United Nations WILL monitor Presidential election


PDA






Alan Fud
August 8, 2004, 02:33 AM
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39861 ... Bush invites foreigners to monitor U.S. election
Administration yields to 13 congressmen who requested U.N. observers for 2004 vote

Posted: August 7, 2004 3:52 p.m. Eastern
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

WASHINGTON – When 13 Democratic members of the U.S. Congress asked United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan to send election monitors to the U.S. this fall, the move outraged many Republicans and other proponents of national sovereignty.

When those same 13 Democratic members of Congress were turned down by Annan, they took their request to Secretary of State Colin Powell – again to the shock of many Republicans and those who warn about foreign entanglements.

Yesterday, those 13 Democratic House members got their surprising answer from the State Department – the administration will indeed invite foreign election monitors to observe the U.S. elections in November.

Assistant Secretary of State Paul V. Kelly, who handles legislative affairs for the department, affirmed the invitation this week in a letter to the 13 House members. They had requested U.N. monitors for this year's elections in an effort to avoid the charges of voting irregularities that plagued the 2000 election, the closest in history.

Now, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the largest regional organization in the world with 55 participating nations, will monitor the U.S. election on Nov. 2. Members include Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Russia, Spain and the United States.

"OSCE members, including the United States, agreed in 1990 in Copenhagen to allow fellow members to observe elections in one another's countries," Kelly wrote. "Consistent with this commitment, the United States has already invited the OSCE's Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) to observe the November 2, 2004, presidential elections."

The congressional initiative was spearheaded by Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Texas. She asked Powell to make an official request that the U.N. provide observers for the Nov. 2 elections in the United States to "ensure free and fair elections."

Previously, the 13 Democratic congressmen, led by Johnson, sent a letter July 8 to the U.N. general secretary requesting the presence of U.N. representatives in every county of the country during the voting process and any vote recount afterwards.

The U.N. immediately responded that such a request could not be accepted unless it came from the U.S. government. Otherwise, a spokesman said, it could be considered"intervention in a country's sovereignty."

"As legislators, we should guarantee the American people that our country will not experience another nightmare like the 2000 presidential elections," the members of Congress said in their letter to Annan.

In her letter to Powell, Johnson expressed grave concerns regarding electoral system reforms that were not undertaken after the 2000 election.

Recalling the contentious Florida vote count in 2000, the lawmakers urged the U.N. to "ensure free and fair elections in America."

"As lawmakers, we must assure the people of America that our nation will not experience the nightmare of the 2000 presidential election," Johnson said in the letter. "This is the first step in making sure that history does not repeat itself."

Meanwhile, Rep. Corrine Brown, a Florida Democrat, announced that the Democratic Institutions and Human Rights Office of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe has confirmed that it will be present in the United States – specifically, in Florida – on Election Day.

However, state election authorities in Florida have already announced that such observers are not to be allowed access to the voting process and, in any case, they would have to remain at a distance of more than 50 feet from the polls.

Besides Johnson, the congressional signers to the original U.N. letters included Julia Carson of Indiana, Jerrold Nadler, Edolphus Towns, Joseph Crowley and Carolyn B. Maloney, all of New York, Raul Grijalva of Arizona, Corrine Brown of Florida, Elijah E. Cummings of Maryland, Danny K. Davis of llinois, and Michael M. Honda and Barbara Lee of California.

If you enjoyed reading about "United Nations WILL monitor Presidential election" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
2nd Amendment
August 8, 2004, 02:35 AM
We simply HAVE to do something about this Carson creature here in indiana. To say she is an affront to this state is un understatement.

Jim March
August 8, 2004, 03:19 AM
:rolleyes:

sm
August 8, 2004, 03:38 AM
:fire:
Art's Grammaw won't let me type what I think about the UN in the first place, much less about Meddlin' . THR won't let me type anything negative either... I'll just sit here and breathe through clentched teeth!

DesertEagle613
August 8, 2004, 03:49 AM
Hahahahahahah!!!

/* wipes tears from eyes */

Heeheeheehee!!!

/* induces vomiting */

Man, I LOVE the UN, yes I do :fire:

Hypnogator
August 8, 2004, 03:54 AM
Could this possibly backfire on the Dems? They are infamous for their manipulations of the vote! It would be ironic if they lost because the UN observers kept them (relatively) honest. :evil: :evil: :evil:

Linux&Gun Guy
August 8, 2004, 04:51 AM
I feel sick! Doom and gloom is coming from the land across the sea.

GunnySkox
August 8, 2004, 05:43 AM
The bluehelms go marching one by one, hurrah, hurrah..
The bluehelms go marching two by two, hurrah, hurrah..

Good Lord and a bag of Sun Chips, what's our country coming to when we have to sniffle and hold up our hand for the UN to help us cross the treacherous crosswalk of elections? The UN is a cancerous lump on the bosom of the free world, and it's just going to keep growing, feeding itself on every morsel of sovereignty it can get its masticating little paws on.

If they can "oversee" our elections, what's next? Do we get UN Review of our laws, after the Supreme Court gets done with them? Do we get the UN adding on its own little extra tax to help with those Oh-so-useful Blue-Helm'd "Peacekeepers"? Ugh.

Letting the UN "oversee" our elections is like Uncle Sam letting Big Brother grope Lady Liberty.

~Slam_Fire

RealGun
August 8, 2004, 06:04 AM
Anyone have some good links for this topic (election procedure reform), which I assume cannot be dwelt upon here? If it has a real connection to guns, I'm not sure what that would be without getting overly abstract.

I would like to find out if the pouch mail issue was addressed. As I understand it, embassy and APO votes were disqualified because they lacked a postmark, which pouch mail never has. I think that would place the entire overseas military vote in question, something like 150,000 I believe, as well as all diplomats, contractors, missionaries, any voter out of the country mailing by organizational pouch, not a post office.

I would also like to follow the electronic voting question. I voted electronic in the primary. I think I would be in favor of adding the receipt idea, but I liked the general concept and would like to see any issues with it worked out.

Moparmike
August 8, 2004, 06:34 AM
I want to know what the administration is coming to when it bows to the whim of 13 loudmouthed nobodys out of 535 people in the Legislative branch. Congress didnt call for this, 13 whiney, globalist sore losers did. Would you believe that I have heard one 10 second blurb about this in the weeks since their request was made.

WTH?:confused: :fire:

trooper
August 8, 2004, 07:02 AM
As much as I dislike some things that the UN do, you can't really blame them for this one. Go put the blame on your own administration.

I probably shouldn't waste my time pointing that out though, as I know perfectly well that to some THR'ers the UN is the root of all evil in the world... :neener:

Previously, the 13 Democratic congressmen, led by Johnson, sent a letter July 8 to the U.N. general secretary requesting the presence of U.N. representatives in every county of the country during the voting process and any vote recount afterwards.

The U.N. immediately responded that such a request could not be accepted unless it came from the U.S. government. Otherwise, a spokesman said, it could be considered"intervention in a country's sovereignty."


Trooper

stevelyn
August 8, 2004, 08:30 AM
trooper sez,

As much as I dislike some of the things the UN does, you can't blame them for this one. Go put the blame on your own administration

He's exactly right. Our own President has invited the vampire into the house.
Lets see now...........Bush is different from Kerry.........How? And I shouldn't vote third party because?????:rolleyes:


Uhhh............. trooper? The UN is still the root of all evil in the world.:D

trooper
August 8, 2004, 08:42 AM
Uhhh............. trooper? The UN is still the root of all evil in the world.

Nah... don't think so. The UN started out with good intentions and has proved to be useful in few instances, unneeded in some and ineffective in most.

But evil? Me thinks some people around here give 'em waaayy too much credit. The UN is just an oversized bureaucracy with some serious corruption issues that has no clue where it's going. I doubt very much that you'll ever see Blue Helmets parading through the streets of ANY industrialized, western nation.


Regards,

Trooper

WilderBill
August 8, 2004, 09:22 AM
My friend from Chicago tells me that outright buying votes is the normal way of doing business there.
What happens if the UN decides to face off against the Daley machine?

PS, my friend started voting Republican since moving to the free world.
He was sorta pissed that no one came around to offer him anything at all not to.

feedthehogs
August 8, 2004, 09:33 AM
Trooper,
Ever see the statue outside of UN headquarters?

No organization that wants to disarm the people of the world only to have its own "monitoring" forces armed cannot be trusted.

But our administration has appeared to open the door for this and possibly future UN overseeing operations.

Once you feed the stray cat, it will keep comming back.

trooper
August 8, 2004, 09:42 AM
I know what you mean, and this is by far the part about the UN that I dislike most. And I certainly wouldn't "trust" them.

But I don't think you can reduce the UN to a means for gungrabbers to further their evil agenda.

I don't particularly like the UN but I find all this not gun-related UN-bashing kinda silly.

The UN consists of so many different parties, countries and interest groups that I fail to view it as a monolithic, threatening "Evil Empire". Besides this, every country, including the US, uses the UN to further its own particular interests under the disguise of human rights, world peace, equality etc. etc.


Regards,

Trooper

boofus
August 8, 2004, 10:21 AM
If the UN wants to 'observe' let them. Bush can invite Ozzy Osbourne to observe for all I care. If the UN flunkies cross the line and meddle then that's something else...

Mr. Kook
August 8, 2004, 11:36 AM
All things considered, I am not particularly comfortable with UN observers here in an official capacity, but as was said a moment ago, so long as they don't meddle they are little more than flies on the wall.

That being said, my best guess at why Bush would allow this is to prevent a repeat of the 2000 election vote counting debacle. Quite frankly I see the logic in doing that. If having a few UN observers here who observe and don't meddle prevents a round of recounts and validates the election for all those damn naysayers, well then I don't see what is to lose.

