Stv, f y gt mmnt, tk pk t ths st; t s n rfrnc t n f yr pst psts nd my frmwrk cntr rgmnt rgrdng rq,
< hrf="http://nlnjrnl.cm/rtmn/pblsh/rtcl_598.shtml" rl="nfllw" trgt="_blnk">Dvs
Palau...Wow!
Just call JB "The Power Player"
Posted by Jason at March 16, 2006 01:39 PMNow that's blowing the top off the UN -- one tiny bit of mortar at a time. What would the world come to without Bolton at the UN?
Posted by daphne greys at March 16, 2006 01:45 PMI'm thinking it may be a good thing JB's there now. Since he's pissed off almost everyone, the neocons will have a hard time getting UN cover for Iran.
Posted by iamcoyote at March 16, 2006 01:57 PMPerhaps, if that were the only point of having a rep at the UN or the only pressing issue. Far better to have a rep truly engaged in constructive reform that might make the entire body on every level more effective and responsive. A fully functional, fully funded UN, focused on its fundemental mission would be refreshing. Currently, disruptive, stubborn members, like the US and others, thwart that mission at every turn.
Posted by daphne greys at March 16, 2006 02:24 PMdaphne, in a just world, what you say is true. But at this point, anything that'll stop the runaway train that is this administration has to be looked upon with favor...
Posted by iamcoyote at March 16, 2006 02:27 PMWhen will America wake up to the slap in the face that bu$hco has installed in every institution across this once great nation.
Maybe now...no wait, now...
Posted by bbtb at March 16, 2006 02:46 PM"...fundemental mission [of the UN]..."
That would be graft, corruption, and sex slavery. Correct?
Posted by Bagley at March 16, 2006 03:26 PMLet's see. Bolton was assigned this "duty" in recess. He will represent this country for a longer time than he should (meaning he never should have). Every vote that he is on the short side of weakens our voice in that community. To say that it is good is caving to the idea of collapsing the UN from within. He is achieving his goal.
Posted by daphne greys at March 16, 2006 03:30 PMThat would be graft, corruption, and sex slavery. Correct?
In some way in its current configuration, yes you are correct. But in the way it was meant to be, then no. I agree that the current formulation is not working. However, John Bolton's formulation is not correct either. The US has not properly funded the UN. You can argue that the US pays enough or that because it is housed in this country that the US pays enough. The reverse is true. The US -- currently -- it could change -- is the richest nation on the planet. It would be an advantage to fully fund an international organization. But detractors always criticize the UN -- based on money -- or god forbid the one vote premise.
If votes work in the US, why can't they work in the UN or in Palestine? or Iraq. Oh wait -- it's not as simple as votes.
Posted by daphne greys at March 16, 2006 03:40 PM"The US has not properly funded the UN."
How much of the UN budget does the US provide.
"The reverse is true."
How much of the UN budget do you think we should pay?
Posted by Bagley at March 16, 2006 03:44 PMAsk someone in your camp about funding the UN or you could even google it. Perhaps you are too young to know that the US has refused to fully fund the UN. It is part of your party's platform. Don't you know that? Never fully fund the UN. All UN critics know it like a mantra. Are you out of the loop?
The US has never fully funded the UN.
Posted by daphne greys at March 16, 2006 03:52 PMSorry, I didn't directly answer your question: The US should pay its fair share. Period.
Posted by daphne greys at March 16, 2006 03:54 PMI'm sure the administration you fawn over can teach the UN a thing or two about "graft and corruption", hypocrite.
Posted by KM at March 16, 2006 04:00 PM"Perhaps you are too young to know that the US has refused to fully fund the UN."
Congress has withheld somefundingto the UN, but the US contribution to the UN budget is in excess of 25%. (Far in excess when you consider that US in-kind contributions to UN "peacekeeping" operations are not considered to be part of US contributions to the UN. Even greater in excess when you consider that money is fungible and that the monies we provide to other nations in the form of "foreign aid" offset the money that these recipients may, in turn, contribute to the UN.)
ou failto answer the question, however: How much of the UN budget do you think the US should pay? You must have a number in mind. What is it? Fifty percent....all of the UN budget? How generous are you with my (taxpayer) wallet?
