| Forum Index > Closed |
|
Fyrewolf
United States1533 Posts
On April 27 2012 21:29 sAsImre wrote: Who, such a display of ignorance is amazing, congratulations ! read a bit about Kelsen and the UN before coming back plz, it'd help you so much. You are misquoting, that is supposed to be Hsanrb, not me. Please fix. | ||
|
imre
France9263 Posts
On April 27 2012 21:30 Fyrewolf wrote: You are misquoting, that is supposed to be Hsanrb, not me. Please fix. My bad, done. I apologize for my mistake sir. | ||
|
jeremysaint
Canada80 Posts
seriously, what the hell is wrong with arizona, and to a lesser degree america in general? if us states were like tv programs arizona would be like that lowest common denominator reality tv, kind of a cross between who wants to marry a millionaire and the real housewives of wherever. then again, the world needs clowns to help us remember how important it is to promote education, sustainability, and women's rights. so i say lets give them a lifetime supply of tinfoil to make thier hats with, if nothing else it might keep them busy for a while and thus keep them from doing something even stupider in the meantime. | ||
|
Sea_Food
Finland1612 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States43475 Posts
Can someone explain any rationale behind such a bill? Please? | ||
|
fortheGG
United Kingdom1002 Posts
On April 27 2012 21:23 Fyrewolf wrote: Quite a response for a four sentence post I made ending in a joke. You seem to be arguing for checks and balances, but also denounce "that the President of my country can force any law down by refusing to sign it.", one of those very same checks and balances. Great job, Hypocrite. As for the other part of the question there "Why should a state in my country have to put up with crap the UN spams out the nose, or that the President of my country can force any law down by refusing to sign it" That's the price of being in the UN and getting to be on the security council. If we want to stay a member, we have to do what it says. We also have a say in what it says because we are on the security council. And all of the things Arizona are rebelling against the UN for are non-binding. Arizona is also being told to do the same kind of things by the US goverment. Even if you may not like executive decision, it is a necessary tool for the government to have. I also like how you are arguing that if people don't like the Arizona laws, the proper way to deal with it is "You don't like their laws, you throw them out or leave the state." as in your immigration example. So.... Why should the US not throw Arizona out of the country for not liking the executive decision? I think it might be of use to you to read up some American history, preferably right around the time of the founding fathers. | ||
|
sinno
United States15 Posts
"Rep. Terri Proud, R-Tucson, told supporters in an email that the U.N. declaration “will take away our rights as Americans by allowing the United Nations to mandate laws on our soil,” the AzCapitolTimes.com reported. “It’s very real and it is happening.” The UN Has no right to tell any state in the Union what to do. This is what this bill proposes, get the UN out of our government. Agenda 21 is POPULATION CONTROL. United Nations is unconstitutional we shouldn't even be in the united nations. Please wake up. And yah im from Arizona. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States43475 Posts
On April 27 2012 20:17 Lann555 wrote: What churches would that be? It's not the Mormon state right?  Haha no, Arizona isn't *the* Mormon state. That's Utah, especially in its capital: Salt Lake City... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_Lake_City | ||
|
Fyrewolf
United States1533 Posts
On April 27 2012 21:33 sAsImre wrote: My bad, done. I apologize for my mistake sir. Thank you very much, and thank you for the apology as well. I appreciate you taking the time to fix that, I really didn't want to be associated with that level of ignorance and naivete. | ||
|
imre
France9263 Posts
On April 27 2012 21:40 Fyrewolf wrote: Thank you very much, and thank you for the apology as well. I appreciate you taking the time to fix that, I really didn't want to be associated with that level of ignorance and naivete. Well that demonstration of dumbness was quite amazing but I fear that it's not really exceptionnal. On April 27 2012 21:40 sinno wrote: Did you guys even read the article? "Rep. Terri Proud, R-Tucson, told supporters in an email that the U.N. declaration “will take away our rights as Americans by allowing the United Nations to mandate laws on our soil,” the AzCapitolTimes.com reported. “It’s very real and it is happening.” The UN Has no right to tell any state in the Union what to do. This is what this bill proposes, get the UN out of our government. Agenda 21 is POPULATION CONTROL. United Nations is unconstitutional we shouldn't even be in the united nations. Please wake up. And yah im from Arizona. Did you read the statutes of the UN? You'd have learn that it has no power to enforce anything without the state Consent. And it's not against your outdated constitution nor your case law (AFAIK for the latter) | ||
|
screamingpalm
United States1527 Posts
On April 27 2012 21:40 sinno wrote: Did you guys even read the article? "Rep. Terri Proud, R-Tucson, told supporters in an email that the U.N. declaration “will take away our rights as Americans by allowing the United Nations to mandate laws on our soil,” the AzCapitolTimes.com reported. “It’s very real and it is happening.” The UN Has no right to tell any state in the Union what to do. This is what this bill proposes, get the UN out of our government. Agenda 21 is POPULATION CONTROL. United Nations is unconstitutional we shouldn't even be in the united nations. Please wake up. And yah im from Arizona. What about the rights of Americans who agree with the UN? Do you actually believe a state should be able to make it illegal for a political party or other public entity to agree with the UN's stance on these issues? That is incredibly overreaching don't you think? | ||
|
sinno
United States15 Posts
| ||
|
fortheGG
United Kingdom1002 Posts
On April 27 2012 21:41 sAsImre wrote: Well that demonstration of dumbness was quite amazing but I fear that it's not really exceptionnal. Did you read the statutes of the UN? You'd have learn that it has no power to enforce anything without the state Consent. And it's not against your outdated constitution nor your case law (AFAIK for the latter) So you're worked up about the redundant nature of the legislation? | ||
