jattaway

Pan beat me to the punch, here is a great article that discusses this and related issues in great detail. http://www.rppi.org/ourscience.shtml

The United States has claim to all entities outside of our atmosphere. Oh, and Canada, not sure why we want it, but we do.

You will, I hope, concede that Global Warming IS a theory and there are plenty of scientists on both sides of the proverbial fence willing to debate it? I will certainly agree that I can not imagine a link between abortion and Breast Cancer, but while I am a huge fan of breasts and the practice of procreation, I do not consider myself an expert (I do, however, intend to continue my research). That said, what is your central point? That Bush is a danger to the sciences? I would be happy to argue against that, I am a firm believer of a certain morality needing to be applied to science. I admit, that Hitler made great medical and scientific breakthroughs, I would rather have waited 20 years though and not had countless jews used as test subjects. Please define your arguement, it is too vague as it stands.

While I would prefer for the voting population in the US to WANT to learn the national language, any citizen should be able to vote. There have been many times in our early history where a language was not shared, what is the difference between our early German, Dutch, French and Gaelic speaking founders? English is the national language, most Americans speak it, but it is nothing new for the great melting pot....

I guess 60 years ago was a long time ago, though the French and the rest of us should remember it well, I am sure they felt safe and secure behind their little line in the sand. I do not really fear an invasion of the US, though there was a great quote from a former soviet Flag Officer, ref there being no plan for the invasion of the United States due to the fact that our population was armed. A 100 million man armed militia is an impressive thing, even against modern weaponry. All that aside, we have gentle neighbors today, and I hope that it always stays that way, but times change. With terrorism changing warfare, it may be more appropriate than it looks at first glance. Also, who could argue that a nation whose population was armed was not more secure from invasion? Let me ask a couple of other questions, while I am at it... What do you think would happen if the people of North Korea were armed? What about China? That is an industrial nation, would the people rebel? I would be willing to wager that the government would be more open to their needs and wants if nothing else, at the very least! Our backgrounds are so different, that i don't think we will find much common ground here... Our points of reference are too disparate.

Hahah That is laughable. As I am sure you are well aware, being the economics expert who you must surely be, I am certain that you are only speaking in jest. As I am sure you are aware, member contributions are calculated based upon the total percentage of member nation contribution to the global economy. As the US represents roughly one fifth of that global economy, principally as a consumer of world goods, do you REALLY think that most nations of the world would be able to afford any form of sanction against us that prohibited us from buying their goods? Oh, there would bankrupt nations to be sure, but the US would not be one of them. For one thing, you do not have to be a member of the United Nations in order to trade with other member nations. Our withdrawal only effects our trade relations IF the UN attempts to sanction us. Given that various members with Veto rights require our trade to be able keep their nations healthy, I don’t see those sanctions happening. For another, with a 20-25% reduction in funds, the UN itself would be in serious financial difficulties. Can other nations pick up the slack? SURE! So long as they are given additional concessions, nothing comes for free, and that is also assuming that a new entity is not created that makes the UN obsolete. Why do we need more than NATO to begin with? Here are a few statistics that you may find interesting, spin them however you like. Rank Country GDP Date of Information 1 World $ 51,480,000,000,000 2003 est. 2 United States $ 10,990,000,000,000 2003 est. China, Japan and India combined are slightly larger than our economy, but no one else is even in the same league. Please allow me to get your expert opinion here… Given how dependent Japan and India are on the US economy and to a much lesser extent China, which way do you think the economic winds will blow with those nations? My opinion is that it will go in which ever way continues to allow them to sell goods in the US. Oh, another little tidbit for you. The top 5 nations are roughly equal to the GDP of the remainder of the world. Then again, we are all off topic. The US destroys more grain each year than most nations could consume, our farmers are paid by government subsidy to grow food that will rot in crates. In the event the US were ever truly isolated, which is a pipe dream that I am sure you richly enjoy, then we could feed ourselves and our neighbors with only minor issue. We are not an over crowded nation that can not ramp up whatever production is needed to feed ourselves, I would be interested to see where you came up with that particular epiphany. You may declare this egotistical; I would submit that the US flourishes because of our relations with other nations. That relationship does not have to involve supporting an entity, even one we created, whose goals are contrary to those of the United States, nor is our ability to trade with other nations necessarily tied to that relationship. The US is not an island, but the UN’s continued instance on meddling with our internal affairs has no place. We are a free people, we are more than capable of deciding what laws serve us best. A disarmed populous, which was the original post, serves no one other than our enemies.

Nevermind, I did the leg work for you. http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/rls/24236.htm We make up 22% of the total buget plus incedentals such as the HQ, various peace keeping forces etc. Before you start talking trade restrictions, with out the US to buy foreign goods, many nations would go bankrupt, so I would avoid talks of huge sweeping economic sanctions. They are empty threats that most nations can not afford. The reality is, a new entity would be formed and while the UN would continue on, its effect on the world would decline. In short, the US may lose veto rights, the UN loses its single biggest backer. I would call that even.