TechBrute
August 8, 2004, 12:00 PM
Having said that, do we not have some sort of department or authority to handle this sort of thing in-house? You know, something crazy like using the police or something.

The congressional initiative was spearheaded by Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Texas. She asked Powell to make an official request that the U.N. provide observers for the Nov. 2 elections in the United States to "ensure free and fair elections."

Previously, the 13 Democratic congressmen, led by Johnson, sent a letter July 8 to the U.N. general secretary requesting the presence of U.N. representatives in every county of the country during the voting process and any vote recount afterwards.
Can we pretend she's not from Texas? Please...

M67
August 8, 2004, 12:02 PM
1. I agree with trooper about the UN.

2. Those 13 members didn't understand the system. (Why am I not surprised?)
a) The UN doesn't intervene in any way unless invited by the legal gov't of the country in question.
b) Observers do not "ensure free and fair elections". They just observe, and then make a report on whether they think the election was fair or not. If anything is wrong, it will be up the locals to decide if they want to do anything about it, the observers don't meddle.

3. All this talk about the UN is moot. According to this, Powell invited observers from the OSCE, not the UN...

But what do I know, I live in a country where the black helicopters now fly in broad daylight. One of them made a low pass over my house the other day, cleverly camoflaged for daytime operations - it was painted red and white with the word "ambulance" on the side. If I hadn't had my tinfoil hat on, I wouldn't even have suspected anything was wrong. :scrutiny:

grislyatoms
August 8, 2004, 12:10 PM
And what is going to happen if they see something awry?

Are we going to accept the "suggestions" of the U.N. in our own internal political process? Seems to fit the defintion of treason.

If not, are we just going to say "Thanks for coming, have a great day."?

This is such a precarious situation I don't really have words for it.

Let's all bow down to the white flag of world govt., spit in the eye of all the people who died for freedom, and just forget about all this "sovereign nation" nonsense. :what:

The Liberals want to create a nanny state with Liberals at the helm, answering to an even greater nanny. This looks like a big step in that direction.



:cuss: :fire: :cuss:

Waitone
August 8, 2004, 12:31 PM
Anjother example of our esteem president suffering from a lack of a moral code. The UN is not a soft and fuzzy gabfest. It is an organization accumulating global power. If you doubt its goals, take a gander at the Man in the Biosphere nonsense. Then scroll down to Agenda 21 and compare the contents of Agenda 21 to what is happening in Portland Oregon and Charlotte NC.

Bush just did something highly unsanitary to his MRE's. He caved to a small noisy group of marxists with the hopes it will shut them up. It will not. We now have the prospect of Kerry's Platoons of tort terrorists monitoring every election in every state combined with the morally superior UN monitoring our elections. I am outraged but not surprised. After all it was the same Bush that made the "Come Hither" speech to criminal aliens in December 2003 in clear violation of his oath of office.

This is a baldfaced political decision that will bite Bush in the *ss. I absolutely refuse to accept the moral superiority of the UN, a body which has more blood on its hands than any government extant.

Bush needs this one jammed up his *ss.

Art Eatman
August 8, 2004, 01:44 PM
Let's keep it rational, folks. I've edited out some rather useless commentary...

Devil's Advocate view: If these observers could achieve honesty in the voting in New Orleans, the greater Los Angeles area and Chicago, they'd be Good Things for sure. I'm thinking about the junior senator from Louisiana, what happened to Dornan via the "wetback" vote, and the general corruption of the Daley machine...

:), Art

Werewolf
August 8, 2004, 02:02 PM
Not that it will do any good but I felt it necessary to let el presidente know how one republican voter felt about this UN situation.

Below is the text of my e'mail to him:

Bush invites foreigners to monitor U.S. election
Administration yields to 13 congressmen who requested U.N. observers for 2004 vote

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/a...RTICLE_ID=39861

If the above article is accurate then President Bush is a traitor to our nation. I am ashamed that I have voted republican since I was first eligible to vote in 1973.

Rest assured if the above is true and the UN monitors the elections in November that all my support both monetary and participatory will go to candidates other than those of the republican party.

Waitone
August 8, 2004, 02:13 PM
This particular stunt gives me a particularly bad case of diaper rash.

My elected spinelessrepublicans will hear from me loud and in four part harmony.

<Breathes deeply, focuses on a distant object>

I don't like it but his actions are consistent. The joker simply will stand up for nothing. No principal is too valuable to sacrifice. All principals are subject to his quest for power.

Can someone explain why it is weak personalities inhabit the same body as dangerous personalities?

strambo
August 8, 2004, 04:34 PM
I admit that I haven't heard of the OSCE before...but it doesn't sound like part of the UN. The US joined that organization in 1990 and its purpose is to monitor elections in member nations. (US is a member)Bush is a traitor

Pretty severe accusation considering the facts. I don't like this either but we are a member of this election monitoring organization and the current President had nothing to do with that. I hate the idea of "yeilding" to the 13 Congresscritters though...We'll see how this pans out, as usual both sides are pretty extreme...the truth is in the middle somewhere.

Andrew Rothman
August 8, 2004, 05:00 PM
Everyone should calm down a little.

This WorldNet Daily (consider the source, folks!) article says "UN" about 50 times, trying to inflame passions, but the UN is not, and will not, get involved in any country's elections WITHOUT AN OFFICIAL INVITATION FROM THE GOVERNMENT.
The U.N. immediately responded that such a request could not be accepted unless it came from the U.S. government. Otherwise, a spokesman said, it could be considered"intervention in a country's sovereignty."
Sounds like the UN is doing the right thing, huh?

When we joined the OSCE, we agreed to mutual inspection of each others' elections. And the Bush administration validated that agreement by welcoming the group.

Big deal. They are observers, not overseers. If our elections are honest, they'll say so. If they're not, they'll say that too.

Wouldn't YOU want to know if there were crooked elections in your state?

So tell me: Where is the harm?

trooper
August 8, 2004, 05:02 PM
Good post... what he said.

George S.
August 8, 2004, 05:15 PM
[QUOTE]My friend from Chicago tells me that outright buying votes is the normal way of doing business there. What happens if the UN decides to face off against the Daley machine? [/QUOTE

What will the UN say when they find out that Jimmy Hoffa voted three time in a Chicago precinct?? :confused:

The UN may even ask Al Gore to run the observation process :scrutiny:

Waitone
August 8, 2004, 05:43 PM
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Organization-for-Security-and-Cooperation-in-Europe

The organization doesn't appear to be overtly linked to the UN. It does seem to have ties to the European Union.

Somehow I don't feel any better.

OSCE will find irregularities in the US elections. All human institutions have faults. The findings will be used by Tort Terrorists employed by the DNC, Soros.org, or the Clinton Wing of the party.

While I think it laudable to take the High Road and make conclusions based on known information, I smell trouble ahead. Instead of publically exposing the future assault on the electoral process, our esteemed president appears to stick his head in the internationalist sand and hope it will go away.

George Washington has sound advice about entangling alliances; a lesson we seem to have forgotten.

longrifleman
August 8, 2004, 05:44 PM
The 13 asked for this expecting to be turned down, which would allow them to claim that the Repubs were trying to fix the election. Bush called them on it to take away an issue from the Dems. If the Repubs were smart (I only wish) they would make sure that the areas that the Dems have been cheating in for years got as many observers as the areas that the Dems want covered. That probably won't happen because the Dems will scream racism or some such and the OSCE and Repubs will back off.

This also would depend on the OSCE being honest (European Socialists!).....................ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

_________________________________
Wouldn't YOU want to know if there were crooked elections in your state?

So tell me: Where is the harm?
_________________________________
There have been several that were very questionable, and even the Fed Election Commission said so---2 years later. Big deal; the election stood as first called so what good did the oversite do?

The harm? Here's a scenario: The OSCE says that there are "irregularities" in two key states but the count by US officials gives Bush the win. He also loses in the popular vote again. What credibility will he have? To make this more interesting other observers find the usual cheating in Dem areas but the OSCE says "cheating, what cheating?". I see potential for blood in the streets.

capt. Nemo
August 8, 2004, 06:40 PM
Big deal. They are observers, not overseers. If our elections are honest, they'll say so. If they're not, they'll say that too.

Not if their agenda is to have a more "One-world" friendly...meaning deep pockets...United States.

If you think the OSCE and/or the UN wouldn't like to have a bigger slice of the USA's pie, you're living in a world Disney hasn't even dreamed of yet!

What happens if they cry "FOUL" when the votes are tallied? Do we let the UN come in with blue helmets and then "oversee" our elections? Maybe they should "observe" our NSA, CIA or FBI. Observation of a Supreme Court session and decision might be a good thing. Is that law the Congress is voting on really the right thing for the whole world? Was the voting really on the up-and-up? Let the world (UN) decide.

Anyone who would allow - much less invite - this kind of thing is pretty anxious to give our country away.

Just my uneducated two cents worth...

Buck

JPL
August 8, 2004, 08:06 PM
Let them monitor.

Maybe they will learn something about the Democratic process as it developed in the United States and take it back to their respective nations.

"What happens if the inspectors face off against the Daly machine..."

Then they will be soundly beaten in true Daly Machine fahsion. :)

kwelz
August 8, 2004, 10:17 PM
We also need to get Rid of Baron Hill here in Indiana. He supports this.

Anyway. I work for the party here in Indiana and will probably be a poll watcher. If there are indeed UN inspectors at any polls then I plan on watching them extremely closely.

captain obvious
August 8, 2004, 10:25 PM
Will someone please tell me what the thing was that Bush swore to uphold and defend in his oath of office?

