Quote:

---

Some fear what others will say if you take a strong position on an issue. I say those in the middle end up being painted yellow or road kill.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
I was looking at if from a perspective of finding the truth. Which, unfortunatly, is hardly ever found and ALWAYS up for debate.

---

Quote:

---

I was looking at if from a perspective of finding the truth. Which, unfortunatly, is hardly ever found and ALWAYS up for debate.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
whoZIT is channeling Ann Coulter
Ann Coulter: Pull the Hair Plug on This Guy
Rap is channeling Sarah Palin, Amanda Carpenter Dick Morris and Eileen McGann, among others
Amanda Carpenter : McCain Zings Obama at Debate (but refrained from mentioning Obama's relationship with domestic terrorist William Ayers)
Dick Morris and Eileen McGann: The Obama-Ayers Connection

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

BTW: You can't handle the truth !

---

Quote:

---

Actually, when it comes to politics, I'm most likely to listen to a lot of talk radio, rarely ever watching cable news.

Bill Bennett starts the day, followed by Neal Boortz or Laura Ingraham. Dennis Miller comes on at 10, and then at noon, there's Rush Limbaugh. After that, I'm as informed as pretty much anyone outside of D.C.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

Actually, when it comes to politics, I'm most likely to listen to a lot of talk radio, rarely ever watching cable news.

Bill Bennett starts the day, followed by Neal Boortz or Laura Ingraham. Dennis Miller comes on at 10, and then at noon, there's Rush Limbaugh. After that, I'm as informed as pretty much anyone outside of D.C.

---

And you say WE listen to biased sources!

Just kiddin' ya. You have a point - we DO tend to listen to the news shows that reinforce our beliefs. I do it too. Probably the most bipartisan show I listen to is "Fresh Air" on NPR, because Terry Gross will often have two guests on the show - one from each side of an issue, back to back in the same one-hour show.

I wake up to Morning Joe on MSNBC (Don't freak out - he was a REPUBLICAN Congressman) and CBS's morning show if I can stomach it, then NPR for the drive to work. At work, I have my pick, since I put satellite radio in the warehouse. I generally go with CNN or NPR, occassionally trying Sirius Left - which I really hate becuase it's NOT left-wing liberal radio, it's just a bunch of talking heads bashing every Democrat out there and saying that THEIR Democrat is better than YOUR Democrat.

At 3:00pm, it's back to NPR for Terry Gross's "Fresh Air" interview show, followed by "All Things Considered".

5:30 I've got the network news on while doing chores and getting dinner ready. Usually it's NBC or ABC, since Couric really gets on my nerves.

I Tivo "Countdown" and Rachel Maddow's show to watch later, and I'll check in with O'Reilly and Hannity to see what they're babbling on about. And I'll mix in a bit of CNN just for spice, with some BBC News on the side.

And that's just the radio and TV. What can I say? I'm a news and politics junkie. Mix in local newspapers, Time and Newsweek, The Nation, Vanity Fair, etc., and I've covered just about every side of the issue.

And online, I tend to check in with the Huffington Post once a week maybe.

Mike

This world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel.

Trolls Against McCain!

---

Quote:

---

I got no problem taking sides.

---

Quote:

---

I know from where I come on the issue, and why

---

Quote:

---

Some fear what others will say if you take a strong position on an issue. I say those in the middle end up being painted yellow or road kill.

---

Quote:

---

It's Hannity & Combs, they put a lib in there just for you.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

It's Hannity & Combs, they put a lib in there just for you.

---

Actually, it's Hannity & COLMES. And Colmes just freaks me right the fuck out. Something about him. He reminds me of that creepy-ass actor that played the Sheriff in "Invasion". Never liked that guy.

Mike



This world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel.

Trolls Against McCain!

---

Quote:

---

Then MSNBC is where you want to be.

---

Quote:

---

Really? Because when I drill you with questions, you typically have no answers.

---

Quote:

---

This is your problem- you see the world in terms of "sides" ... "my side", "your side".

Well, guess what- The world doesn't take sides. It is as it is. By reducing everything to "agrees with my side- accept/ disagrees with my side- reject" you miss vital information about what's really going on. And therefore your opinions about what is wrong and what to do about it are often horrifically off-the-mark.

---

Quote:

---

Sig, I have answers that you don't like, but that doesn't dismiss them from being answers.

---

Quote:

---

I tend to see the world as it IS, not as how some want to tell me it is. Folks don't always like my answers, because they aren't always the easy answers.
Name for me ONE opinion about which I'm " horrifically " off - the - mark, and explain WHY.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Probably the most bipartisan show I listen to is "Fresh Air" on NPR, because Terry Gross will often have two guests on the show - one from each side of an issue, back to back in the same one-hour show.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Rap,

May I suggest that if you have to propagandize yourself so heavily to keep your worldview pure and your beliefs intact, then neither is very well founded.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:

---

Sig, I have answers that you don't like, but that doesn't dismiss them from being answers.

---

I have asked you repeatedly to quote the part of Resolution 1441 that either directly authorizes the invasion of Iraq or allows authorizaiton under previous resolutions. You have never, and CAN never, because it's not there. But, hey... feel free to show me the evidence for your "point" that the UN authorized the invasion of Iraq.

---

You're right, I can't quote what you're asking or, because that's not how the Resolutions were written. Don't blame me, blame the U.N. But I have answered your question as to how the various Resolutions all refer back to each other, and that 'ANY MEMBER NATION' may take necessary force to see to it that Saddam complies. The USA, along with 30 some other member nations, did EXACTLY THAT. Sorry you don't like the answer, sorry it's not how you wanted it packaged, but that's exactly how it is.

Quote:

---

I could go on at length about the other questions that you haven't answered, but everybody here knows what I'm talking about except you.

Quote:

---

I tend to see the world as it IS, not as how some want to tell me it is. Folks don't always like my answers, because they aren't always the easy answers.
Name for me ONE opinion about which I'm " horrifically " off - the - mark, and explain WHY.

---

I could name you a half-dozen off the bat.

The so-called UN authorization of the Iraq invasion. As of Resolution 1441, which was their last resolution on the topic, you have been unable to quote the part of the resolution which authorizes what you so fervently believe. Lookit- It's either there, or it's not. If it's there, quote it.

The economy being "on fire" and Federal revenues being up thanks to Bush's tax policies. In fact, in real (ie inflation-adjusted dollars) Federal revenues went DOWN and the stock market was flat. The REAL engine of the economy was not Bush's tax policies but the Fed's low low low interest rates which caused a housing bubble. As house prices inflated way beyond any reasonable price they were used to finance credit for other purchases. It's simple math: for the average homeowner, Bush's tax cut meant about $600. That simply does not compare to a rise in home value of $200,000, $300,000 $400,000 or more (in our case $660,000).

---

First, the economy was doing extremely well, according to some economist. ( And yes, we know all about opinions of economist ) It was expanding at a healthy, but not explosive clip, which is actually more desireable to the health of a country's economy. Too much expansion, runs the risk of inflation. You can't argue that there wasn't any growth, as there was. Regardless of whether you adjust for inlfation or not, it's the same way it's been calculated for ever, so that anlge won't fly. Low unemployment, expansion in the GDP, high end factory orders in big ticket items, and a strong growth in the stock market after the recession of 2001, there' no question the economy was healthy. Funny how in just 2 yrs after the Dems took over the Congress / Senate, we ran into troulbe. Just about the length of time it took for their management style to take effect. Imagine that.

Low interest rates may have lead to the houseing bubble, but don't blame that for what Fannie and Freddie did.

Quote:

---

Your blaming Fannie and Freddie for the whole mess. Fannie and Freddie did NOT WRITE LOANS. In actual dollar amounts, they purchased only a fraction of the "toxic loans" that were ultimately purchased, packaged, and re-sold "off books" by banks and investment houses here and across Europe. In fact, it was Bernanke raising interest rates that popped the bubble, and the fact that CDOs and SIVs and CDSs has spread everywhere through a highly leveraged system caused the dominoes to all fall quickly.

---

I never said Fannie/ Freddie 'wrote' loans, but they did buy them up, and then inflated their value, which is a real bad thing to do. Bush tried back in '03 to set up stronger Gov't overview of Fannie and Freddie, but the Dems blocked it, saying all is well. I trust I need not post Barney Frank's infamous quotes.





It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager


" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

Quote:

---

You're right, I can't quote what you're asking or, because that's not how the Resolutions were written. Don't blame me, blame the U.N. But I have answered your question as to how the various Resolutions all refer back to each other, and that 'ANY MEMBER NATION' may take necessary force to see to it that Saddam complies. The USA, along with 30 some other member nations, did EXACTLY THAT. Sorry you don't like the answer, sorry it's not how you wanted it packaged, but that's exactly how it is.

---

Quote:

---

This was the whole point of Jon Stewart's amazing confrontation with the Crossfire goons a few years back. Unfortunately the very sobering point he was trying to make was lost in the spectacle of it all, but at least they did end up canceling the show.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
And I get back to: Did you READ the Resolution? Because they DO refer back to each other, but Resolution 1441 refers back to the others to PREVENT member nations from acting on the old Resolutions. It says, basically Recalling {all previous Resolutions on the topic and mentions them by number} and Deploring {that Saddam is a bastard who didn't keep up his end of the bargain and who terrorizes his own people} we now decide {to give him one last chance to show that he doesn't have WMD} In other words... how can I possibly make it any clearer?... all that shit happened in the past so this is what we do from now on. Get it????

---

Quote:

---

1441 "[d]ecides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);"

1441 "[d]ecides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;"

---

Quote:

---

The Security Council tonight, acting in response to the deteriorating political, security and humanitarian situation in Haiti, authorized the immediate deployment of Multinational Interim Force for a period of three months to help to secure and stabilize the capital, Port-au-Prince, and elsewhere in the country.

---

Quote:

---

Reaffirming its resolutions 713 (1991) of 25 September 1991, 721 (1991) of 27 November 1991, 724 (1991) of 15 December 1991, 727 (1992) of 8 January 1992 and 740 (1992) of 7 February 1992,

Noting the report of the Secretary-General of 15 February 1992 (S/23592) submitted pursuant to resolution 721 (1991), and the request of the Government of Yugoslavia (S/23240) for a peace-keeping operation referred to in that resolution,

Noting in particular that the Secretary-General considers that the conditions permitting the early deployment of a United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) are met and welcoming his recommendation that this Force should be established with immediate effect,

Expressing its gratitude to the Secretary-General and his Personal Envoy for their contribution to the achievement of conditions facilitating the deployment of a United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) and their continuing commitment to this effort,

Concerned that the situation in Yugoslavia continues to constitute a threat to international peace and security, as determined in resolution 713 (1991),

Recalling its primary responsibility under the Charter of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security,

Recalling also the provisions of Article 25 Chapter VIII of the Charter of the United Nations,

Commending again the efforts undertaken by the European Community and its member States, with the support of the States participating in the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, through the convening of a Conference on Yugoslavia, including the mechanisms set forth within it, to ensure a peaceful political settlement,

Convinced that the implementation of the United Nations peace-keeping plan (S/23280, annex III) will assist the Conference on Yugoslavia in reaching a peaceful political settlement,

1. Approves the report of the Secretary-General of 15 February 1992 (S/23592);

2. Decides to establish, under its authority, a United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) in accordance with the above-mentioned report and the United Nations peace-keeping plan and requests the Secretary-General to take the measures necessary to ensure its earliest possible deployment;

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Okay guys... one last chance to get your licks in! Otherwise, can we please consider the subject closed?

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

---

Quote:

---

Resolution 687, passed in 1991, is the centerpiece here. This is the resolution passed after the United States had liberated Kuwait and while our troops were poised to advance to Baghdad to take care of business with Saddam. Saddam agreed to a plan whereby he would surrender or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, and all implements, machinery and whatnot associated with those weapons programs, forthwith. Saddam's first obligation under Resolution 687 was to provide the UN with a "declaration on the locations, amounts and types of all (WMDs) and agree to urgent, on-site inspection(s)" as specified in the resolution.


Saddam's deadline under 687 was fifteen days. He didn't make it. In fact, in 2002 ... about 4000 days past his 15-day deadline, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1441 putting Saddam on super-secret probation and giving him one last chance to do what he was supposed to do eleven years earlier.

Wait! I forgot Resolution 678! Forgive me! 678, you see, is specifically incorporated into both Resolutions 687 and 1441 by reference. Resolution 678 was passed in 1990, after Saddam invaded Kuwait. This resolution told Saddam to get the hell out, and authorized "Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait ... to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area."
Thus endeth all claims that the United States violated international law by invading Iraq. We weren't violating international law, we were enforcing it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
So previous Resolutions and past history ARE referenced in UN Resolutions, but the "action" part is the one that follows the phrase Decides.

Capice? (Prolly not but- oh well. I tried.)

---

Quote:

---

... "That deadline was part of a 1999 resolution that has been superseded by the timetable laid out in resolution 1441, " a White House official told The Sunday Tribune.

---

Quote:

---

However, in the UN, resolutions can be superseded by newer resolutions and it is obvious that claims of "right to return" in resolution 192 (1948) are superseded by section 2b of resolution 242 (1967), where the refugee problem is to be solved with a "just settlement" which is likely to include compensation, but unlikely the "right of return".

---

Quote:

---

While it remains to be seen whether or how UN Security Council Resolution 1696 will be enforced, the resolution itself renders Iran’s legal arguments hollow. Whatever the merits of these arguments before UN Resolution 1696, the resolution itself supersedes them.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
I guess you don't understand the concept of superseding either?

---

Quote:

---

Based on what you’ve said here, I know you don’t. A resolution does not necessary supersede any previous resolution, certainly not just simply because it’s necessary to fit in your ideology.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:

---

Based on what you’ve said here, I know you don’t. A resolution does not necessary supersede any previous resolution, certainly not just simply because it’s necessary to fit in your ideology.

---

I guess you were incapable of reading the quote FROM THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION that I posted, which AGREES that R1441 superseded previous Resolutions? The Blair administration agreed on that point as well.

R 1441 supersedes the previous Resolutions because of the way it was written. I found several DIRECT quote on R1441 (altho I only posted one) and a couple of other examples on supersision. You can find more, if you're at all interested in the truth. So deal with it, alright already! You look like a moron.

---

Quote:

---

So suddenly, you’re a believer in the Bush Administration, and in George Bush no less. I guess that makes you a neocon.

---