fudd 0 #1 July 21, 2004 Should U.N. observers be sendt to monitor the 2004 presidential election? Two relating stories: seattlepi Worldnetdaily There are only 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand binary, and those who don't. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #2 July 21, 2004 Short answer: No. Long answer: Later, I'm headed off to work.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #3 July 21, 2004 I don't care either way. I think the election will be run just fine, so whether the UN is watching or not would be irrelevant. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tonto 1 #4 July 21, 2004 QuoteI don't care either way. I think the election will be run just fine, so whether the UN is watching or not would be irrelevant. Right Answer. AggieDave's sounded like something Robert Mugabe would say... tIt's the year of the Pig. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hummusx 0 #5 July 21, 2004 Absolutely not. I am flabbergasted that the vote is nearly even. "Your appeal to the secretary general is alarming and embarrassing," he said. "As a Member of Congress sworn to uphold the Constitution and represent the people of the United States, it is disturbing, to say the least, that you would entrust the most sacred act of American democracy - our presidential election - to an international institution, which is unaccountable to the American people and mired by scandal and corruption." Kilgannon said the request "undermines U.S. sovereignty, demoralizes American servicemen who are fighting to build democratic governments abroad and sends the message worldwide that the United States is nothing more than a Third World nation unable to police itself." AMEN ____________________________________ It’s like selling a million grills all at the same time…with extended warranties. -Hank Hill Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
markd_nscr986 0 #6 July 21, 2004 Whuffo ?????Marc SCR 6046 SCS 3004 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #7 July 21, 2004 I think we as citizens of our own country have been doing a pretty good job at policing ourselves for the past 200+ years. We don't need a group of internationals coming here to make sure we know how to run an election. Whose Idea is this anyway? In Iraq's last presidential election the UN didn't sit in on that.... But they want to sit in on ours??? Are you fucking kidding me? ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EricTheRed 0 #8 July 21, 2004 I voted yes. I think we should show them how it should be done. Let 'em watch. (It's not like they ever actually DO anything)illegible usually Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #9 July 21, 2004 No. We can monitor ourselves on this. Supposing they were here to monitor the election and there were shenanigans going on, what could they do about it? Expose it to the public? There were shenanigans from both sides last time and we resolved it in the most equitable and fair manner I think possible. Hopefully we don't have to go through that shit storm again, but having the UN monitor our elections wouldn't make a difference one way or the other. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #10 July 21, 2004 I don't think the UN leadership has our best interests at heart, just the opposite. I have little trust in the UN leadership. So I think they could only have a negative impact and would likely try to manipulate the election if they could. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #11 July 21, 2004 QuoteSo I think they could only have a negative impact and would likely try to manipulate the election if they could. I don't think that would be an issue. There are partisan observers at every poll now. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflying 0 #12 July 21, 2004 absolutely not. Like others have said, we have done a pretty good job over the past 200 years. Plus if we do need someone to monitor the elections, the last organization we should have is the U.N. They hardly have the U.S.'s best interests at heart. Moreover, the Members of Congress who wrote the letter and made a big stink of it on the House floor did it simply for political reasons -- now if the election goes to Bush they will scream that the election was unfair. I mean Corrine Brown and Eddie Bernice Johnson? Please-- they are off the wall Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zennie 0 #13 July 21, 2004 Sure, why not? We advocate sending monitors to other countries. Why should we be exempt? Typical Washington mindset of imposing their will on others but exempting themselves. - Z "Always be yourself... unless you suck." - Joss Whedon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rjoseph14k 0 #14 July 21, 2004 Screw the UN. They couldn't pour piss out of boot if the directions were writen on the heel. Thats only if they could pass the resolution to try it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,319 #15 July 21, 2004 Quotemost sacred act of American democracy There is no such thing. Democracy runs on the concept of a majority rule. When the majority of the people can vote for one candidate, yet another candidate wins the election, with less votes......it is impossible to call that a democracy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #16 July 21, 2004 QuoteQuotemost sacred act of American democracy There is no such thing. Democracy runs on the concept of a majority rule. When the majority of the people can vote for one candidate, yet another candidate wins the election, with less votes......it is impossible to call that a democracy. It is getting old!!!! Go see a shrink if you can't deal with the difficulty you are having with this!!!! MAJORITY DOESN"T RULE!!!!! MOST AMERICANS DIDN"T WANT BLACKS TO HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS...... Is that a democracy???? MOST OF THE PEOPLE OF MA DON"T WANT GAYS TO MARRY. IS THAT FAIR. OK MAJORITY RULES FROM NOW ON!!!!!! Chris ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,319 #17 July 21, 2004 Quote It is getting old!!!! Go see a shrink if you can't deal with the difficulty you are having with this!!!! MAJORITY DOESN"T RULE!!!!! MOST AMERICANS DIDN"T WANT BLACKS TO HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS...... Is that a democracy???? MOST OF THE PEOPLE OF MA DON"T WANT GAYS TO MARRY. IS THAT FAIR. OK MAJORITY RULES FROM NOW ON!!!!!! I am not quite sure why you are yelling at me....but you are pretty much proving my point. I am not saying the system is wrong, just that you can't really call it a democracy. If you are having difficulty with that, I suggest going back to JK. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tunaplanet 0 #18 July 21, 2004 QuoteShould U.N. observers be sendt to monitor the 2004 presidential election? Absolutely, positively, 100% NO!!!!! Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #19 July 21, 2004 Quote Democracy runs on the concept of a majority rule. When the majority of the people can vote for one candidate, yet another candidate wins the election, with less votes......it is impossible to call that a democracy. 1. The US is not a democracy in that classic definition. 2. And Gore did not receive a majority. As for the upcoming election, I wouldn't mind an evaluation done of Florida, along with people being told how to verify they're on the voter rolls. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,772 #20 July 21, 2004 >2. And Gore did not receive a majority. The only thing more tiring than listening to democrats go on and on about how Bush really didn't win is listening to republicans who can't acknowledge that Gore won the popular vote. Gore won the popular vote by half a million votes. Bush won the electoral vote and hence became president under our current laws. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Balls 0 #21 July 21, 2004 The UN can go and FUCK themselves. Down with the UN.---------------------------------------- ....so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tunaplanet 0 #22 July 21, 2004 Quoterepublicans who can't acknowledge that Gore won the popular vote. Gore won the popular vote by half a million votes. And Gore would be president if it wasn't for that pesky constitution thing Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,772 #23 July 21, 2004 > The UN can go and FUCK themselves. Down with the UN. Unless they say something we agree with, then we are so pro-UN that we invade countries that defy them. Almost seems like a hypocritical position. Almost. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,853 #24 July 21, 2004 QuoteThe UN can go and FUCK themselves. Down with the UN. Dick Cheney, welcome to DZ.com... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,334 #25 July 21, 2004 Interesting -- why did you pick on part of billvon's post to put a on, without taking the part before and after it that make it clear that he, too, disagrees with that part of it? Are you quoting out of context? Spinning? Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
This Site Is For Sale
