United Nations to oversee US election

I depise all scum-sucking, flag-burning, anti-American liberal pukes... WTF, over?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/08/international.observers/index.html

 

Oh yes, liberals and moderates are all scum sucking pukes - I forgot the Neo Cons are the only patriots.

Oops, I forgot, the biggest liberals of them all, Carter and Kerry served their countries. I guess they are commies for doing so. Of course Cheney and Ashcroft, the biggest patriots of them all skirted their duties.

What is with Neo Cons? Can't they see that patriotism is not about following the President blindly? Lest they forget about the 8 years they tried to bring down Bill. And now, GW is snivlin because he was caught lying about WMD.

The US regularly monitors elections. We had massive irregularities in our own election. If we don't want the UN monitoring our elections, then keep out of other business. It is that simple.

 

QUOTE
"Thirteen Democratic members of the House of Representatives, raising the specter of possible civil rights violations that they said took place in Florida and elsewhere in the 2000 election, wrote to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan in July, asking him to send observers."

I hadn't heard of civil rights violations other than Democrats had trouble figuring out how to vote because no Republicans are complaining that they were that stupid.

I think the Democrats need representatives from Iran, Sudan, and Libya to show you how it's done.

Isn't the presidential election a state matter. Is it within the power of the federal government to allow international observers?

Sorry for butting in but I dislike liberal politicians wherever they reside.

 

Served their country - what about Slick Willy?

What freakin irregularities? However they counted the votes, didn't Bush win. If the election results weren't clear Florida had the right to determine the slate and the Supreme Court gave its nod to the whole thing.

 

Out of curiosity, what about ethical, rational, constitution-supporting, SEC-supporting, separation-of-church-and-state-supporting liberals (who also happen to support the American youngsters currently imperiled in Iraq)?

G

 

Dude,

Prove that he lied about WMD. He relied on faulty intelligence, that's not the same as lying. Also, how do you explain that Tony Blair, a member of the Labour Party, England's version of our Democratic party, supported Bush and then some, huh??

 

Re: Re: United Nations to oversee US election

Those dudes are cool. As long as they don't support the genocide of innocent children, urrr, I mean abortion.

 

Dude,

I served my adopted country as well - for eleven years. My active duty unit (The 1st Armored Division aka Old Ironsides) kicked ass during the first Gulf War. And my reserve unit served in Kosovo in 1996. I'm no longer in the service; I am now a PFC (Private F'n Civilian). Many veterans are Republicans because we know that the Democrats don't care about the military and about this nation's defense.. So there, I said it..

 

Dude? How old did you say that you were? 16?

Kicked ass? Juvenile.

I too was in the Navy for nearly 8 years. ET2. No, never saw combat except for assisting in a rescue in the Gulf or two or sat off the coast of Lebanon when 200 dead Marines were being brought home for good.

As the good General Schwartzkopf stated, most soliders are NOT necessarily Republican. Just as most cops (been one of those too), are NOT Republican. I see that Cheney cared enough about the military to skirt his duties. So did our bible touting AT. Scary.

Grow up.

 

Re: Re: United Nations to oversee US election

I don't believe that's accurate.

Observers will come from the OSCE and not frm the UN. They will come pursuant to a mutual observation agreement signed more than a decade ago. Apparently President Bush is the first President to fully honor it.

The UN isn't coming and the '13 Representatives' thing just sounds like a little political grandstanding.

 

In my experience, they were. Under President Reagan, we recieved the largest pay increase ever, revamped our equipment, and restored our place as the premier military force in the world.

In my experience, they are. Don't be duped by the politicians with badges (commissioners/chiefs) or the fools at the FOP who haven't worked the street in years. Every street cop I work with loves President Bush & despises John Kerry.

 

I think any foreign supervision of an American election is a horrible idea. Let me say without any desire to start a debate that in my own very humble opinion neither Bush nor (especially) his father are true conservatives. I think Bush senior was very nearly guilty of treason. (Pulling out of Iraq the first time without taking the position of unconditional victory after framing his war as an effort to unseat the new Hitler.) There is virtually no ideological affinity between any Bush son or dad and Reagan Republicanism--at least I can't see it. I wonder if it might not be time in America for a viable third party alternative, because the Republicans under Bush and the Democrats don't show me much.

God Bless America --We need it.

 

Dude,

Nope... I am 32 now. I was 19 at the time. Not old enough to buy a beer. Couldn't even vote because I was not an American citizen at the time.