'cause this just doesn't seem to fit that criteria.

sendec
August 8, 2004, 11:51 PM
How many times has the U.S. done the exact, same thing? Do you supose just maybe, possibly we've done it numerous times in South and Central America, the Carribean, the Baltics and Africa? Might we do it in a little place you may've heard of - Iraq?

:rolleyes:

The UN will be doing it anyway from their desk at the Alien Tech Center at Area 51.

Y'all have'nt yet realized that Al-Jazz will have observers here, too?

dave3006
August 9, 2004, 12:14 AM
Anyone who thinks this is okay does not get it. The international community just got approval to meddle in our elections. The camel's nose is in the tent.

What we do is none of their business. Think about it. What would you have done if Al Gore had been president and pulled a stunt like this?

GWB is NO conservative.

Zundfolge
August 9, 2004, 12:33 AM
The Democrats LOVE the UN, EU and the rest of the half baked socialist world out there ... so if Kerry loses now, how will they be able to claim the Wascally Wepublicans "stole" the election with their eurotrash buddies looking over their shoulder?


Methinks this will backfire on the Dems.

Although this monitoring from the outside of our elections is not a habit we should get ourselves into.


I gotta admit, the whole thing smells a little fishy (or froggy).

Justin
August 9, 2004, 12:39 AM
http://www.sandiegozoo.org/images/imagebank/camel.jpg


http://hakeb.easyjournal.com/files/profilephotos/98193.jpg


http://www.unt.edu/recsports/Outdoor/opc%20rental%20item%20pics/Sierra%20Designs%20Bedovin%204-person%20Tent.jpg

jfh
August 9, 2004, 12:52 AM
and who was the antigunner who spouted that in 1994 when the Brady Bunch unveiled phase II?

As Santayana said....

JPL
August 9, 2004, 12:53 AM
"Anyone who thinks this is okay does not get it. The international community just got approval to meddle in our elections. The camel's nose is in the tent."

Oh please.

Please tell me exactly HOW they are going to meddle in the US election in ways that they don't already do so?

Are they going to write a strongly worded report?

Are they going to shake their fingers at us disapprovingly?

Are they going to cluck their tongues?

Oh, wait, they already do that on a regular basis.

What the hell else is new?

There is absolutely NOTHING that these so-called inspectors/monitors can do that makes a bit of difference other than makes a few idiots on capitol hill feel good (and hence shut their damned mouths), and a few others run in circles in a "the sky is falling" complete and total panic.

I get the feeling that quite a few people think this means an imminent invasion of black helicopters and troops in baby blue helmets.

Get real.

Desertdog
August 9, 2004, 12:58 AM
As much as I am against outsiders being "observers" to me there is a different thought and something that needs to be looked at.

Who the heck is paying these foreigner who know nothing about our system?

I don't want any of my tax money going to the unknowing.

Just think, a week or two vacation at whose expense??
If the Democrats want foreign observers, let the pay them out of their coffers.

How many "observers" and just which polls are they going to "observe at?

They just may find that some Americans are not very friendly with ouside "observers".:evil:

dave3006
August 9, 2004, 01:27 AM
JPL, Bush just legitimized them. He did this due to his habitual character flaw of appeasing the left. He appeased them on campaign finance reform, illegal aliens, patriot act, and free medicine for the geezers. He is a wolf in sheeps clothing.

But, because he has an "R" next to his name, people think he is a conservative. America is screwed. Kerry the proud communist or GWB the closet socialist. Nice choice.

I can't wait until our collapse. America is dead. What remains is a socialist nightmare.

Shield529
August 9, 2004, 02:23 AM
Simpley put, Dear God this cannot being happening to us.:cuss:

RealGun
August 9, 2004, 08:19 AM
Simpley put, Dear God this cannot being happening to us.

Oh come on, get a grip. This non-issue is a pathetic excuse for Bush bashing and UN bashing.

I have a concern about the legitimacy of our elections. I don't have a better idea. I don't jump on every excuse to bash the UN. When we have a concern about another country, we obtain permission from the host country and send someone in with UN blessing. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

I am reminded of how ineffective weapons inspectors were in Iraq because of their restrictions, imposed by the host. They certainly weren't free to go and do whatever they chose to, and the reports had to be based upon factual findings, not hunches or unfounded accusations.

When invited to leave, they had no options. They were empowered only to officially comment within the scope of the assignment.

If Bush needs to throw the UN a bone, now needing more cooperation, this would be a good way to do it.

If someone believes the US should drop out of the UN, that doesn't mean we should or that Bush agrees. He isn't a conservative. He is a centrist, like any other effective President, who was able to get elected.

I see this administration as unusually decisive and proactively religious. Beyond that, I don't see much that is very distinctive. Four more years projects to work for me, considering the realistic alternatives and in spite of some strong objections on some issues.

We see fashionable political stances here, but that doesn't mean there is a consensus or that any one viewpoint has an ounce of relevance to gun ownership. Isolationism and gun ownership advocacy are not one and the same. UN election observers is a lo-o-o-ng way from international gun bans, no matter what hysterical tin foil hats may say.

I would be more concerned about the US endorsing a gun ban for the Iraq Constitution. I would be a lot more concerned about the threat of our own politics than about a few supervised foreign visitors.

Blackcloud6
August 9, 2004, 10:07 AM
I hope the Blue Helmets know where all the cemeteries are in Detroit so they can watch all those dead people vote.

Waitone
August 9, 2004, 10:51 AM
. . . . . . and this just in . . . . .

Seems the upcoming election is not the first time OSCE has observed a US election.

http://www.cnsnews.com//ThisHour.asp#International%20Observers%20to%20Monitor%20US%20Presidential%20Election

International Observers to Monitor US Presidential Election

(CNSNews.com) - For the first time in American history, a team of international observers has been invited by the U.S. State Department to be present for a presidential election, according to a report from CNN. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe will send representatives to monitor the Nov. 2 election, said spokeswoman Urdur Gunnarsdottir. "It's not legally binding, but it's a political commitment." Based in Vienna, Austria, the OSCE has sent more than 10,000 personnel to monitor more than 150 elections and referenda in more than 30 countries during the past decade, Gunnarsdottir added. In November 2002, the OSCE sent 10 observers on a weeklong mission to monitor the U.S. midterm elections. The OSCE also sent observers to monitor the California gubernatorial recall election last year. Read News on the Web

mnealtx
August 9, 2004, 11:32 AM
1. We've spent THE LAST 4 YEARS with the Dem's saying "The Republicans stole the election"

2. We've signed a treaty (or agreement) with OSCE stating that the signatories can MONITOR other signatories' elections

Now, here's the $64,000 question, boys and girls -

Just WHAT do you think the Dems would do with the info if Bush reneged on the treaty? Look at the field day the Dems and everyone else had with the ABM treaty...

C'mon, people.... :uhoh: :banghead: :cuss: I'm not saying Bush is perfect, but he's a DURN sight better than Kerry...

dave3006
August 9, 2004, 11:59 AM
We have a choice between the village idiot and Karl Marx this November.

JPL
August 9, 2004, 12:19 PM
"JPL, Bush just legitimized them. He did this due to his habitual character flaw of appeasing the left. He appeased them on campaign finance reform, illegal aliens, patriot act, and free medicine for the geezers. He is a wolf in sheeps clothing.

But, because he has an "R" next to his name, people think he is a conservative. America is screwed. Kerry the proud communist or GWB the closet socialist. Nice choice."

:confused:

And that has anything to do with the fact that these monitors have absolutely NO power to do anything in the United States other than observe, how?

Legitimized is somehow equal to acquiescing into status of slaves, how?

I keep reading panicky posts about how this is the camel's nose under the tent...

For what?

An immediate invasion of the United States by blue bereted minions of ultimate power who will immediately render the United States defenseless by deputizing all police, National Guard, and active military, and militia into the UN World Army?

You speak as if no other US president has ever had any sort of dealings with the United Nations...

It's an insidious, paranoid plot, alright, but I'm not so certain it's a UN plot.

Ouch.

flatrock
August 9, 2004, 12:36 PM
We had 13 congressmen slandering the US and making it look like we had something to hide.

We've had years of democrats claiming that Bush somehow stole the election, when he won the election by the original count and even the recounts.

These congressmen aren't trying to right a wrong, or prevent a possible election scandal. They are appealing to the hate-mongers in their party, and defaming our country and making us look bad in the eyes of the world for political gain.

Bush has only one way to shut them up. He can invite in observers.

I don't like the precedent of inviting other nations to be involved in our elections, but it seems obvious to me that Bush has little to fear.

The only real election issues I've seen are where illegals and the dead seem to vote democrat.

I bet those 13 congressmen were at least as surprised as I was to hear Bush invited observers. He just took away their false argument, and they'll have to invent a new thing to be irate about to rile up their constituants. Anger and hate are the only tools they know how to use.

I don't know enough details to guage how the invitation of these observers will efect things in the long run, but I bet the Bush administration has a lot more information, and his record shows pretty clearly that he doesn't let foreign nations dictate the actions of the United States.

Saying that Bush is commiting treason, is silly at best. Bush hasn't given up our nations soventry, and he's stood his ground against the UN more than the last few Presidents.

People should use their brains a bit more before throwing around words like treason. Treason is among the highest crimes in the land for good reason. It's not an accusation that should be made lightly whenever someone does something you disagree with.

2nd Amendment
August 9, 2004, 12:54 PM
And a hearty AMEN!

JPL
August 9, 2004, 01:36 PM
Whoops...

Wrong place...

JPL
August 9, 2004, 01:42 PM
"I don't like the precedent of inviting other nations to be involved in our elections..."


While I agree with, and applaud, the sentiment of your entire post, I do disagree with this small phrase.

Observers OBSERVE.

They aren't "involved."

They have no power to do anything other than look, and report back.