"I'm sure the administration you fawn over can teach the UN a thing or two about "graft and corruption", hypocrite."
Go away, child. You are swimming in the deep end.
Posted by Bagley at March 16, 2006 04:10 PM
Wonder how much they paid the Marshallese and the Palauans for their vote... They are very poor islands and for sure they could use the money.....
We're lucky in French Polynesia, our standard of living is quite good as we're backed by France... But, no matter, they don't need to heat their homes as it is pretty much summer all year around... Typhoons can be a bitch tho- No matter where in the South Pacific you live.
Posted by Ken Jackson CPO USN Ret. at March 16, 2006 04:23 PMFrom what I can gather from your cut'n paste -- this is something you have come across in the short term -- nothing that you feel about with conviction. But be that as it may, I will respond.
You must look at it in the long term -- from the time the UN was organized. 25%? When you consider how much money has been spent on wars in the time that the UN was constituted, then that is very little. If you narrow your gaze to just the current conflict in Iraq, then the funds seem to be misplaced.
Admit your stance -- without fully funding the UN over the last 50+ years and then expecting results is meaningless. Why did Colin Powell even deem to go make the case for the invasion of Iraq. Wasn't even necessary.
The fact that the US can manipulate anything -- symbolic vote today? -- in the UN shows its lack of meaning for those on the conservative side. It's typical -- criticize an organization that you have underfunded and call for its demise.
Ties it up in a nice bundle, no?
Posted by at March 16, 2006 04:26 PM"From what I can gather from your cut'n paste -- this is something you have come across in the short term -- nothing that you feel about with conviction."
How condescending.
But you still fail to answer the question: how much of the UN budget should be paid by US tax payers?
It is a very simple question.
But your post raises another question. Your premise that we -- the US --fails to fund the UN adequately: how is this an excuse for the graft, corruption, sloth, and sexual slavery that are the hallmarks of UN operations?
daphne, you won't get a real conversation from the teabagger, here. He thinks corruption is okey-dokey as long as it's bushco doing the stealing. His MO is to clutch his pearls and whine like a little girl that no one treats him with respect he thinks (wrongly) he deserves. We should pity the sucker, his hero is a two bit thief, but he just can't quit his li'l bushie, 'cos no one else will have him.
Posted by iamcoyote at March 16, 2006 04:43 PMIf my statement was condescending, it was meant that way. Buck up my man. In saying so, you in no way refuted the truth of my point.
I did answer your question. The US should pay its fair share. It hasn't for the most part. If you want a number, then you run that down, k?
If the UN had been funded properly and with the guidance that a US delegation cooperating in the spirit of the original organization -- the things you decry perhaps would not have happened. Those things happened because the US was not fully engaged. Those things occured in the absence of US strength. You and your kind made your bed.
I prefer to stay away from the personal attacks. It is possible to debate without them.
Posted by daphne greys at March 16, 2006 04:50 PMCPO Ken: Is it expensive to live in Bali Hai-land? Is it a troll-free zone? I don't mind some left-over radiation from the Bikini test, as long as there are no Bagleys residing amongst you.
Posted by TIKI AL at March 16, 2006 04:53 PM"If my statement was condescending, it was meant that way."
Interesting. Condescension from someone who appears to be incapable of answering a very straight-forward and direct quest: how much should the US pay? It is a number. Or a percentage if you want.
Or do you consider it just easier to complain and blame the US kleptocratic, third-world thugs that comprise the bulk of the UN General Assembly.
"If you want a number, then you run that down, k?"
You want me to aswer the question that I asked you? OK. The US shouldpay nothing and the UN shouldbe ejected from NYC. Preferably relocated to Pyongyang -- I am sure that most of the UN types would find common ground with Kim Jong Il.
"... cooperating in the spirit of the original organization..."
You really do not quite understand the "spirit" of the original organization, do you?
"Those things occured in the absence of US strength."
No, the evilsof the UN are endemic to the organization and makeup.
"daphne, you won't get a real conversation from the teabagger"
Ahhhh, and iamcoyote contributes his usual to the discussion.
