that would tax the rich.  It was also proposed in 1848 by Karl Marx in the Communist Manifesto.  The first income tax passed in the US was in 1861.  The president at that time was Abraham Lincoln.  The tax was later rescinded in 1872 and was tried to be renacted in 1894.  The 16th Amendment made the income tax constitutional in 1913.  The president at that time was Woodrow Wilson.  Roosevelt had nothing to do with enacting the income tax.

Social Security was enacted in 1937 and was part of the New Deal.  Social Security wasn't what was struck down by the court, and was upheld in Helvering vs Davis.  It had to do with other portions of the New Deal.  Particularly where the federal government had forced unemployment insurance on the states.  It was a seperation of state and federal government powers type of struggle.  Social Security was seen as a way to allow older workers a means to retire and allow younger workers to get jobs.  It was viewed as a ways to reduce unemployment, considering they were coming off of the Great Depression.  Its those glory years before WWII, from 1928-1939. 

The judge packing bill that you described sought to have all judges removed after the age of 70½.  That would have removed 6 judges from the Supreme Court.  The bill did not pass. 

Just for the record, I don't really classify myself as a flaming liberal.  But, I do like to look at things in a factual way.  The reality is China has a massive labor force that will work for a lot less than Americans.  Even with our improved productivity rates, its hard to compete with those rates.  China has linked their currency to ours, since we are their biggest market.  That has flooded the US with Chinese goods where Americans are extremely willing to hand over their paycheck for the trinkets.  You can thank Park Ave. and Walmart for that.  If we didn't buy it, they wouldn't be selling it.

I'm also a big supporter of the Fair Tax.  That would do away with the Income Tax and implement a 27% consumption tax.  It would cover all US expenditures and would only be on new goods and services.  It would encourage savings where the income tax encourages consumption.  I'm sure there's some problems with it, but its better than having a law that no one understands.

Social Security is here to stay.  My opinion is that privitization would be an utter failure.  The proposal is that the feds would tell you where you could put your cash.  To much possibility for corruption.  There is also a proposal for means testing, which would penalize those of us that have been able to save money.   People in this country don't want to save.  My parents were Depression kids and have taught me to pay for what I get and to stay out of debt. 

Yes, some people are worse off.  But, even those in "poverty" are better off than many wealthy people in other countries.  Its all in how you want to measure things.

[OneWithWood]

Thank-you, Ron, for those clarifications.

I agree with your fair tax approach and your take on social security.

I guess that makes you a 'flaming liberal' by association  :D

[Osric]

Well, I'm getting my information from my profession.  I'm a history teacher (failed professor?) and have done my share of research in US history.

Prior to WWII, the US wasn't a 'great' country by just about any standard.  Other countries had higher standards of living, better paying jobs, put more money into research, etc.  We were a "sleeping giant" because other countries looked at us, saw our vast resources and economic potential and were justifiably concerned (there was  a big school of thought in the late 1800s and early 1900s that projected that the two countries most likely to replace England/France/Germany et. al. on the world stage was the USA and Russia (this is pre soviet union), based completely on the idea that those two countries had the most resources available to them.

WWII gave us the opportunity to capitalize on our potential.  Our industrial base exploded, our workforce became highly skilled, equal rights became an issue (because women and African Americans weren't accepted in the military and found ways to serve at home), our economy stabilized (brought about in part because of the New Deal programs, in part because of the expansion of the workforce).

It is easy for people to look back at the 'good ole days'.  I'm guilty of that myself and I haven't reached 40 yet.  But I'm also painfully aware that if I lived 20, 40 or 100 years ago, my standard of living would be minuscule compared to what it is today.