If someone attemps to vote Republican, they can't castigate the individual and force him to vote Democratic.

In fact, if I'm not mistaken, attempting to coerce someone to change his/her vote in a polling place is illegal in many states.

1776
August 9, 2004, 01:53 PM
After being a life long Republican (I'm 66), I will not vote for Mr. Bush this year.
No.., I won't vote for Mr. Kerry either. I just won't vote.
What will that accomplish? It MAY get the Democrats back in power.
With the Democrats back in power perhaps things in this country will come to a head a lot quicker.
And perhaps I will be able to contribute to the fight for my country before old age makes me infirm.

When I read with a sick feeling in my stomach that " An international team to monitor presidental elelction".

I refuse to be a participant in the globalisation and destruction of MY country.
Am I an isolationist? You bet I am. "America first, screw the rest"

I read with shock that the conditioning of the American people is progressing toward a one world government with the U.N. in charge. I for one will not allow a family that lives four blocks away come into my home and tell me how to live my life. Espesially if that family can't run their home any better then the Simpsons. (analogy)

I know that the Democrats are like spoiled chaildren, But I also now know that the Republican polititions are plain and simply STUPID eunuchs . I do not approve of creeping incrimentalism that will give my country to the likes of koffe Annis(sp).

I understand that I am in effect giving my vote to Kerry. So be it.
My feeling is this. If the pols of this country refuse to live by and protect the Constitution, I will consider them traitors to America. I think that I have had enough. Before any of you jump all over me, Please consider my thoughts.

Is this all a secret plan by the Republicans to beat the Democrats? I don't give a rats patutie if it is..

Zundfolge
August 9, 2004, 02:39 PM
We have a choice between the village idiot and Karl Marx this November.

Agreed ... I'll take the village idiot over Karl Marx any day ... at least the village idiot is not surrounded by communists who wish to load us on cattle cars and ship us to the gulag.



I don't like Bush, but the damage that will be done by Kerry and his bunch is much worse then what Bush will do (at least with Bush we Republicans have some slight pull).

I refuse to be a participant in the globalisation and destruction of MY country.
Then they have won, because you're also not going to be a participant in the fight against the the globalisation and destruction of OUR country.

R.H. Lee
August 9, 2004, 02:45 PM
I suppose they can "observe" all they want. If they're armed and/or wearing blue helmets, or writing down license plates numbers, then we're gonna have a problem.

JPL
August 9, 2004, 02:58 PM
"If they're armed..."

I don't think there's a state in the nation where it's legal for someone to be armed in a polling place.

It is probably legal for a "police officer" to be armed in a polling place while carrying out his duty (arresting someone, investigating a crime), but I don't think it's legal for a police officer to stand in line to vote while armed.

OK, that's the law in Pennsylvania, the first state that popped up when I googled, and I'm pretty sure that's the law in other states.

R.H. Lee
August 9, 2004, 03:14 PM
"If they're armed..."

I don't think there's a state in the nation where it's legal for someone to be armed in a polling place

I hadn't thought of that, and that's probably true. Besides, this is only the first step toward getting Americans used to becoming a part of the "global community". :rolleyes:

ctdonath
August 9, 2004, 03:20 PM
So tell me: Where is the harm?

1. Matter of privacy. My vote is a matter only between me and my gov't. It's none of OSCE's dang business. Imagine me hanging around your house, just to make sure nobody does anything wrong: where's the harm?

2. Those who observe tend to develop a sense of interest beyond mere observing. It is in their interest to find something wrong (according to them, not us), make it a big deal, and thus justify their existence.

3. What IS their purpose in observing? What happens if they do find something wrong? surely then the whole point is for these outsiders to loudly declare their findings for the purpose of causing change. If there is no possibility of influence - and thus no possibility of harm - what is the point of their observing in the first place?

4. Our laws describe exactly who is allowed to do what in relation to voting. For some legally non-permitted entity to inject themselves into the process - even just to observe - is to disrupt a very sensitive process. Up 'til now, I have trusted who is present at the voting site: anyone there is either voting or facilitating voting (or family/friend tagging along) ... now I and many others will be watching for outsiders whose purpose & motive for being present will be challenged, and they will be asked to leave.

5. If our voting process needs observing, let us observe ourselves. Jim March is doing a fine job making sure e-voting is legit; there are plenty other citizens who can do just as good a job without outside "help".

All boils down to: It's none of OSCE's dang business. Why should one side have to justify the "no OSCE here" view? Shouldn't it be the "pro-OSCE-observers" view job to justify their presence?

RealGun
August 9, 2004, 03:29 PM
All boils down to: It's none of OSCE's dang business. Why should one side have to justify the "no OSCE here" view? Shouldn't it be the "pro-OSCE-observers" view job to justify their presence?

Sorry. If you want to be critical, you need to justify your complaint. Anti-establishment is not the baseline.

JPL
August 9, 2004, 03:41 PM
"My vote is a matter only between me and my gov't."

You think that there will be a UN monitor standing IN the voting booth with you?


"Those who observe tend to develop a sense of interest beyond mere observing. It is in their interest to find something wrong (according to them, not us), make it a big deal, and thus justify their existence."

And that would be different than what the UN currently does regarding the United States, how?

I'm sure there will be reports and memos and bleatings coming out of the UN.

But, SO WHAT?

What can the UN do in the United States regarding how we vote, other than wiggle their fingers or cluck their tongues?

Hint -- absolutely nothing.


"Our laws describe exactly who is allowed to do what in relation to voting."

The laws regarding observers in polling places are left up to the states, as per the Constitution.

Observers are, and have always been, legal in every state that I know of.


"Why should one side have to justify the "no OSCE here" view? Shouldn't it be the "pro-OSCE-observers" view job to justify their presence?"

You seem to be mistaking my attitude of who cares, it doesn't make a bit of difference, but it does pull the props out from under some very annoying politicians, for one of active support for UN monitors.

That's wrong.

I don't care of they come to monitor.

I don't care if their plane crashes into the sea en route (although I'm sure we'd hear claims of Republicans shooting the plane down).

What I would like to see, though, is some justification that would prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that this is the end of soverignty for the United States and the beginning of US subjegation in a world government headed by the UN, that somehow we'll be turned into mere slaves in chains.

Chicken Little is running hard today...

R.H. Lee
August 9, 2004, 03:48 PM
Sorry. If you want to be critical, you need to justify your complaint. Anti-establishment is not the baseline.

[assume europeon mentality]
Yeah, ctdonath, you sound like some imperialistic arrogant 'merican. Who are you to object to NON-CITIZENS in a SEMI/PSEUDO OFFICIAL capacity observing our elections? Sheesh.[/europeon mentality] :rolleyes:

Man, I'm sorry to see the globalist mindset coming to THR.

JPL
August 9, 2004, 04:02 PM
"Man, I'm sorry to see the globalist mindset coming to THR."\


Ah, I get it.

Because I don't care if the UN sends observers or not (because I recognize it as the absolute non event that it is), I'm immediately lumped into the globalist group.

How....

Nice.

sendec
August 9, 2004, 04:11 PM
We hold ourselves out as a model of democracy and freedom and people are complaining because someone might watch us do it. After the last voting fiasco we should be "observed"........I've seen 3rd grade student council elections handled much better, but that can't be true because public education is probably a puppet of the Soros Foundation, the UN and a secret sect of vampire Mennonite pedophiles. These attitudes are embarrassing.

I am rapidly becoming much more concerned about some of my fellow Americans than any Pakistanis in blue helmets.

flatrock
August 9, 2004, 04:11 PM
1. Matter of privacy. My vote is a matter only between me and my gov't. It's none of OSCE's dang business. Imagine me hanging around your house, just to make sure nobody does anything wrong: where's the harm?

They'll have to stay 100+ feet from the polling place. I forget the number, but they aren't allowed in the polling place, or right by the doors.

2. Those who observe tend to develop a sense of interest beyond mere observing. It is in their interest to find something wrong (according to them, not us), make it a big deal, and thus justify their existence.

I somewhat share this concern, however it's a concern founded in suspicion rather than based on solid facts. I agree that we need to be cautious about inviting involvment even at the spectator level, but in the end I'm not sure my paranoia on the subject is justified. I'm definately not an expert of the subject of election observers, and I suspect that Bush and the state department looked into this before inviting them in.

3. What IS their purpose in observing? What happens if they do find something wrong? surely then the whole point is for these outsiders to loudly declare their findings for the purpose of causing change. If there is no possibility of influence - and thus no possibility of harm - what is the point of their observing in the first place?

If they see something wrong, they'll report on it, and then we get to deal with it. We are a country of laws, and we would need to deal with it according to those laws. I think the observers may be a bit hesitent to point fingers where no problem exists. It appears we have a treaty which might allow us to hold them to the same standards, which encourages keeping their mouths shut more than looking for problems where none exist.

If they do find a problem, then we do need to address the problem. Hiding elections problems is not acceptable.

4. Our laws describe exactly who is allowed to do what in relation to voting. For some legally non-permitted entity to inject themselves into the process - even just to observe - is to disrupt a very sensitive process. Up 'til now, I have trusted who is present at the voting site: anyone there is either voting or facilitating voting (or family/friend tagging along) ... now I and many others will be watching for outsiders whose purpose & motive for being present will be challenged, and they will be asked to leave.

They aren't going to be allowed to violate our laws and interfere with the elections process.

5. If our voting process needs observing, let us observe ourselves. Jim March is doing a fine job making sure e-voting is legit; there are plenty other citizens who can do just as good a job without outside "help".

We already do have some organizations that observe elections to the extent they are available. Some are more partisan than others, but all have that right. This is theoretically inviting in a third party with no role in the elections to observe. It's a good idea in theory. I don't think it's needed, but unless they try and scew things, I don't see the harm.

