DC Tom Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 Darin, I agree with him. I believe the French government and our two major polical parties would give the UN a run for their money on the corruptness. 226033[/snapback] The Italian government's probably up there, too. And the Russians. Actually, now that I think of it, I'd bet the Russians are worse than the UN, with the strength of their organized crime... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 The Italian government's probably up there, too. And the Russians. Actually, now that I think of it, I'd bet the Russians are worse than the UN, with the strength of their organized crime... 226055[/snapback] Ah, but at least the Russians are theoretically beholden to their citizens. The UN is beholden to no one - and that's pretty darn obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicot Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 I would believe that the opposition to the war as a generally bad idea from Germany, more than I do from France. PS - The jury is still out on whether it was the wrong decision. PSS - Did you vote? 226042[/snapback] No, I didn't vote. I replied before - you must have missed the reply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 Ah, but at least the Russians are theoretically beholden to their citizens. The UN is beholden to no one - and that's pretty darn obvious. 226171[/snapback] The UN is proof of humanity's inherent evil nature. Created as a "do-good" organization, it's become just another waste of the labors of mankind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 Ah, but at least the Russians are theoretically beholden to their citizens.... 226171[/snapback] Darin made another funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 No, I didn't vote. I replied before - you must have missed the reply. 226185[/snapback] Just caught it now. OTOH, you can look at it as an absentee ballot that is allowed for expats of other countries - especially, now there's an opportunity to have an opinion on how the government is constructed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fartacus Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 Anyone see Hotel Rwanda? That sums up the UN right there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 I have never said France had not interests in Iraq, but you really consider us like s... if you think "the opposition to the war was STRICTLY based on this". When your own interests and the interests of the world are the same, it's perfect! France is no white dove but it's not the evil player the american conservatives like to describe. 225823[/snapback] I never said France was the ONLY hypocrite on the block... we can look in the mirror and see that here... I'm just pointing out France's vested interest in seeing Saddam retain power. American conservatives love to stand and deliver sermons, telling everyone that the government is too big and government regulation is bad, while forcing people to adhere to the federal government's views on medical marijuana, alcohol age limits, etc... they are hypocrites just the same as liberals are, but neither side never admits it! Politicians just go issue by issue, and throw out phrases like 'big government' to serve their own ends!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 I never said France was the ONLY hypocrite on the block... we can look in the mirror and see that here... I'm just pointing out France's vested interest in seeing Saddam retain power. American conservatives love to stand and deliver sermons, telling everyone that the government is too big and government regulation is bad, while forcing people to adhere to the federal government's views on medical marijuana, alcohol age limits, etc... they are hypocrites just the same as liberals are, but neither side never admits it! Politicians just go issue by issue, and throw out phrases like 'big government' to serve their own ends!! 226457[/snapback] Now there are two great pillars in the halls of freedom: Smoke dope and drink young. Those are some great causes. I can't think of any better examples of freedom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olivier in france Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 I never said France was the ONLY hypocrite on the block... we can look in the mirror and see that here... I'm just pointing out France's vested interest in seeing Saddam retain power. American conservatives love to stand and deliver sermons, telling everyone that the government is too big and government regulation is bad, while forcing people to adhere to the federal government's views on medical marijuana, alcohol age limits, etc... they are hypocrites just the same as liberals are, but neither side never admits it! Politicians just go issue by issue, and throw out phrases like 'big government' to serve their own ends!! 226457[/snapback] he Badinguet, in those issues all our governments are the same... our law books are getting bigger each year and our taxes go the same way while they are telling us for decades that big government is bad .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 Now there are two great pillars in the halls of freedom: Smoke dope and drink young. Those are some great causes. I can't think of any better examples of freedom. 