Many ethnic, dark-skinned minorities such as myself were Democrats in the civilian life. Most of us become Republicans in the military where we see the light. Not to change the subject, but for years the Dems have been promising and lying to minorities, particularly Blacks, to get their vote. Now they are trying to win over Hispanics and Asians.

 

Foreigners aren't supervising American elections, they are just observing them.

I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing.

Besides, international observers are useful in helping ensure that elections in the new Eastern European democracies are clean. But these are proud peoples and it's hard to ask things of them that we are unwilling to submit to ourselves.

That's OK with me, because neither am I.

Of course, I'm not exactly sure what a "true conservative" is. It seems to me that both the left and the right are loose coalitions of disseparate elements.

I mean, an old-family preppie attending Dartmouth, a self-made Midwestern small-town pillar of the community, a big-city cop, a libertarian high-tech business entrepeneur, a Wyoming rancher, a grey-haired sunbelt retiree, an ambitious Chinese immigrant family, and a Mississippi preacher waving a Bible in your face are all "conservatives" in some sense. But they have virtually nothing in common with one another.

But if they want to win, the Republicans have to gather them all under their big-tent.

The key word is "viable". I don't see it.

What would happen is what happened in Canada, where the right split and essentially handed political power to the Liberals.

The key to political power is maintaining and expanding loose coalitions, not dividing into separate sects of impeccable ideological purity that are too small and too threatening to outsiders to ever win an election.

 

Bill:

I see your point. Still, it is an old saw of the Libertarians that only ideological semantics divide the Democrats from the Republicans--that both parties are about big government and power--neither has much regard for individual liberty beyond "election speak" rhetoric. I think, sadly, that this is more and more the case. Perhaps it would matter little who wins the election. I am very depressed with the state of American politics these days.

 

In the second to last election, the Liberals won a majority of seats in the House of Commons with 38% of the vote.

The last Conservative prime minister, Brian Mulroney, raised taxes, raised the debt, sky-rocketed spending and increased gun control. Conservatives went from about 200 seats down to 2.

A new conservative party, the Reform Party renamed the Canadian Alliance split the vote so badly that an inept senile Jean Chretien kept power for 12 years.

 

Javila,

This is from an old school Democrat(Roosevelt). Please define the amount of years that the Democratic Party has been lying to blacks. How many years are you talking about? Are you going back to the New Deal? I am just wondering.

 

Good to see you back, Craig!

Unfortunately, the Libertarians aren't the purists they claim to be. The LP is about as divided ideologically as the Dems and GOP.

 

The Constitution Party is one right-wing alternative, and their Pennsylvania senate candidate may have a Ralph Nader effect on the Specter-Hoeffel race.

What I don't understand is why the Libertarian Party is generally associated with conservatives; I can't remember the last time the Republican Party ran a social libertarian, unless Goldwater '64 qualifies. Must be a case where fiscal issues trump social issues.


Cheers,

 

Good question..

The great majority of Jews and nearly all blacks vote Democrat. There are no other ethnic or racial groups that so overwhelmingly and consistently vote either Republican or Democrat.

Moreover, given Jewish values and given blacks' views on a host of important social issues, there is really no compelling reason for blacks and Jews to vote Democrat. Let us begin with the Jews. Judaism, like every great religion, is essentially conservative: Judaism demands obedience God and to a moral code set forth thousands of years ago. That is why the more orthodox a Jew is religiously, the less likely he is to be a liberal politically; and the more likely he is to vote Republican. Furthermore, the dominant Jewish issue, the security and survival of the Jewish state, is also unlikely to orient a Jew politically leftward. Even sociologically, Jews voting instinctively Democratic makes little sense. Jews, more than many, consider it shameful to rely on others for welfare, raise their children to believe in hard work, and benefit from a merit-based society. Indeed, even those Jews who vote Democratic usually lead rather conservative lives.

As for blacks, their virtually unanimous voting for the Democratic Party makes even less sense. For one thing, most blacks tend to have socially conservative views (considerably more so than their fellow Democrats). Blacks tend to be religious, have traditional views on homosexuality and abortion, and believe in school vouchers, a policy strongly opposed by the party nearly all of them vote for. Moreover, while the Democratic Party has brilliantly portrayed itself as the party that made civil rights possible, a greater percentage of Republicans voted for the landmark civil rights bills than Democrats.

None of this is meant to suggest that there are no Democratic Party positions that appeal to blacks and Jews. The great majority of blacks apparently do support affirmative action, a position entirely identified with the Democratic Party. And the majority of Jews do support larger government and higher tax rates, fundamental Democratic positions.