All boils down to: It's none of OSCE's dang business. Why should one side have to justify the "no OSCE here" view? Shouldn't it be the "pro-OSCE-observers" view job to justify their presence?

It's definately none of their business unless we make it their business. Some of our congressmen have decided to ask for outside observation as a political ploy. The administration apparently didn't see the harm in doing so, but saw the harm in allowing those 13 congressmen to continue trying to degrade the office of the president and make our country look bad. He called their bluff.

R.H. Lee
August 9, 2004, 04:24 PM
I am rapidly becoming much more concerned about some of my fellow Americans than any Pakistanis in blue helmets.

No problem with people from other countries coming to "observe" our elections. However, when they are under the UNITED NATIONS, a completely corrupt and self serving entity, yeah, I have a problem with that.

Thumper
August 9, 2004, 04:25 PM
JPL said

Because I don't care if the UN sends observers or not

From Webster's:

"Observe 4 a : to watch carefully especially with attention to details or behavior for the purpose of arriving at a judgment.

Surely you understand that the word 'judgement' has an authoritative connotation?

Why you would be ambivalent to conferring authority over the U.S.' election process to an outside organization is puzzling.

flatrock
August 9, 2004, 04:41 PM
From Webster's:

"Observe 4 a : to watch carefully especially with attention to details or behavior for the purpose of arriving at a judgment.

Surely you understand that the word 'judgement' has an authoritative connotation?

Why you would be ambivalent to conferring authority over the U.S.' election process to an outside organization is puzzling.

So you're saying that if you strech the definitions of the words observe, judgement, and authority, you have a logical basis for fear that this is the first step in a foreign power gaining control over our government?

Maybe I can gain control of CNN by observing their news coverage and making a judgement about their objectivity. Ok, bad example because they have no objectivity, and I believe our elections are fair in the overwhelming majority of situations. However, you should get the idea.

Thumper
August 9, 2004, 04:48 PM
How can I judge anything without exercizing some authority over it?

Here, for reference:

"Main Entry: judg·ment
Variant(s): or judge·ment /'j&j-m&nt/
Function: noun
1 a : a formal utterance of an authoritative opinion"

Know what the root word of authoritative is?

JPL
August 9, 2004, 04:52 PM
Thumper,

I'm puzzled as to why you believe that any "authority" would be conveyed to an outside entity.

Just WHAT "authority" would be conveyed to the UN observers?

Will they have the "authority" to accompany you into the voting booth?

No.

Do they have the "authority" to tell you or me how to vote?

No.

Will they have the authority to actually stand IN polling places?

Apparently not.

Will they have the authority to alter the outcome of an election?

No.

Will they have any official status other than GUESTS in this nation, here at the request, but also the temper, of the government?

No.

Now that you've cracked your dictionary, look up the word judgement.

In my dictionary, there's absolutely no link between judgement and ENFORCEMENT.

These observers can observe and judge all they want.

But I've yet to see anyone in the "sky is falling" contingement give anything even remotely resembling a plausible explanation as to how this will allow the UN to inject itself into the American democratic process.

Thumper
August 9, 2004, 04:54 PM
In my dictionary, there's absolutely no link between judgement and ENFORCEMENT.

Please see my post immediately previous to yours.

ctdonath
August 9, 2004, 04:58 PM
I don't care of they come to monitor.

Would you care if I come monitor you? in your house, or maybe 100' from your house, taking detailed notes and posting them on www.jplwatch.com?

They'll have to stay 100+ feet from the polling place. I forget the number, but they aren't allowed in the polling place, or right by the doors.

So what are they actually going to observe? Will they be in the counting rooms? or just making sure would-be voters are allowed in the door? who watches them to ensure non-interference?


If nothing else, this is a hugely bad PR move. This sounds bad on the face of it, happened suddenly for no apparent reason (beyond 13 Dems whining), and comes with no explaination of what this entails. It also creates bad precident: "you asked us to observe last time, so why not next time ... and with a little more 'observation' than before? it's just so reasonable to continue, if not increase, our involvement in your affairs ..."

Things were fine without OSCE's involvement. Why involve them now? If no harm in doing so, then what's the harm in not doing so? Why must I, as a voter, have to now deal with the spectre of foreign meddlers? having only vague reports/rumors to go on, now I must spend time finding out what OSCE's involvement means and how to deal with them crossing the line.

Maybe OSCE observing is harmless after all. Then why have them observe at all?

ctdonath
August 9, 2004, 05:03 PM
These observers can observe and judge all they want.

Observe what? If they can't be in the booth, can't be in the voting area, can't watch the tabulation process, can't be at more than a few dozen sites (100+ ft away at that), etc. ... then what, pray tell, are they observing?

They'd do better to stay home & watch CNN report exit polls.

Daniel T
August 9, 2004, 05:14 PM
I'm observing a lot of paranoia in this thread.

You see, that observation is my judgement.

So, umm, what authority do I have?

...

ctdonath,

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that this is somehow "sudden". We signed a treaty several years ago, and observers were here during the midterm elections. You know, the elections where the people of the US voted decidedly Republican. What did the OSCE do then?

ctdonath
August 9, 2004, 05:15 PM
But I've yet to see anyone in the "sky is falling" contingement give anything even remotely resembling a plausible explanation as to how this will allow the UN to inject itself into the American democratic process.

1. OSCE "observes" voting process. (See prior post asking what "observing" constitutes.)
2. OSCE decides there are voting problems in Florida (hanging chads), California (unverified e-votes), Chicago (whole cemetaries voting), etc.
3. OSCE decides whole electoral college thingie is outdated and allows for too much variation in voting methods (see #2).
4. OSCE recommends USA scraps electoral college in favor of "consistent fair one-person-one-vote" elections featuring paper, pencil, wooden boxes, and one big counting site.
5. UN decides that world's most powerful nation should adhere to human rights principles (as defined by the UN's consensus of dictators as "one person one vote"), Syria leads successful push for declaring the USA a human-rights violator, and UN imposes sanctions on USA until our chosen voting system is replaced by standard "absentee ballots".

OK, it's a bit out there. But what assurance is there that OSCE would be fair, and their reports not abused by the UN to turn the world against us?

And the core question remains: what business is it of OSCE to "observe"? and observe what?

Thumper
August 9, 2004, 05:20 PM
So, umm, what authority do I have?

If I have to point it out (I noticed you're in Austin, so I probably do) you have the authority to act on that judgement, whether it be by posting it here for influence, or writing it up in the local paper.

How do you expect this outside authority you seem to welcome to administer their judgements? And why?

ctdonath
August 9, 2004, 05:31 PM
We signed a treaty several years ago, and observers were here during the midterm elections. You know, the elections where the people of the US voted decidedly Republican. What did the OSCE do then?

Nobody said they would do immediate and great evil.
What some of us are saying is that OSCE could do harm (slippery slope et al), has little good to offer (if there's a problem, let's find/fix it ourselves), violates basic principles (soveriegnty), and our elections are none of their business anyway.

Sometimes it takes a while for people to really realize our elected officials did something dumb (OSCE treaty), and it usually takes real harm happening for the stupidity to be reversed.

Last time OSCE sent, what, 10 observers? this time, how many? how many next time? what's the pattern of growth/involvement? why the growing interest?

If you really don't care if OSCE is here or not, why do you object to others saying "send 'em home"?

JPL
August 9, 2004, 05:42 PM
And here your scripted premise comes totally apart...

"and UN imposes sanctions on USA until our chosen voting system is replaced by standard "absentee ballots"."


Sanctions must be passed by the UN Security Council.

The United States has one of 5 absolute vetos on the Security Council.

If one of the 5 permanent members votes No, even if the other 4 permanent members vote yes, along with the 15 rotating members, the issues is DEAD.

Now, if the United States jumps to and withdraws from the United Nations unilaterally, as some here apparently want us to do, then sanctions are a distinct possibility.

So...

If the rest of the world couldn't pass sanctions against the United States to protest our invasion of Iraq, what makes you think that they can do so over the issue of how the United States votes?

Now that you understand that the United States has one of the five veto votes, do you understand why all of this handwringing and chicken littling is so absolutely preposterous, and why the TRUE authority is vested in the United States, and not the United Nations?



JBLWATCH.COM

Cool. I've been meaning to get a presence on the web.

Come observe.

You'll discover just how frighteningly boring my family and I really are.

Our lives can stand up to the scrutiny and observation.

Can yours?

Thumper
August 9, 2004, 05:46 PM
Once more, why do you want an external party involved in U.S. elections?

R.H. Lee
August 9, 2004, 05:48 PM
And another thing...

This is just a thinly veiled political ploy on the part of the left. If Bush wins there will be 'reports' of 'abuses' and 'disenfranchisement' that will continue throughout his second term in a continuing effort to undermine the will of the people. If Bush loses, it will set a precedent for even more intrusive 'monitoring' by outside interlopers. It's a win/win for the left.

I'm against it.

flatrock
August 9, 2004, 05:49 PM
1. OSCE "observes" voting process. (See prior post asking what "observing" constitutes.)
2. OSCE decides there are voting problems in Florida (hanging chads), California (unverified e-votes), Chicago (whole cemetaries voting), etc.
3. OSCE decides whole electoral college thingie is outdated and allows for too much variation in voting methods (see #2).
4. OSCE recommends USA scraps electoral college in favor of "consistent fair one-person-one-vote" elections featuring paper, pencil, wooden boxes, and one big counting site.
5. UN decides that world's most powerful nation should adhere to human rights principles (as defined by the UN's consensus of dictators as "one person one vote"), Syria leads successful push for declaring the USA a human-rights violator, and UN imposes sanctions on USA until our chosen voting system is replaced by standard "absentee ballots".

