Bush Administration to Lift North Korea Sanctions

[biccat]

Make lobbying a twenty year federal prison sentence and that might do the trick.;)

So anyone who writes to their Congressman should go to jail for 20 years? Or are you just making a stupid blanket statement without knowing what you're talking about to try to convince others here that you're not a raving liberal.

I'd go for the latter.

[LogansPapa]

So anyone who writes to their Congressman should go to jail for 20 years?

No, blathering fucktard - I was referring to the slime that slides up and down the halls of Congress, arranging for deep sea fish junkets to the Carribian every time an interstate highway project comes up - so stop with that silly ‘every little man’s letter’ bullshit. You know fucking-a-well those get round-filed or shreaded.

[Odysseus]

No, blathering fucktard - I was referring to the slime that slides up and down the halls of Congress, arranging for deep sea fish junkets to the Carribian every time an interstate highway project comes up - so stop with that silly ‘every little man’s letter’ bullshit. You know fucking-a-well those get round-filed or shreaded.

The problem isn't lobbying. The problem is that the federal government is operating in areas that are none of its business, and that means that everyone, large and small, has to lobby to protect themselves. Classic example: Prior to 1996, Microsoft had no presence in Washington. Then, after one of the Clinton's White House business breakfasts, the CEOs of Sun Microsystems and a few other Microsoft competitors, who had just made hefty donations to the DNC, mentioned how unfair they thought it was that Microsoft had its own browser. The subsequent investigation was an obvious case of the Justice Dept. doing the dirty work for companies that couldn't effectively compete, and the settlement taught Bill Gates that if he wanted to stay in business, he had to maintain the same kind of lobbying effort that his competitors did. When a corporation genuinely feels that another corporation has violated its rights, it takes them to court. When a corporation has screwed the pooch and wants to attack another corporation for being more efficient or effective, it gets federal regulators to do the job.

[marinejcksn]

Could it be, after long last, we need to vote directly - electronically - via our cell phones and/or internet?

Do we really need politicians to make our policy decisions? And as for the presidency - that person should have to know and respond to the will of the people. Make lobbying a twenty year federal prison sentence and that might do the trick.;)

Your first idea is genius. Maybe if Ryan Seacrest were hosting the presidential voting session more Sheeple would turn out. I shudder at the thought.:p

As for your second statement, I think we level headed conservatives know the policymakers in this country have succumedto the totalitarian temptation a long time ago...after all Fascism wont come to America with Black Shirts and Jackboots. Happy, nice Fascism is the liberal order of the day. Smiley smiley:D

Just look at the recent decisions of San Fransicko DA Kamala Harris and how she decides prosecuting GangBangers isn't such a great idea, then a father and his 2 sons get slaughtered over a roadside dispute by a gun toting illegal alien. Me thinks we should round up a posse and do things how they did in the Old West.

More info on the story here, linked from Dr. Savage's website:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...BAV711FM4F.DTL

[Full-Auto]

but so did the Soviets...and we did nothing...and now pandora's out of the box..Isn't it a bit late to since we've let about...what is it....3 -5 nations go nuclear since the end of the cold war. We say we care about proliferation, but the 90's say otherwise.

Here they are broken down.

Declared States:
United States
Russia
Britain
France
China
India
Pakistan
North Korea

Suspected States:
Israel (we know they have them but we don't admit it)
Iran
Libya

States Formerly Possessing or Pursuing Nuclear Weapons:
Argentina
Brazil
Iraq
South Africa
South Korea
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Algeria
Former Soviet States
Ukraine
Kazakhstan
Belarus

Other Nuclear Capable States:
Australia
Canada
Germany
Japan
Netherlands

Now, which of these do you claim the Russians armed? Even if the Russians armed them, how does a past wrong negate a present wrong?

The Russians have little to do with the current state of nuclear states... at least they have no more culpability than we do.

I don't mean to suggest that we don't have an active interest in what goes on between the N.K. and S.K....I'm just not convinced that we do more good than harm in negotiations between the two. And I see little strategic value of an insiginficant peninsula.
We ultimately agree on the last point you made.

I don't care what the RoK's and Norks agree to or disagree to either. Hell, for all I care they can kill each other, it's none of my business. What I do care about is the Norks having nukes and threatening to use them against us (which they routinely do).

If direct intervention with a nuclear state that threatens to rain fire on your western seaboard isn't rational, what exactly is?

[Sonnabend]

Other Nuclear Capable States:
Australia

Nuclear CAPABLE?

We have ONE reactor, used for making nucleonic particles for radiation medicine. We have no delivery systems, no programs, no long range bombers, no missile sites, no research...

[Full-Auto]

Nuclear CAPABLE?

We have ONE reactor, used for making nucleonic particles for radiation medicine. We have no delivery systems, no programs, no long range bombers, no missile sites, no research...

But you have the know-how. That's how you made he list. Are you saying you don't know anything about nuclear fuel or weapons?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austral...ss_destruction

Australia is not currently known or believed to possess weapons of mass destruction, although it has participated in extensive research into nuclear, biological and chemical weapons in the past.

[AmPat]

The South Korean spend 4 times as much on the military as the North Koreans.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...d/spending.htm

Also, each person in the US spends about $2,000 per year per person for military. The South Koreans spend a little over $1,000 each.

Why should should the US provide military aid to a country when the people don't have the same burden for their own security as the US? Especially when we are running a deficit and have to borrow the money in order to give it to the South Koreans.

I really don't understand why we have troops in South Korea nowadays.

Don't you think that the US troops in South Korea could better serve our country protecting the US - Mexico border? For many years the misson of the 4/7th Cav was to protect the border. Now they are in Korea. Don't you think we should send them back to our own DMZ?

That has been my position since 1998 when I frist served over here. I am more fully convinced of it now. When the S.K.s almost got their wish for troop reductions this year, they backed out and asked us to delay drawing down. This benefits ONLY the S.K.s as they don't have to replace us with their own assets. While we are here, the mexican infestation gets worseon our own southern border.

Big Lie 1: It is impossible to deport 12 million illegals.
Easy Answer: The Mexicans did it.

Big Lie 2: It is impossible to secure our southern border.
Easy Answer: We secured the northern border of South Korea for the last 55 years.