But if each party's policy positions were the sole determinants of Jews' and blacks' voting habits, the two groups should evenly divide their votes between the two parties.

Clearly then, it is not Democratic Party positions that explain why so many Jews and blacks vote Democrat. Something deeper must be at work. That something is fear in the case of Jews and anger in the case of blacks. And both the Jews' fears and the blacks' anger are a result of their respective collective memories.

The Jewish memory in question is of Christian anti-Semitism and the Nazi Holocaust. Even Jews who know little about either Jewish or Christian history know by high school age that for nearly 2,000 years, Jewish communities suffered from anti-Semitic persecution at the hands of Christians, that Christians massacred Jews during the Crusades, that there was a Spanish Inquisition, and that the Holocaust came from Nazism, a far-right doctrine.

Because of this deeply ingrained memory associating Jewish suffering with Christianity and the far right, most Jews have a primal fear of Christianity (and even of religion generally, including Judaism) and of conservatives. Jews therefore vote for the party that opposes the party associated with anything even remotely connected with public religion or the right.

The black memory in question is of white racism. It seems obvious that many African-Americans carry a residual anger against whites and against America as a result of centuries of slavery and racism. They therefore vote for the party most associated with policies (such as affirmative action) ostensibly designed to fight racism (meaning, always, white racism), and which frequently condemns alleged ongoing white racism. And blacks vote against the party they perceive as denying that America continues to be racist, the party that opposes race-based policies, and the party that celebrates America as if it isn't a racist country.

The problem with these memories is not that they are inaccurate; it is that they are no longer accurate. And they therefore paralyze the two groups who hold onto these memories, Jews and blacks.


As a result of millennia of Christian oppression of them, many Jews still fear religion, particularly Christians and Christianity, even though all the Christian anti-Semitism was European; and as a result of the Nazis, many Jews fear anything labeled "right wing." As for blacks, because of centuries of slavery and racism, many black Americans continue to harbor great anger at whites and at America.

If these memories accurately assessed today's white, Christian and right-wing Americans, Jews' and blacks' overwhelming support for the Democrats would surely make sense. Indeed, they would mandate such voting.

But these memories do not apply today, and therefore they are having a paralyzing effect on America's Jews and blacks.

The fact is that most white Americans have changed; most are no longer racist. Regarding race, most white Americans would probably like nothing more than to forget about race, as they no longer deem either their own whiteness or blacks' blackness to be of particular significance.

Most Americans are decent people. They know that in order to believe that skin color determines a person's traits or worth, you have to be not only evil, you have to be an ignoramus; and regarding race, most Americans are no longer ignoramuses. They know too many wonderful people of all races.

As for Jews' fears of American Christians, they are even less fact-based than blacks' continuing anger at whites. American Christians were never the anti-Semites of Jewish memory. Those were European Christians who persecuted Jews for all those years, precisely the Christians that America's (Christian) founders fled to establish this different society. American Jews' fears of American Christians are therefore simply irrational, especially now when Christian Americans (outside of the National Council of Churches) are the Jews' and Israel's most loyal friends.
Memory also explains American Jews' irrational fears of the right. Because the Nazis are widely deemed far rightists (yes, Nazism stood for National Socialism, but no leftists or socialists considered it an ideological ally), Jews continuing to only look rightward for anti-Semitic threats is both silly and dangerous. It is silly because it is like looking only to the right when you cross a two-way street because your grandfather was killed by a car coming from the right. And it is dangerous because since World War II, and at this very moment, the greatest anti-Semitism has come from the left.

The result of all these misperceptions on the part of blacks and Jews is that the Democratic Party understands that in order to maintain its overwhelming black and Jewish support, it must abet black anger at whites and abet Jews' fears of Christians and conservatives. And this they do well, to the great detriment of the country.

There are signs, however, that this strategy, at least vis-a-vis the Jews, is beginning to fail. Many Jewish Democrats are thanking God that Christian conservative Republicans (George W. Bush and Dick Cheney) rather than Democrats (Al Gore and Joseph Lieberman) are in the White House. And as they look around, they find that in a world that once again has a cold spot in its heart for the Jews, virtually all their allies are conservatives.

A generation of blacks has been repeatedly told by their leaders, by liberal educators, liberal media, and by the Democratic Party that America and whites are racist. They have also been told that the only way out of the social problems that plague parts of black life is through the Democratic Party.

This is what makes Democrats liars..