The OSCE has no authority to make a determination on the effectiveness of the electorial college, nor do they have any ability to try and change it, nor do you really have a reason to suspect that they won't like it.

There are countries on the UN human rights pannel that will continue to push for the US to be considered a human rights violater regardless of what we do, because many of those countries are human rights violaters, and they're trying to destroys any means by which the system might be used against them. This has nothing to do with elections observers.

The elections observers will likely find some minor irregularities. SOme are found every year and broadcast over the media for the world to hear. We aren't a closed society. This comission isn't going to find deep, dark secrets that aren't already available from watchdog groups within the US.

That's why it was such a farce that those 13 congressmen were calling for the observers. There's nothing they will find out that others within the country won't find. It was a political stunt to try and hurt Bush, and Bush called them on it.

If you feel the need to be irate about something, be irate at those congressmen who feel the need to slander the US on the international stage for political reasons.

flatrock
August 9, 2004, 05:58 PM
If you really don't care if OSCE is here or not, why do you object to others saying "send 'em home"?

Because I don't think it's productive to get upset and make a big deal about nothing.

Because it makes diplomacy for our administration difficult when we capriciously deny reasonable requests. It's a big world, and we need alies to effectively protect our interests. Let's not give fuel to our opponents over stupid little things.

We have on many occasions insisted that other countries allow observers, who are we to be held above reproach?

We are a soverign nation. The UN or the OSCE cannot force anything on us. All we are doing is permitting their observers to see firsthand rather then getting secondhand reports from watchdog groups in the US.

If you have valid reasons rather than suspisions based on little to no facts, let's hear them. However, arguing about nothing and making decisions based on ignorance and fear isn't productive.

R.H. Lee
August 9, 2004, 06:05 PM
We have on many occasions insisted that other countries allow observers, who are we to be held above reproach?


Go stand in the corner. Making a 'moral equivalence' comparision between the electoral process in the U.S., and some third world country attempting to emerge from a dictatorship won't fly.

Dannyboy
August 9, 2004, 06:16 PM
Oh my goodness gracious, what a bunch of paranoid loonies we have on this here board.

If I see the phrase "UN Observers" one more time I'm gonna :barf: . Did only half of you even read the article? Or did you just stop when you saw "UN Observers?" Maybe what we have here is a ginormous case of xenophobia. We can't have no dad gum furriners here observin us while we vote. It just ain't right, I say. It's, like, unconstitutional...or somethin.

And just for the record, no, I don't like it either.

R.H. Lee
August 9, 2004, 06:24 PM
Maybe what we have here is a ginormous case of xenophobia

So to object to foreign 'monitoring' (that's what the article says) of arguably the most valuable and hard won right of Americans is "xenophobic"? Did I make a ginormously wrong turn somewhere and wind up in DU?

Shalako
August 9, 2004, 07:21 PM
Liberals worship the Europeans.

"By us humbly prostrating ourselves and genuflecting to you, the most learned and noble Europeans to come please observe our elections and please give us your esteemed progressively cosmopolitan opinions, may we please be restored in your brilliantly insightful European favor once again...?"


Who cares what they say, they only have as much power as we give them. Besides, I bet our elections are many times better than anything else they would have to_compare_them_to.

gunsmith
August 9, 2004, 09:41 PM
I can assure you they are an anti semitic anti gun anti U.S bunch of nicompoops.

longeyes
August 10, 2004, 12:07 AM
One more brick in the wall.

The next four years, under President Whoever, should be very, very interesting.

You don't invite kibitzers into your family affairs--unless you have a death wish or another agenda.

One more reason to stay an Independent.

JPL
August 10, 2004, 01:13 AM
"Once more, why do you want an external party involved in U.S. elections?"

Hum...

I'm faced with two choices, and neither one is flattering to you, Thumper.

Either you can't read what I've written, or you simply don't want to read what I've written.

Please go back through my messages and point out to me where I've stated that "I want" an external party involved in US elections.

Since you apparently really haven't read any of my previous messages, though, I'll save you the effort, and tell you that I don't really care one way or the other if they come and WATCH.

You keep attempting to assert that these monitors will be somehow involved in the elections when it's been repeatedly pointed out that other than observation, there's no means for them to become involved.

What I have repeatedly said, though, is that the rampant paranoia that this somehow means immediate US subjegation under UN rule is ludicrous.

JPL
August 10, 2004, 01:15 AM
"This is just a thinly veiled political ploy on the part of the left."

Actually, it's part and parcel to an international treaty that the United States signed 10 years ago.

I did, however, hear on the news this evening that the Republican-controlled Congress has pretty much shut down American participation by stripping out virtually all money out of the last several budgets that would fund activities.

JPL
August 10, 2004, 01:20 AM
"So to object to foreign 'monitoring' (that's what the article says) of arguably the most valuable and hard won right of Americans is "xenophobic"?"

No, to get worked up and claim how the presence of a few observers is going to bring the United States form of democracy crashing to the ground in a matter of minutes is paranoid xenaphobia.

To claim that somehow the United Nations will be able to pass crushing sanctions on the United States because of our electoral college is not only paranoid xenaphobia, but it shows a marked lack of understanding about how the UN operates.

Matt G
August 10, 2004, 04:05 AM
Frankly, if I ran an administration that had won the last election by the skin of its teeth, only to hear a lot of the nation grumbling about a "stolen election," I'd probably invite the "U.N. Observers" in, too! Credibility is all.

Heck, maybe some good will come of it. Maybe the U.N. guys will decry our silly Electoral College loudly enough to stir enough interest that we can get a Constitutional Amendment passed to abolish it.

(Yes, I realize that our sitting Pres only won because of the E.C. That's fine-- he played by the rules that were extant. Let's change 'em now to "Most Votes Wins.")









--And, yes, for what it's worth, I'd be darned riled up if this was used as an opportunity to attempt to reduce this nation's sovereignty. :cuss:

LAK
August 10, 2004, 05:11 AM
Don't understand why so many people are perplexed at such things.

-----------------------------
"We must press on with our agenda for peace and prosperity in every land." - George Bush, to the United Nations General Assembly, November 10, 2001

LAK
August 10, 2004, 05:14 AM
Matt G Heck, maybe some good will come of it. Maybe the U.N. guys will decry our silly Electoral College loudly enough to stir enough interest that we can get a Constitutional Amendment passed to abolish it

.... Oh yeah, let's have mob rule. That's real smart ;)

Then let's make it global. Smarter still.

RealGun
August 10, 2004, 10:10 AM
Presidents don't win on popular votes. Get over it. Anyone who thinks the Electoral College or one district/one vote should be abolished did not pay attention to the civics lesson during the last election. Proposing abolition of the EC could only come from a Democrat or one not accepting our republican form of government. Gore lost. Bush is legitimate, no apologies. The tyranny of the majority...oh yeah, that's what we need...let CA, NY, NJ, and Chicago decide. The FF had it all wrong.:uhoh:

The view of European observers without a sense of vastly scattered populations has no bearing on the United States. How does one represent regional concerns without allocated electoral votes? What's better?

Look, it's only a token presence. There isn't much they can or will do to make a difference.

I see some objecting to the principle of the treaty itself. I suggest discussing that separately, starting with looking it up and reading it. If treaties are to mean anything, parties must abide by them. Of course, an isolationist wouldn't care and will argue endlessly.

Daniel T
August 10, 2004, 10:49 AM
Thumper:

If I have to point it out (I noticed you're in Austin, so I probably do) you have the authority to act on that judgement, whether it be by posting it here for influence, or writing it up in the local paper.

:rolleyes: Yeah, because I'm from Austin, sure thing. Hey, while we're on the subject, I'd like to note that Eddie Bernice Johnson represents that oh-so-conservative bastion known as Dallas. Huh.

I'd also like to note that the treaty creating the OSCE was signed in 1990. That's right, by Bush the 1st. If the sky is falling, it's been falling for 14 years now. What, you just now looked up, Chicken Little?

How do you expect this outside authority you seem to welcome to administer their judgements? And why?

"You seem to welcome"? Do you think you can read minds? You have no idea what I "welcome". If by "administer their judgement", you mean "write a report", then you'll probably be descibing the extent of the OSCE's influence.

R.H. Lee
August 10, 2004, 11:00 AM
I did, however, hear on the news this evening that the Republican-controlled Congress has pretty much shut down American participation by stripping out virtually all money out of the last several budgets that would fund activities.

So a Democrat controlled Congress could increase funding and the active participation of U.N. meddlers. Apparently it is political. I rest my case.


No, to get worked up and claim how the presence of a few observers is going to bring the United States form of democracy crashing to the ground in a matter of minutes is paranoid xenaphobia.

Hyperbole. I've already shown that it's a politcal maneuver. The left operates incrementally. I opposed to letting the camel's nose into the tent, so to speak.

To claim that somehow the United Nations will be able to pass crushing sanctions on the United States because of our electoral college is not only paranoid xenaphobia, but it shows a marked lack of understanding about how the UN operates.


The U.N.'s primary purpose (other than increasing its own size and power) is to advocate for third world countries. They have absolutely no business overseeing free elections in this country. BTW, thanks for the clinical diagnosis. Don't send me a bill.

JPL
August 10, 2004, 11:14 AM
"Heck, maybe some good will come of it. Maybe the U.N. guys will decry our silly Electoral College loudly enough to stir enough interest that we can get a Constitutional Amendment passed to abolish it."

The Founders chose the electoral college as a means of ensuring that the large, populous states, didn't overwhelm the smaller states.

It was the same concerns that led to the bicameral Congress that we have today -- the House based on representation by population, the Senate based on equal power of the states, each with two votes.

