RoR: Forum

Post 0

Wednesday, September 19, 2007 - 6:34pm

Link

Edit

Am I thinking cloudy, or is that (i.e., construction) a really lame reason/excuse to keep an IslamoFascist out of Ground Zero??

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 9/19, 8:34pm)

Post 1

Wednesday, September 19, 2007 - 7:04pm

Link

Edit

What Would Ron Paul Do?

Blasted Moral Cowards. They should let he do as he wishes, and arrest this hostage-taking madman for war crimes once he steps off UN property. Will he claim diplomatic immunity? If I'm able, I intend to attend the protests. Giuliani didn't cite zoning regulations when he had Arafat arrested at Lincoln Center.

Ted Keer

Post 2

Wednesday, September 19, 2007 - 8:01pm

Link

Edit

The U.S. sets itself up for more incidents like this as a consequence of continuing to host the United Nations on U.S. soil. It may be time for a change. More appropriate sites I have in mind are Iceland, the Canary Islands, Guam, the Falklands, the Galapagos, or Easter Island. Just the thought of potentially hearing about a President Mugabe shopping trip along Fifth Ave after his next UN visit makes me want to puke.

Post 3

Wednesday, September 19, 2007 - 10:28pm

Link

Edit

And Your Enemies Closer

International law covers the visits of actual or virtual foreign ambassadors to consulates and the UN which is essentially international territory where diplomatic immunity applies.

The problem is not with this set up, and sending the UN to the Kerguelen islands would not change the essential situation. If UN delegates and ambassadors or heads of state wish to leave the UN other than to board a diplomatic flight then their activities in the host city are subject to the relations of their country with the US or at our courtesy. Mugabe has no right to shop on Madison Avenue. Should a the French Prime Minister wish to vacation in New Hampshire, he would be free to do so on the same conditions as any other Frenchman. Ahmedinejad is not, however, the citizen of a country with which the US has diplomatic relations. We have technically been at war with Iran since the took our ambassadorial staff in Iran hostage in 1979. It is they who violated the canons of international law by storming our consulate and violating the immunity of our nationals. Diplomatic immunity has been an established principle for millennia, (as old as Sumer) with the mistreatment of messengers being considered not only an act of war, but also an offense to the gods.

But diplomatic immunity applies only for diplomatic purposes. Ahmedinejad has no immunity or right which entitles him to do anything other that travel from JFK to the UN and back. Should he do otherwise, he is a hostile national on US soil without permission, and should be treated as the do that he is.

As for the UN, one keeps one's friends close and one's enemies closer. So long as we are not withdrawing from that body, we should use eminent domain to (1) federalize and rebuild the WTC site with two taller towers and (2) move all foreign consulates and all UN offices to the upper (but not topmost) floors of the rebuilt twin towers, and let the bastards sweat out their precarious position in preferably windowless offices on the 90th floor. The amount of money that could be garnished by converting the current UN site and the consulates of China, Russia, Arabia, and so forth, which are on extremely valuable land on Manhattan's Upper East Side would be a side benefit to NYC which would benefit by the property taxes paid by such land once it was privatized. This would be a win-win situation for everyone, would it not?

Ted Keer

The building pictured standing is my job location.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 9/20, 4:15pm)

Post 4

Thursday, September 20, 2007 - 3:11am

Link

Edit

It's a lame excuse/reason, Ed.

No doubt the Iranian dictator won't even be able use a urinal without being watched.

Post 5

Thursday, September 20, 2007 - 7:29am

Link

Edit

"More appropriate sites I have in mind are Iceland, the Canary Islands, Guam, the Falklands, the Galapagos, or Easter Island." Steve Pilotte

I have a better suggestion. I recommend Dante's 8th circle of Hell.

"The fraudulent�those guilty of deliberate, knowing evil�are located in a circle named Malebolge

# Bolgia 1: Panderers and seducers walk in separate lines in opposite directions, whipped by demons. In the group of panderers the poets notice Venedico Caccianemico, and in the group of seducers Virgil points out Jason.(Canto XVIII)

# Bolgia 2: Flatterers are steeped in human excrement. (Canto XVIII)

# Bolgia 3: Those who committed simony are placed head-first in holes in the rock, with flames burning on the soles of their feet. One of them, Pope Nicholas III, denounces as simonists two of his successors, Pope Boniface VIII and Pope Clement V. (Canto XIX)

# Bolgia 4: Sorcerers and false prophets have their heads twisted around on their bodies backward, so they can only see what is behind them and not into the future.(Canto XX)

# Bolgia 5: Corrupt politicians (barrators) are immersed in a lake of boiling pitch, guarded by devils, the Malebranche ("Evil Claws"). "

Dante's Divine Comedy

Post 6

Thursday, September 20, 2007 - 1:46pm

Link

Edit

     As Ted says, they should have granted him permission...but without bothering to arrest him, and, with no special police protection, at all, at all.

     It would have been interesting if he made it to Ground Zero and back to the UN...alive.

     Remember that semi-joke about what to do with Bin Laden were he captured alive? "Drop him off in the center of NYC."

LLAP
J:D

(Edited by John Dailey on 9/20, 1:47pm)

Post 7

Thursday, September 20, 2007 - 4:13pm

Link

Edit

Hitler to Speak at Columbia?

From what I've been able to glean from the news, this monster is being given free movement in Manhattan at the option of the municipal police. This is an abominable case of moral cowardice by the President and the State Department. It is not Bush, but police Commissioner Ray Kelley who is denying him access to the WTC site.