Dictated to us how? Via force of arms? With whose funding? Or whose army? Perhaps you should look up the percentages paid by member nations of total funds that go in to make up the UN before you jump off the deep end here. The numbers may shock you. I would like to see gun safety taught in the public schools, but it should rightly be the option of the State. It is not practical in all States, though I wish it were. In short, I am not in favor of any government mandate unless it comes from a localized State level. Then again, I am in favor of a mandatory 2 years of service in the armed forces after high school. So when people refer to the far right wing of American politics... Well, I see those chaps on my left.

Anyone who is more interested in saying what people want to hear rather than what he thinks has no business leading the most powerful nation in the world. George Bush is consistant in his views, and does what he says. Those are very important traits as far as I am concerned. From a political standpoint, I agree with nothing the left pushes. I believe they are attempting to enslave segments of our population through entitlements just has been done to the American Indian. Dependant people are not free. For me, the left has tried to replace working for what you want in life with a fat government who will give it to them so long as they continue to get their vote. This is doomed to failure, and while republicans are not much better they are by far the lesser of evils. I will vote for a democrat if he expresses a conviction to return the government to state control and shrink the federal government (e.g. Zell Miller) or I will vote for an independant if the democrat running is not a clear danger to the US (e.g. Kerry).

Most minds are made up with both sides detesting the other. THe point of rational discourse from either side is probably past at this point. Though, I really think (obviously being from the close minded Right) that Kerry and Edwards are still looking for a platform and have failed to take a stand on any issue in either debate. Kerry looked more polished than Bush in the first debate, so that was a win, on substance, I thought Bush did fine, but Kerry did great for having no real position on anything. In the VP debate, Edwards just looked inexperienced by comparison.

This site seems to have a lot of research done, I have not attempted to verify most of it, but should make for interesting discussion. http://townhall.townofchapelhill.org/archives/agendas/ca000508/5a-Information%20Report%20--%20World%20Trade%20Org.htm

Don't talk crazy pangloss, of course not. It is only a lie if you don't agree with it. It is the new "subjective" truth of the left. I was going to try to explain but ended up with a long satirical rant on the party of government entitlement. What it really boils down to is: The war see to be going well to conservatives because they understand that it is a lot of work liberating 25 million people with 80% of the neighboring nations wanting you to fail. What has been done in Iraq has never been against so many with so few, so fast and with so little blood shed. How that is anything but amazing, I will never understand. The war is going so badly according to liberals because they are the party of instant gratification where the government, not hard work solves the problems. Iraq can be a free nation, but not with people telling you how you are going to fail at every turn getting in the way.

Grr they closed the our other gun thread, that was a dirty trick... ;-( Anyway, the NRA does a lot of great things as far as gun safety and awareness classes go, among other things. That being said, they are a political organization that requires funding. Making Americans aware of UN pushes to effect our rights is important to both them (as a fresh revenue stream) and us (as an informed populous). The UN has no place in our government. If they insist on meddling, the US should withdraw. There are other nations who are "world" powers that can pick up the slack. If they want to try to push their views via force of arms... Well, I think we have an answer for that also. The issue of the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution is one where a very large portion of our population has a very serious and deadly view, and given that it is our final guarantee of Freedom, it should.

I agree with every statement listed. They are accurate as I see them, and as he sees them, you calling them a lie does not make them one. It was a bold statement, just not an accurate one on your part. There are 2 "lies" that I know of, one was that in his time attending senate meetings as VP, he had yet to meet Kerry. The Drudge Report says they were there at the sam time on 3 occassions, one where they sat side by side. I can easily accept that he did not remember seeing them there or that they did not speak, but that is not what he said. His point which is also important is that Kerry and Edwards are seldom doing their jobs as Senators attending fewer than 20 % of their voting obligations. In short, free riding like the parasites. That was his point, anyway. The other "lie" was sending researchers to factcheck.com rather than factcheck.org Both errors can be attributed to speaking "from the hip" without access to fact finding resources. Since this was all unprepared, I would not call either lies, but mistakes.

I agree with all of that. I live in a very conservative county. Democrats don't even bother to run here. For me the choice is ultra conservative or religious conservative, and sometimes there are no choices, it is just the ultra religious conservative. ;-) That being said, my advice to anyone is would be vote your ideals in local elections and vote logic in the national. The lesser of evils is the best any of us can honestly expect. All things considered, the UK has the best form of government followed by the US, at least since our civil war. Pre civil war, I think our government was better suited to meeting the needs and desires of the People. 3 Party systems put you in the same boat with Spain in that a fringe group can saddle you with a communist government just because the other 2 parties don’t reflect the needs of the populous close enough for them to reach a consensus.