If someone just plain can't hear the difference between a clear tone of music, and an off-key note, they are said to have "a tin ear". I think the "Global Test" comment by Candidate Kerry illustrates that not only the Candidate, but the entire democratic party is afflicted with a Political Tin Ear. After the debates were over {I didn't hear the debate}, the left was quick to declare Kerry the winner, and even his handlers admitted that they had been afraid of another Flip flop or Faux Paux. I they didn't even realize how flat the "Global Test" comment is gonna fall. I think it's because they are so out of touch with the real people that they honestly think people Do want to give the UN and the "Globe" a say in American Policy. It was a major flub, as the coming days will reveal, and they never even knew.
As a US citizen, I would be happy to work with the UN in foreign policy matters, and I don't think I am alone. Unfortunately, in any democratic system it is ultimately up to the ignorant masses, and the ignorant masses tend to think that America is somehow both above international law, and the only country capable of enforcing international law. If we had taken the UN more seriously, Osama would be in custody, Iraq would not be a threat and over 1000 US soldiers would not have to come home in boxes. Think of it like the world is a neighborhood and the UN is the neighborhood council. Let's say that Mr. Hussein has been neglecting to cut his grass, and his neigbor, Uncle Sam, is getting fed up with looking at the unkempt yard. Sam calls a council meeting to bring the situation to light, and the council agrees, with a couple of exceptions, that Mr. Hussein's yard is indeed out of control, and they suggest posting a note on his door telling him to cut his lawn. "But that bastard Mr Hussein won't cut his lawn if we do that," says Sam, "last time we tried that e mowed hi yard, but there were a couple spots in the bach that he missed. We can't have that sort of lawncare in our neighborhood, it wil attract snakes and ticks and bring the property values down." Angry at the UN's sensible proposal, Sam storms out. He calls up his buddies Mr Dundee and Mr English and tells them to bring a gun and meet Sam in front of Mr. Hussein's house. When they show up they notice that Mr. Hussein has already mowed the yard. "I know he still has some spots in the back." says Sam, who then proceeds to kick down the door and storm the house...
Ah Yes -- those ignorant masses. Libs just love democracy don't they. RE the UN I prefer to think of them as the local council set up to fight crime in the city --- made up of the the four guys who run the Numbers racket, the three biggest Drug-pushers, the two biggest embezzlers, and headed by the Godfather. And Mr. Hussein's problem wasn't that he didn't mow the lawn -- The fact that you make "Mr. Hussein" so respectable in itself shows the weakness of your argument. Mr. Hussein was killing his children and burying them in the back yard, and he was raping the little girls in the neighborhood.
I am completely against the UN and all these other corrupt, globalist organizations. I know this government is corrupt, but we don't need another corrupt global entity -- who have the same exact agenda -- involved in this country's affairs. Then again, I am a Libertarian, not a socialist liberal. I don't believe in any of these organizations because they're nothing but tools for global government. Anyone who thinks the UN is a good thing, or isn't riddled with corruption, really needs to do some reading.
I thought Bush's response was downright laughable. I kept thinking to myself, Yeah dumbass, a test, those things that your classmates were studying for while you were shitfaced.
Bush is just as big of a globalist pig, even though he pretends not to be. It's such a joke. These people are fucking idiots.
Please don't call me liberal. I believe in benevolent fascism. Unfortunately, the only person qualified to lead such a system is myself, and I will probably never be in a position to do so.
I didn't call you a liberal. I was simply inferring that those who believe in the UN are more likely liberals, versus libertarians.