Initial plans called for a unicameral legislature where representation was by population only.

Obviously, the large states at the time, Pennsylvania, Virginia, New York, supported that.

The small states threatened to withdraw from the Constitutional Convention unless that plan was changed.

The "Great Compromise" of July 16, 1787, established the Senate, pacified the fears of the smaller states that they would be overwhelmed, and helped give us the Constitution as it exists today.

The Electoral College is rarely viewed as such, but it really is part of the system of checks and balances that exists in the US government.

JPL
August 10, 2004, 11:28 AM
"Hyperbole."

Yes, you're right.

There's been a significant amount of hyperbole in this thread, and the vast majority of it has involved the same kind of panicked breathlessness that many here accuse the Democrats of using when talking about firearms.

"I've already shown that it's a politcal maneuver."

Gee, do you think it might be a political maneuver because POLITICIANS are involved?

When a politican is involved, it's ALWAYS a political maneuver.

"The left operates incrementally."

Excuse me, but so does the right.

You've still failed to explain, however, just how this constitutes a threat to our electoral process.


"The U.N.'s primary purpose (other than increasing its own size and power) is to advocate for third world countries."

I suppose that's why the only 5 veto votes are held by some of the world's largest, wealthiest, and most populous nations -- the United States, China, France, Great Britain, Russia (a far step away from what it was as the Soviet Union, but still very, very powerful).


"They have absolutely no business overseeing free elections in this country."

You still don't quite understand, do you?

THIS IS NOT AN ACTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS!"

THE UNITED NATIONS REFUSED TO SEND ELECTION MONITORS!

Are you really in such a blind, quivering panic that you missed that fact in the initial article?

Here, please TRY to read this, which is pulled directly from the article that set of this tin foil storm.

Please?

And pay special attention to the bolded paragraph.

"Previously, the 13 Democratic congressmen, led by Johnson, sent a letter July 8 to the U.N. general secretary requesting the presence of U.N. representatives in every county of the country during the voting process and any vote recount afterwards.

The U.N. immediately responded that such a request could not be accepted unless it came from the U.S. government. Otherwise, a spokesman said, it could be considered"intervention in a country's sovereignty."

Hawk
August 10, 2004, 11:47 AM
I'm no expert on the ramifications of everything that's been brought up, but I do feel the indignation that filled my sails at the start of this thread slowing leaving me, perhaps only to be replaced by cynicism and a certain grudging respect for the state departments "people skills".

Ms. Johnson was nice enough to post a graphic of the letter she recieved from the state department acquiescing to her demands here. (http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/tx30_johnson/EBJStateDeptMonitorElections.html)

Well, we ARE already on the
calender. (http://www.osce.org/odihr/?page=elections&div=calendar) Said calendar looks to include everybody and their brother.

Based on the pdf file linked from this page (http://www.osce.org/odihr/?page=elections&div=standards) , specifically paragraph 11.1, page 24, the invitiation is implicit as part of the agreement.

So, we've got a Dem with her knickers in a twist, writing the Secy Gen of the UN requesting inspections. Said dem gets a letter back from a DoS functionary stating that someone, not the UN, will be sending observers, just like they do to every signatory of the agreement, just like they did back when she didn't think to ask.

The Dems holler for one thing, get something totally different (and by all appearances, quite routine) and claim a victory. Can't even holler about stolen elections now should W prevail. Mr. Kelly deserves a raise. Betcha when his kids hollered for candy bars he could give 'em granola and send 'em to bed happy.

I'll defer to the more politically astute as to any real danger associated with our signup onto the OSCE.

R.H. Lee
August 10, 2004, 12:50 PM
Otherwise, a spokesman said, it could be considered"intervention in a country's sovereignty."

So even the U.N. considers it intervention. Which you say it is not. Tell ya what, JPL. Go talk to some WWII veterans. Ask them their opinion of "inviting" U.N. "monitors" to "oversee" U.S. elections. Not that it will change your mind, as you've already boxed yourself into an indefensible position.

Matt G
August 10, 2004, 01:09 PM
.... Oh yeah, let's have mob rule. That's real smart

Um,no. We're not talking about the "mob" (you, me, and our fellow voters!) "ruling." We're tallking about the nation's votes actually meaning what they're supposed to mean. This is NOT a Democracy; it is a Republic. The people of this nation do NOT vote on every decision; they elect representatives to make those decisions for them. As such, the only chance for the people to make their decisions count is on Election Day, when they vote for the candidate of their choice. Oh, I agree-- there's a passle of really odd people out there with really odd ideas, who somehow have managed to obtain voter registration cards! [ ;) ] But if you don't let their vote count, you don't have a real Republic. So what have you got? No Democracy. No real Republic. Just a sham. Not good for public confidence in their government.

Presidents don't win on popular votes. Get over it. Anyone who thinks the Electoral College or one district/one vote should be abolished did not pay attention to the civics lesson during the last election. Proposing abolition of the EC could only come from a Democrat or one not accepting our republican form of government. Gore lost. Bush is legitimate, no apologies.
You misconstrue my motives. As I mention above, I'm all in favor of a republican form of government. FWIW, I've been a registered Republican since I was 18, and I'm hard approaching 33 years of age, now. :) I don't think Bush lost, nor that he "stole" the election. I think he won it, playing by the rules set out at the time. I also happen to think that the rules are kind of dumb. Why create a situation where we have an elected president who received few votes than his opponent? Funny thing is, I've been a critic of the E.C. for a long time, and this last election, though it went the way I wanted it to go, confirmed my distaste for it. Frankly, I think that Bush likely could have won it, had he been campaigning for popular votes over E.C. votes.

But the problem is one of perception of legitemacy.

The tyranny of the majority...oh yeah, that's what we need...let CA, NY, NJ, and Chicago decide. The FF had it all wrong. Scary, isn't it? Only thing scarier is the thought of a minority selected by others making the decision for you.

JPL
August 10, 2004, 02:09 PM
"Go talk to some WWII veterans. Ask them their opinion of "inviting" U.N. "monitors" to "oversee" U.S. elections."

With all due respect, perhaps you should ask someone to teach you to read.

I explained how this is NOT the United Nations sending observers, and posted the quote from the UN rep, and yet you come back with this...

"inviting UN monitors..."

No where, and I mean no where, has anyone in the tin foil crowd been able to explain why this is such a huge and monumental threat when it clearly isn't.

We simply get hyperbole and jingoism and absolutely meaningless appeals to emotion like "Go talk to some WW II veterans."

Obviously, the unfounded implication is that WW II veterans, having fought the last righteous war, are somehow going to be standard bearers for "keep everyone out of America no matter what," and will be VERY vocal about it.

So, I decided to take your advice, and talk to a World War II veteran -- Senator Daniel Inouye, Democrat of Hawaii, ranking Senator, recipient of the Medal of Honor and other decorations for valor, and missing an arm due to wounds suffered in combat.

I actually spoke with his public affairs liaison, as I don't have traction to get through to the good Senator himself.

He's a WW II veteran, which by your standard should make him VERY opposed to inviting in elections monitors.

But, then again, he's a Democrat, so if he's a Democrat, he must be jumping for joy, fully supporting this alleged destruction of American rights.

But, as a WW II combat veteran, he fought against destruction of American rights, even though he and his family were actually stripped of their Constitutional rights as Americans during the war because they were Japanese Americans.

But what is the REAL story?

Per the press liaison, Senator, Democrat, and highly decorated WW II veteran Inouye position on this matter is that...

He currently has no position.


Another decorated and wounded WW II veteran, Republican Senator Bob Dole?

He chairs an OSCE panel.




Look, RileyMC, you seem to be a generally fairly level headed person, so you should recognize that speaking in sweeping generalizations tinged with undefined fear and "supported" by appeals to emotion, as opposed to rational examination of fact sets and objective identification of issues, isn't any way to carry out a debate.

It's widely decried when the Democrats try to do it regarding firearms, and it should be as widely decried when Republicans do it.

Claiming it's "FOR THE WORLD WAR II VETERANS" is just as ingenuous as the anti-gunners yelling "IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN!"

Thumper
August 10, 2004, 03:35 PM
This particular Veteran has serious reservations about allowing foreign interference of any kind.

Why set a precedent of having any sort of outside "observers?"

From Webster's:

Main Entry: monitor
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): mon·i·tored; mon·i·tor·ing /'mä-n&-t(&-)ri[ng]/

: to watch, keep track of, or check usually for a special purpose

You argue that they have no authority? If the monitors have no authority, then what is the purpose of monitoring?

They can certainly, at the least, discredit our election process, correct?

In fact, that's all they could do, I suppose. Hmmm...

JPL, You've stated that you don't care either way, but your arguments seem quite vociferous (read: emotional) for someone who doesn't have a dog in the fight.

Try to keep the snide comments about a particular member's capacity to read (or painting your opponents as unreasonably fearful or blindly paranoid) and try to argue your points.

Why are you so interested in defending the actions of the Organization for Security and Co-Operation in Europe?

(Forgive me for writing it out; I just love the irony inherent in the name)


:neener:

ctdonath
August 10, 2004, 04:10 PM
My question remains unanswered: what are they going to observe?

If they can't get within 100' of polling sites, what and how will they observe?
How many will do the observing? how does that relate to the number of polling sites?
If they have no ability whatsoever to influence the process, why and what are they bothering to observe?

At the request of a dozen whiny Dems and a on-the-edge cabinet member, a few dozen non-US-citizens are going to fly around the world - spending many thousands of $$$ - to come stare at the outsides of buildings in which people may vote. WHY? Something just ain't adding up here.