226496[/snapback] States have the right to decide what laws are passed in their jurisdiction, and the federal government should only step in if the states are abridging people's rights as well as to exercise their GIVEN power in the Constitution. Why do you think the federal government could not FORCE the states to raise their drinking age to 21? They had no CONSTITUTIONAL basis for doing so... they had to threaten the states to get them to comply.. sounds like big government by Republicans to ME! Ohh, but that is silly... reducing government only applies to giving CERTAIN people less regulation and freedom to do what they choose, i.e. the wealthy and special interests... that's wrong by my book. Why shouldn't a man be able to drink when he is 18? He's old enough to be drafted if it comes, volunteer to fight in the military, vote, and to be tried as an adult!! Why the double standard?? NO EXPLANATION by conservatives!!! Just a lot of lip service... why not raise EVERYTHING to 21?? interesting... hmmm... And I don't even DRINK hardly ever! It's about what is right. I'm against marijuana in ANY form, btw, BUT I truly believe it is up to the STATES to decide when it is appropriate for medicinal use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 he Badinguet, in those issues all our governments are the same... our law books are getting bigger each year and our taxes go the same way while they are telling us for decades that big government is bad .... 226938[/snapback] That is true... but if you are going to apply the principle of smaller government, you can't pick and choose like they try to do over here. It's all about being elected! There are two ways I could have pointed out French hypocrisy... I could have insulted France and called it a bunch of names, or I could reasonably explain through dialogue that it exists. HOWEVER, we're both in the same boat; our governments right now are letting prestige slip right through our fingers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicot Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 Just caught it now. OTOH, you can look at it as an absentee ballot that is allowed for expats of other countries - especially, now there's an opportunity to have an opinion on how the government is constructed. 226379[/snapback] I'm not sure that I'm even an expat in the strictest sense of the word, since I was born in Britain. Besides I probably would have voted for the Communists Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 States have the right to decide what laws are passed in their jurisdiction, and the federal government should only step in if the states are abridging people's rights as well as to exercise their GIVEN power in the Constitution. Why do you think the federal government could not FORCE the states to raise their drinking age to 21? They had no CONSTITUTIONAL basis for doing so... they had to threaten the states to get them to comply.. sounds like big government by Republicans to ME! Ohh, but that is silly... reducing government only applies to giving CERTAIN people less regulation and freedom to do what they choose, i.e. the wealthy and special interests... that's wrong by my book. Why shouldn't a man be able to drink when he is 18? He's old enough to be drafted if it comes, volunteer to fight in the military, vote, and to be tried as an adult!! Why the double standard?? NO EXPLANATION by conservatives!!! Just a lot of lip service... why not raise EVERYTHING to 21?? interesting... hmmm... And I don't even DRINK hardly ever! It's about what is right. I'm against marijuana in ANY form, btw, BUT I truly believe it is up to the STATES to decide when it is appropriate for medicinal use. 226959[/snapback] I was not arguing the merits of your post vis a vis states rights, but I do think your examples are less than stellar. In your first post you did not say anything about 18 or 21. You simply argued against age limits. I was wondering if you advocated any limits at all. While I agree that the States are currently too weak amd the Fed too strong, your post did not articulate your point very well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 your post did not articulate your point very well. 227136[/snapback] What a...surprise... Sorry, Rabid, you probably didn't catch that: it was "WHAT a...SURPRISE... " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 I'm not sure that I'm even an expat in the strictest sense of the word, since I was born in Britain. Besides I probably would have voted for the Communists 226982[/snapback] i hope you're joking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 I was not arguing the merits of your post vis a vis states rights, but I do think your examples are less than stellar. In your first post you did not say anything about 18 or 21. You simply argued against age limits. I was wondering if you advocated any limits at all. While I agree that the States are currently too weak amd the Fed too strong, your post did not articulate your point very well. 227136[/snapback] OK, good show I can understand what you are saying, the examples aren't exactly mainstream issues, but I was trying to drive home my point that you can never generalize with politicians... they are what they are; changing positions to fit their beliefs and throwing around phrases that only hold some sort of half-meaning Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts