On Thursday 24 August 2006 21:40, Steve Lamb wrote: > The UN is insignificant. For if *you* were watching the news in the > past 6 years you would know that the UN has done nothing to curb the tide > of terrorism, it has been implicated in a massive money laundering scandal > that goes up to Kofi's son. If it were a Republican President he would > have been roasted alive by the media. Kofi gets a pass. Even now there > are implications that Hezballah was given UN issue night vision goggles. > There are reports that the UN "peacekeepers" knew Hezballah was arming and > did nothing. UN "peacekeepers" are under orders *not* to fire. The UN's > own charter prohibits any speech counter to the UN mission. Does this > sound like an organization who's opinion is worth spit? Like the US is any better, then. So far, the only weapons Iraq's been able to use to inflict any real damage on US life is with IEDs. And it turns out you kind of have to be on their turf for that to be an effective weapon. Do I wish Saddam was still in power? No. But you have to wonder if it was worth American lives to to finish what is at best a tragic mistake and at worst continuation of his father's failed foreign policy. > > If this > > were any other country that had that problem, the US would be protesting > > the election as not fair and safe right along with the UN. > > All of those were looked at and in pretty much every case refuted. I'm not so sure about that. Show me neutral sources. > However, since those don't go in line with your world view you ignore them. > For example, the charge that blacks in Florida were disproportionately > rejected from voting stems from the fact that it was convicted felons, > people whom have lost their right to vote, were turned away. Upon checking > it was found out that there were more *white* felons turned away than > black. I didn't mention anything about racial inequality in the voting system. If you want to talk about inequality in the voting system, start taking a look at the problems caused by trying to squeeze elections into an eight hour timespan. Watching newscasts of out of state elections is like watching Soviet breadlines. Abolishing the voting booth and switching to vote-by-mail spreads things out over six weeks so everybody gets a chance.¹ > > In the future, particularly if you vote, I strongly suggest paying more > > attention to current events, or you're just part of the problem. > > I do keep up with current events. I suggest that you start looking a > little further than just your little blindered world view, Paul. You've > been proven wrong time and again. Wisen up. You might want to turn down the Rush Limbaugh and shut off the Fox News and try reading a paper for a change (NYT doesn't count, that's more like a daily magazine than anything anymore). ¹ And no, if you vote absentee, your vote doesn't count unless those who took the time to show up cast a result that's too close to call in most states. Yes, it's still possible to vote absentee in Oregon, but only if you can prove you can't be in Oregon for at least one of the 42 consecutive Election Days in a row we get to go mail or drop off your ballot... -- Paul Johnson Email and IM (XMPP & Google Talk): baloo@ursine.ca
Attachment:
pgpgCSGH9zqQM.pgp
Description: PGP signature