R.H. Lee
August 10, 2004, 04:11 PM
From the article:
Assistant Secretary of State Paul V. Kelly, who handles legislative affairs for the department, affirmed the invitation this week in a letter to the 13 House members. They had requested U.N. monitors for this year's elections in an effort to avoid the charges of voting irregularities that plagued the 2000 election, the closest in history.

So we are incapable of conducting our own elections. We need oversight from some Europeons sent by the U.N. to ensure there are no voting irregularities and you don't have a problem with that? You're in a minority then, JPL. A small, albeit shrill, minority.

Nice try with Inouye, but next time find a WWII vet who hasn't based his entire career on victimhood from his service and ethnicity. Many vets lost limbs; many lost their lives. Not many became wealthy from "public service" :rolleyes: as a result.

flatrock
August 10, 2004, 04:52 PM
They can certainly, at the least, discredit our election process, correct?

You mean more than our own legislators discrediting it for political gain?

You mean more than "civil rights" groups discrediting it?

The people who are attacking the credibility of the US elections aren't concerned with the truth, and will find a source for their claims of irregularities regardless of who is there to monitor things.

If the "observers" come up with some concrete proof of election problems, then they need to be addressed.

If they come up with some B. S. "irregularities" that can't be substantiated, then they will only be believed by those who would believe people like Jesse Jackson complaining about voting irregularities.

Do you really think that officials in Europe are beleived by their citizens? I don't see much evidence that they trust their government any more than we do. Those who believe the B. S. believe it because they want to, not because the facts are there to support it.

Are these observers likely to try and find problems where none exist? I really don't know, I don't have enough knowledge about the orginization. However, Bush invited them in, and hasn't been shy about objecting to the UN appointing unfriendly representatives to look into things in the past. I suspect he considered the issue before deciding.

Let's face it. You and I aren't ever going to have all the facts available to properly evaluate a situation like this. Even if you think Bush is stupid, you have to realize that he has really sharp people in his administration that would send up a red flag if this were a problem of the sort some of you seem to fear it might be.

Our government has made some stupid mistakes from time to time, but this president hasn't shown himself to be willing to allow congress, other nations, or anyone to stick their noses where he doesn't feel they belong. It would be very out of character for him to allow "observers" in that were going to try and cause trouble where none existed.

I don't have enough information to know if this decision makes sense or not, but it's a type of issue that Bush has handled well in the past, and I have no reason to suspect he's screwing up this time. Therefore I'm not willing to get upset and start accusing my president of treason about things I know too little about.

JPL
August 10, 2004, 05:28 PM
"Doesn't have a dog in the fight..."

You caught me, Thumper.

I'm actually a faceless minion of foreign evil who has been tapped to be an election monitor.

Resistance is futile.

You will be assimiliated into the greater European collective mentality, and this is how we're gonna do it.


No, my dog comes to this "fight" wondering just how otherwise sane individuals can read so much mayhem and catastrophe into an absolute non-event, all while blaming the WRONG organization for all of their woes.

My comments about reading ability/desire were not snide; they were blatant, and were designed to be.

The misrepresentation of positions, responsible entities, etc., has been absolutely frightening.

As I've said several times already, when the left resorts to this kind of hyperbole and hysteria on the subject of firearms, the condemnations are loud and long.

But, being an arbiter of exactness is something that cuts both ways.

You should not, cannot, and must not demand accuracy in others while falling into their particular patterns.

One of the major reasons why I found my political bent moving away from the left is because of the absolute fantasies that they would spin.

I find that to be less of an issue with the right---or I did up until yesterday.

My comments about blind paranoia are also backed up by what's been posted here.

A good example was the structured "sanctions against the United States" argument that was floated yesterday.

Why was it ultimately blindly paranoid?

Because while the reasoning appeared to be sound, on its surface it was fatally flawed -- the United States, through its absolute veto powers, can kill any potential sanctions.

There's also, as I've stated numerous times, a strong undercurrent of unreasoned "they're out to get us and election monitors is just how they're going to start" running through this thread, as well.

It's completely bizarre.


"Why are you so interested in defending the actions of the Organization for Security and Co-Operation in Europe?"

Ah!

Perfect!

Another EXCELLENT example of what I'm talking about, another MISREPRESENTATION of my position.

That's right, a blatant misrepresentation.

Please go back through my messages and tell me where I've defended the actions of the OSCE.

I'll give you another hint (given for the same reason as before) -- I haven't.

You're only ASSUMING that I'm defending OSCE because you're not bothering to read what I'm actually posting.

RealGun
August 10, 2004, 05:28 PM
You're in a minority then, JPL. A small, albeit shrill, minority.

The only thing that makes JPL a minority is that there are so few willing to waste there time on a non-issue, especially when talking to those who want to remain critical.

JPL
August 10, 2004, 05:46 PM
You're doing it again, Riley.

"We need oversight from some Europeons sent by the U.N."

I've already shown you, and explained to you, that the UN is not involved in this process.

The request to the United Nations was turned down, and the observers are coming from OSCE.

In the second sentence, "they" refers to the 13 Senators, not the administration.

This, Thumper, is the kind of willful disregard for/inability to understand the extant information that I'm talking about.


"Nice try with Inouye, but next time find a WWII vet who hasn't based his entire career on victimhood from his service and ethnicity. Many vets lost limbs; many lost their lives. Not many became wealthy from "public service" as a result."

So now you're going to change your own criteria and try to impeach a member of the very group that you claimed would support - en masse - your position.

That's not very original.

You asked for some World War II vets, I gave you TWO.

Wealth wasn't a factor for your critera.

Status after the war wasn't a factor for your criteria.

You attempted to make an appeal to authority and emotion by tacitly claiming that ALL veterans of World War II would think as you do, and to counteract the damage of being presented with two who don't, you've undermined your own credibility by attempting to place new restrictions on your initial argument.

That doesn't fly for the anti-gunners, it shouldn't fly here, either.

Oh, and I'm in a shrill minority?

I will admit that I'm in a minority, at least here, of those who have bothered to actually make their veiws on this subject know.

But there certainly doesn't seem to be a national upwelling of rebellion against this move that would suggest that I'm truly in the minority.

But what of those who are manufacturing facts and scenarios out of thin air, those who are crying treason, claiming the end of American sovereignity, those who are beating their breasts over the dastardly, evil, UN, and those who are without support or cause claiming blanket solidarity with veterans groups?

They certainly don't seem to be bombarding their elected representatitives with doom and gloom predictions about how their job is going to be given to a mid-level administrator from Western South Central Flunkystan, and the good Senator/Congressman shipped off to a Parisian reeducation camp.

Those World War II vets haven't broken out their stored arms and made a march on Washington.

In the end, if calling for sane, rational thought and examination of the actual facts is being shrill, then I'm all for it.

R.H. Lee
August 10, 2004, 06:05 PM
I've already shown you, and explained to you, that the UN is not involved in this process.

Semantics and hair splitting. "One of the OSCE's closest partners is the UNITED NATIONS", this from the OSCE Website (http://www.osce.org/ec/partners/international/un/)

Once again you've shown:
1) Either a lack of understanding of the issue, or
2) A complete inability to admit you've simply made a mistake in your
earlier assessment.

Your continuing ad hominems are simply an attempt to change the focus, since you have lost the argument.

Thumper
August 10, 2004, 06:13 PM
This, Thumper, is the kind of willful disregard for/inability to understand the extant information that I'm talking about.

So you chastise Riley because of which particular external organization is doing the supervision?

Until yesterpage, you were a little confused about who was involved in this deal, yourself:

Because I don't care if the UN sends observers or not

You think that there will be a UN monitor standing IN the voting booth with you?

That petty point aside...

The bottom line is this:

My outrage over our elected officials' actions is based on the concept that a request for supervision connotes a NEED for supervision.

Having foreign officials "monitor" our election process CAN ONLY be harmful to the concept of American autonomy. For you to argue that it could be in any way helpful (to your credit, you haven't) would be laughable.

So, at the risk of repeating ctdonath for the umpteenth time, why have 'em?

RealGun
August 10, 2004, 06:46 PM
since you have lost the argument

Why? On technicalities meaningful only to you? That's wishful thinking. JPL has patiently made good points that are being ignored by some, damned if they'll concede a point because they want to be mad and like it that way.

If the presence of foreign observers adds credibility, either here or abroad, to the outcome of the next election, I'm all for it. American elections are historically corrupt or at least controversial in some respects, so we can't say there is no need for oversight. How else do you find a disinterested party in some way qualified to comment?

Basically I don't care, with more important things to worry about. Being vigilant or skeptical is fine. Being paranoid is not.

Thumper
August 10, 2004, 07:04 PM
American elections are historically corrupt or at least controversial in some respects, so we can't say there is no need for oversight. How else do you find a disinterested party in some way qualified to comment?

Oversight by whom? And under what authority?

Basically I don't care

Fascinating. Both you and JPL claim not to care and yet you both have invested a considerable portion of your day in this thread.

I DO care.

I hate to keep using Webster's, but it seems you both use words that you don't understand the ramifications of:

Main Entry: over·sight
Pronunciation: 'O-v&r-"sIt
Function: noun
1 a : watchful and responsible care b : regulatory supervision

Regulatory supervision...that's the concept inherent in the idea of "monitor", "oversee", or "supervise." I pointed that out with references earlier in the thread. It is conferring authority to an outside source.

These are EXTERNAL organizations. To even approach the slippery slope of allowing external authority of the process that puts in power those that govern us is unacceptable.

RealGun
August 10, 2004, 08:40 PM
Thumper, when we're down to being petty, it's time to quit. See ya.

Art Eatman
August 11, 2004, 01:12 AM
And when the arguments are less about the issue than the words folks are using, after five pages it's time to move on...

Art

If you enjoyed reading about "United Nations WILL monitor Presidential election" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!