Where is Bush's spine? Bush: "I can understand why they would not want [him] at the site." Why is this man being allowed off UN soil at all? We have no obligation to allow him to do so. We are at war with Iran. The creature is a hostage taker and most likely a murderer and undoubtedly a war criminal. He has called for the destruction of Israel. He has said he will step into the vacuum of Iraq.

If Bush could take all actions at his disposal to try to stop the murder of Terri Schiavo, why can't he take any action to keep this Hitler off American soil?

Ted Keer
(Edited by Ted Keer on 9/20, 4:48pm)

Post 8

Thursday, September 20, 2007 - 4:39pm

Link

Edit

"If Bush could take all actions at his disposal to try to stop the murder of Terri Schiavo, why can't he take any action to keep this Hitler off American soil?"

Because for all his good qualities and good actions, he is still too much Chamberlain and not enough Churchill. That's why after 3 years the U.S. still only controls 60% of Baghdad (a number touted as good by some, but not anywhere near good enough by my lights).

Post 9

Thursday, September 20, 2007 - 4:46pm

Link

Edit

I'm not sure, Jeff, that might be unfair to Chamberlain. Would to God it were Jan. 21, 2009.

Post 10

Thursday, September 20, 2007 - 7:56pm

Link

Edit

I've got to go with Ted on this one.

Bush is an unprincipled pussy pragmatist (one who has decreased individualism in our country, the United States).

Ed

Post 11

Thursday, September 20, 2007 - 8:30pm

Link

Edit

"Bush is an unprincipled pussy pragmatist (one who has decreased individualism in our country, the United States)." Ed Thompson.

I'm probably going to regret asking, but how in the world could the President decrease individualism? Did free will, not to mention 200 years of philosophical traditions, suddenly get diminished by one powerful politician over the space of a few years?

Sheesh. Have some perspective.

Post 12

Thursday, September 20, 2007 - 9:18pm

Link

Edit

I am indeed at an ever-increasing loss to understand GWB, but I don't think comparing him to female genitalia is the key.

Post 13

Thursday, September 20, 2007 - 9:36pm

Link

Edit

Jeff,

Thanks for having the courage to ask something which you may very well regret asking ...

... how in the world could the President decrease individualism?

In the same way that any governing body can -- by increasing it's opposite: collectivism.

And now you would request a laundry list of all of the ways in which Bush has worked to increase collectivism in the United States, wouldn't you? You would want this because you cannot seem to wrap your mind around the notion that it might be true that Bush has worked to increase collectivism in this otherwise-great country -- so you would say to me: "prove it." But be honest with yourself, Jeff. Would you REALLY consider a notion which is contrary to your own on this matter (no matter how much evidence is marshalled)?

Would it really make any difference if I were to marshall evidence that Bush has done more to increase collectivism in the United States than 90% of all of its past presidents? I think not. On the contrary, in response to such conclusive evidence I think you'd say something like: "But contemporary times are special, we can't compare presidents from differing epochs." This is what I mean when I complain about contemporary politics becoming a team-sport (a purposefully-collectivist switch from government by laws to government by men; from principles to people; from justice to mob).

And I'm the one who needs perspective? As you said: sheesh.

Ed

Post 14

Friday, September 21, 2007 - 3:23am

Link

Edit

Ahmadinejad is offering nuclear technology to anyone opposed to the US.

Read all about it here.

The article includes tons of footnotes.

Post 15

Friday, September 21, 2007 - 6:02pm

Link

Edit

Ed, Wow, I reeeeaaaallly appreciate your post. I come into contact with people who talk and have walked a "Patriotic" life, but don't vote anymore !! Their "Protest" against big government, GB and the Republican partys apparent dismissal of the Constitution . And it's like talking to a volitile avalanche waiting to happen. The more the trust is eroded ,the more mob-like I've seen and heard these men become.
Ahmadinejad wouldn't last one second around these men, so there is a plus side.

(Edited by Gigi P Morton on 9/21, 6:09pm)

Post 16

Saturday, September 22, 2007 - 11:00pm

Link

Edit

Trigger Happy Fools?

Sarkozy - France! - is warning of war with Iran. Israel has just bombed Syria. North Korea is back on the sanctions list. The question is, does this add up to something, and, if so, before the election?

We've had just about 20 years of sh!t-for-brains presidents, two who couldn't speak in grammatical sentences and a compulsive liar who couldn't tell the truth to save his legacy.

Well, for 20 years before 1980 everyone said a trigger-happy fool like Reagan could never get elected, and when he did, they said he'd have us at war with the Soviet Union quicker than you could say nuclear winter.

Here's to trigger-happy fools, and the 20 years of idiot presidents who make their elections possible.

Ted Keer

Post 17

Sunday, September 23, 2007 - 8:05am

Link

Edit

I never saw Reagan as a trigger-happy fool ,always a Statesman with alot of class.

Post 18

Sunday, September 23, 2007 - 6:32pm

Link

Edit

I never saw him as a trigger-happy fool, I was being ironic. (I have a tendency to do that, and assume people can tell.) But the media certainly portrayed him this way. In the sense that he was - in their eyes - a trigger happy fool, I'd like someone like him, and I think Giuliani comes closest to fitting the bill.

At this point, the election is still over a year away, so I'm going to try to avoid further horse-race politics until the primaries, but no promises!

Ted

Post 19

Sunday, September 23, 2007 - 8:26pm

Link

Edit

Hee Hee : ) No, I knew you were not refering to yourself Ted. I grew up in Madison Wisconsin and was considered, somewhat of, a facist freak among peer, in age, people in my support of Reagan admist the very liberal, at the time, backdrop of the University of Wisconsin, Town of Madison.