KRC

It is weighted towards the U.S. in the fact that we pay more dues than any other member (22% I believe). Other than that, any member of the Security Council can defeat any action. Take North Korea for example. The UN will never impose sanctions on NK because China would veto it. Of course, the UN has proven to be too gutless to address the NK situation, but if by some miracle they grew a spine and addressed it, China would shoot it down. It is weighted towards consensus on the Security Council. As far as the World Government thingy, I have to disagree with your opinion. They have been trying to push through resolutions and force countries to abide by these resolutions. This ranges anywhere from nuclear proliferation to gun laws, etc. It is trying to set itself up as a world government. They just have a little trouble with the implimentation part. Countries basically do what they want.

I thought the U.S. was supposed to be subservient to the UN?

Why shouldn't you consider the organization as a whole? There are good and bad things. I do not see why you should separate them.

Well, we can wait decades for them to pass countless resolutions stating that they might possibly do something in the future, but they do not want to commit to anything at this time for fear of upsetting someone.

Guilty until proven innocent. Ain't this country great?

...but, if the money is not pulled out, where is the incentive to change the system for the better?

How do you suggest that the U.S. pressure the UN to reform, if not by witholding dues? It will never happen if they are left to do it themselves. The Dems do not want Bolton, someone who would go there to kick some azz.

No, but it doesn't hurt. Just make sure the butler serves it at the right temperature.

I am partial to Chimay Grande Reserve and Hoegaarden. I have purchased both in WNY.

Actually, I see the point being made and the justified criticism of his remarks. He said that the treatment of the prisoners directly equates to the Nazi's, Soviet's, and Pol Pot's treatment of prisoners. Saying that if you leave out the fact that it was an FBI report about Gitmo, you would not be able to tell the difference between the American's treatment of the detainees and the Nazi's, Soviet's and Pol Pot's treatment of their prisoners. It is a direct comparison and highly irresponsible. It also shows blatant ignorance of history on the part of Durbin. How many millions were slaughtered at the hands of those brutal regimes? It does not even come close to what is happening at Gitmo.

No, you can see who is in it.

Then, why did you order seconds? Just to make sure your initial impressions were correct?

If that is Bensalem, it is about 15 minutes from where my Backers club watches the games.

I am old, but not that old.

Me. I am the one on the left.

There is already a Philly Bills Backers Club. Philly Bills Backers

What are the chances that would even make it out of committee?

They are not shots. They are very long needles. Stop scaring the guy.

I know that you are being sarcastic, but ironically you are making a case for the Amendment with this statement. See how you react to the burning of a symbol of something you care about? The same reaction could happen with burning the flag. It is a symbol of something you care about. For some, the burning of the flag could result in "dropping the gloves and coming over the boards." I personally think it falls under the free speech thingy, but do you see my point? There could be negative consequences (violence) to actions like burning the flag. Does this equate to yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater or am I stretching things too far?

I say do both (Reiki and Chiropractics). He already knows a good Reiki practitioner, so what could it hurt.

Yup. Chiropractors do work. I was in a car accident a while back and the chiropractor worked wonders on my neck pain. Of course, there is always Reiki.

To me, his MO is that he is trying to sound more intelligent than he really is. I do not think that he is trying to shift the discussion, at least not intentionally.

You are just jealous that you are not on the same intellectual plane as beausox.

The old site was a little better (not much, but a little). It looks like they are still in the process of revamping things. The best thing would be to call them.

I stand corrected. Title 18 Section 1401: * Anyone born inside the United States * Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe * Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S. * Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national * Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year * Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21 * Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time) * A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.