How you prefer to think of them is irrelevent. Try to remember that the United States is the criminal member with the biggest gun. And the one who is currently going rogue whenever we like. At least as a part of the council we had a decent diplomatic avenue. By your analogy, the rest of the 'bosses' should have sanctioned a full war against us by now. That's what we would have done (look at our record). But this has not happened, so your analogy must be flawed, somewhere. And now we're killing children faster and more efficiently than he did. That's so much better.
ahhh yes we meet again Mr. Gabino..ok you just said you didn't hear the debate so how can you judge ONE word anyone said? And this is exactly what was said..so why don't you read the FULL statement not just what Bush came back with..Seems to me you are the one with the "tin ear" KERRY: The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for preemptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War. And it was always one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control. No president, though all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America. But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you‘re doing what you‘re doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons. Here we have our own secretary of state who has had to apologize to the world for the presentation he made to the United Nations. I mean, we can remember when President Kennedy in the Cuban missile crisis sent his secretary of state to Paris to meet with DeGaulle. And in the middle of the discussion, to tell them about the missiles in Cuba, he said, “Here, let me show you the photos.” And DeGaulle waved them off and said, “No, no, no, no. The word of the president of the United States is good enough for me.” How many leaders in the world today would respond to us, as a result of what we‘ve done, in that way? So what is at test here is the credibility of the United States of America and how we lead the world. And Iran and Iraq are now more dangerous—Iran and North Korea are now more dangerous. Now, whether preemption is ultimately what has to happen, I don‘t know yet. But I‘ll tell you this: As president, I‘ll never take my eye off that ball. I‘ve been fighting for proliferation the entire time—anti-proliferation the entire time I‘ve been in the Congress. And we‘ve watched this president actually turn away from some of the treaties that were on the table. You don‘t help yourself with other nations when you turn away from the global warming treaty, for instance, or when you refuse to deal at length with the United Nations. You have to earn that respect. And I think we have a lot of earning back to do. LEHRER: Ninety seconds. BUSH: Let me—I‘m not exactly sure what you mean, “passes the global test,” you take preemptive action if you pass a global test. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6146353/
let me help.... Kerry [continued] But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons..." George Bush: "Let me -- I'm not exactly sure what you mean, "passes the global test," you take preemptive action if you pass a global test. My attitude is you take preemptive action in order to protect the American people, that you act in order to make this country secure. My opponent talks about me not signing certain treaties. Let me tell you one thing I didn't sign, and I think it shows the difference of our opinion -- the difference of opinions. And that is, I wouldn't join the International Criminal Court. It's a body based in The Hague where unaccountable judges and prosecutors can pull our troops or diplomats up for trial. And I wouldn't join it. And I understand that in certain capitals around the world that that wasn't a popular move. But it's the right move not to join a foreign court that could -- where our people could be prosecuted. My opponent is for joining the International Criminal Court. I just think trying to be popular, kind of, in the global sense, if it's not in our best interest makes no sense. I'm interested in working with our nations and do a lot of it. But I'm not going to make decisions that I think are wrong for America."
So, Americans abroad should not be subject to international law? If they murder, torture, rape or pillage they should not be held accountable? I can't agree with that, and I see nothing wrong with holding Americans accountable for their crimes. Suggesting that Americans should not be held accountable for crimes commited in other countries shows arrogance, it shows that you think America is self-appointed boss of the world and somehow above international law. If people commit crimes they need to be held accountable, even if those crimes aren't committed in their home country.
George Bush: "Let me -- I'm not exactly sure what you mean, "passes the global test," you take preemptive action if you pass a global test. My attitude is you take preemptive action in order to protect the American people, that you act in order to make this country secure. So, how exactly did our peemptive invasion of Iraq protect the American people? How does invading a non-hostile country and starting a civil war and terrorist breeding ground make this country more secure? 1000+ troops have died because of that, are there at least 1000 Americans who would have been killed had we not invaded? Sure, Saddam was a bad guy, but that's not why we invaded! The simple fact is that he was not a threat to the United States and probably never would be.
Because you stated, what Bush said, about the "Global test" and didn't elaborate as to what Kerry actually said to lead up to Bush's "Global Test" quote..It was a long quote yes..But, I just showed what was said, up to when Bush said something about the "Global Test"..which if you were watching the Debate, it was obvious, he didnt know what to say..was studdering, and trying to make Kerry look bad, and he couldn't..I also left you a web site to read further, so no I don't think I was trying to hide what Bush said, if that's what you are trying to say, I thought just maybe you would like to read what was said, that's why I left you the web site of the debate
no, we killed far more than that with our sanctions that wouldn't allow simple medicine or food into their country. And now we're blowing them to bits, with no end in site... so we'll far exceed those numbers.