|
imre
France9263 Posts
On April 27 2012 21:45 sinno wrote: "outdated constitution" Yah because freedoms written down in a document can be "OUTDATED" lol!!!!!!!!!! freedoms are relative like any legal or political concept. | ||
|
HellRoxYa
Sweden1614 Posts
On April 27 2012 21:40 sinno wrote: Did you guys even read the article? "Rep. Terri Proud, R-Tucson, told supporters in an email that the U.N. declaration “will take away our rights as Americans by allowing the United Nations to mandate laws on our soil,” the AzCapitolTimes.com reported. “It’s very real and it is happening.” The UN Has no right to tell any state in the Union what to do. This is what this bill proposes, get the UN out of our government. Agenda 21 is POPULATION CONTROL. United Nations is unconstitutional we shouldn't even be in the united nations. Please wake up. And yah im from Arizona. The UN plays a big part in the US control of the world. Any binding resolution goes through the US (along with the other 4 veto powers, UK, France, China and Russia), and if the US doesn't like it, it wont pass. The UN can only impose, on any state or any country, that which the US agrees to and as such it's everything but very real or happening. The US should give up its veto along with the rest of the veto powers to allow for a more functioning UN but that's another debate. If that were to happen then maybe Arizona would be right in acting stupid, as opposed to right now. It seems to me that US politics is full of misinformation, from all sides. It's a sad affair indeed. On April 27 2012 21:45 sinno wrote: "outdated constitution" Yah because freedoms written down in a document can be "OUTDATED" lol!!!!!!!!!! "My teacher told me they can't be outdated and I lack any further understanding of the issue so I'll regurgitate that without even stating my teacher as my source!" At least argue for why the constitution should be (or is, I suppose) eternal. The fact that the constitution is repeatedly interpreted and reinterpreted through the supreme court seems to be in conflict in your statement. Also, see post directly above mine. | ||
|
fortheGG
United Kingdom1002 Posts
On April 27 2012 21:44 screamingpalm wrote: What about the rights of Americans who agree with the UN? Do you actually believe a state should be able to make it illegal for a political party or other public entity to agree with the UN's stance on these issues? That is incredibly overreaching don't you think? I may be wrong, but I do believe that the UN and an American party are quite different. Should a party adopt the policies of the UN and win elections, they could enforce them in any way they chose (or chose to renegade on election processes which seems to be quite the trend). | ||
|
sinno
United States15 Posts
Well to be honest with you this is a republic. The rights of the people can't be taken away sorry. Whether some Americans believe in the UN (For whatever reason I have no clue its obviously turning into a Global Army for mass slaughter) or not isnt the point. Its unconstitutional and America shouldn't be involved in it, period. Research Agenda 21 it was proposed by George Bush's dad. They think that the world is being over populated and needs to be controlled. Which is a FARSE, there is more then enough to go around for everybody on this planet. And too think we need population control is complete brain washing. Fact: If every person in the world was given 1200 sq ft of living space it would only take up the space of about Texas. So like i said there is more then enough to go around. What you learn is that most conspiracy theories aren't theories anymore. | ||
|
imre
France9263 Posts
On April 27 2012 21:49 fortheGG wrote: I may be wrong, but I do believe that the UN and an American party are quite different. Should a party adopt the policies of the UN and win elections, they could enforce them in any way they chose (or chose to renegade on election processes which seems to be quite the trend). There are various way to adopt a resolution in the UN, but most of it consist of a 60% majority vote in the assembly and a similar vote in the security council without a veto. Most of it consist either in unbinding resolutions or military/humanitary action. There is no fine system so if you sign something and don't apply it there is no direct consequences. And no consequences at all for the US. The unbinding stuff has 0 consequences for most countries, it's just a guideline. And this bill basically say that this guideline should be forbidden and nothing related to it should be accepted, which is mindblowing to say the least. On April 27 2012 21:50 sinno wrote: "rights of the americans who agree with the UN" Well to be honest with you this is a republic. The rights of the people can't be taken away sorry. Whether some Americans believe in the UN (For whatever reason I have no clue its obviously turning into a Global Army for mass slaughter) or not isnt the point. Its unconstitutional and America shouldn't be involved in it, period. Research Agenda 21 it was proposed by George Bush's dad. They think that the world is being over populated and needs to be controlled. Which is a FARSE, there is more then enough to go around for everybody on this planet. And too think we need population control is complete brain washing. Fact: If every person in the world was given 1200 sq ft of living space it would only take up the space of about Texas. So like i said there is more then enough to go around. What you learn is that most conspiracy theories aren't theories anymore. International relationships don't care about the individuals. And conspirationist theories are for uneducated sheeps, but it seems to reach its target far too often. | ||
|
screamingpalm
United States1527 Posts
On April 27 2012 21:49 fortheGG wrote: I may be wrong, but I do believe that the UN and an American party are quite different. Should a party adopt the policies of the UN and win elections, they could enforce them in any way they chose (or chose to renegade on election processes which seems to be quite the trend). Of course, but this proposal seems to outlaw such practice, at least at the state level. | ||
|
sinno
United States15 Posts
| ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Super Smash Bros Other Games Organizations Other Games StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War |
|
OSC
StarCraft2.fi
The PondCast
StarCraft2.fi
OlimoLeague
StarCraft2.fi
|
|
|
EPT