Posted by Bagley at March 16, 2006 05:06 PMTiki Al, yes it is but if you go native, you can live quite well on very little... Main thing is that you have to either be married to a Tahitian or be one to do so.. Land is very expensive, and my wife is the owner of the land that we have.. It is also in my name, but it is her family's heritage passed down... I live on my Navy Retirement and as long as I don't go hog wild, I do ok.. I garden and fish and have some chickens and pigs (no not repigs, they're too hard to clean). We shop and buy some of our food and milk in town and I make my own yogurt and cottage cheese.
I will be going home on April 1 and will stay down there until September... July is Fete which is a party for all the month... I plan on shooting several DVD's of photos to bring back perhaps some will be good enough to make me a little cash...
The island I live on is Bali Hai (Raiatea)...
Keep in touch, my email is maheanuu_tane@fieronews.com Drop me a line and I will answer any questions that you might have...
Posted by Ken Jackson CPO USN Ret. at March 16, 2006 05:07 PMKen Jackson,
Still shooting photographs. I recently purchased a digital camera....I must say, quite different from standard SLR.
What do yu shoot with?
B
Posted by Bagley at March 16, 2006 05:14 PMIt's fun to watch you melt down. However, the truth of the matter is that you can't justify the US not funding the UN.
Flame for whatever reason. It remains that 1)Bolton at the UN is throwing gas on the fire, no matter the issue; 2) the US has made the situation as it is.
Live with it or change it.
Was that an imploding that I heard?
Perhaps I should disagree with commentors more often.
Posted by daphne greys at March 16, 2006 05:19 PM
Nikon D70 with 2 nikon lenses (including the kit lens and 4 others, all zoom auto focus...
I will be using this camera and will sell it before I come back and then buy a D200 when I come back to the States... The 200 is really what I want, but on my retirement I can't afford it.... My daughter is using my Minolta Dimage 7i and she loves it... At the time I thought it was ok, but needed something that I could change lenses on...
Posted by Ken Jackson CPO USN Ret. at March 16, 2006 05:20 PMKen Jackson,
I purchased the D50 and two lenses (including a zoom to 400mm). What lens would you suggest for macro-photography? Do you recommend a doubler to increase focal length...or should I "bite the bullet" and just buy a longer lens: I like to take photographs of birds, but it is difficult getting close.
Thanks in advance for the advice.
B
Posted by Bagley at March 16, 2006 05:26 PM"... you can't justify the US not funding the UN."
These are my tax dollars.What part of that do you not understand. (Or are your economc circumstances such that you do not pay taxes?)
Still cannot answer the original question, huh? Nor the follow question, it seems.
So much for you...go away.
Posted by Bagley at March 16, 2006 05:29 PMBirds can sniff out a troll from a mile away, so filming them may be impossible for you. Stick to lobbyist pictorials.
Thanks for the info on Bali Hai, Ken. It was also our choice of wine, growing up in Wisconsin.
Posted by TIKI AL at March 16, 2006 05:41 PMYour tax dollars that's a riot. Your tax dollars do not go where you want them any more than mine do. You cannot argue that your tax dollars go to what you want them to or not.
If you think your tax dollars go to anything but the debt that this government has amassed, you are being fooled.
One good way to spend the money that the government collects is to fund the UN. It is cost effective, if done correctly.
Otherwise, let's run up that debt. Your children, your nieces and nephews will pay the price of your partisanship.
It didn't have to be this way. We could have entered this century with a surplus.
Posted by at March 16, 2006 05:42 PMoh and a much better world, if we had kept the course.
Explain that to you and yours.
Oh, and the numbers games is yours to prove.
Posted by daphne greys at March 16, 2006 05:44 PMoh and a much better world, if we had kept the course.
Explain that to you and yours.
Oh, and the numbers game is yours to prove.
Posted by daphne greys at March 16, 2006 05:45 PMMy tax dollars, my authority to speak to how they are spent through my elected representatives.
How many of my elected representatives are in the UN General Assembly?
Opppp! Another question requiring a number as an answer. Well, I guess that this is another question that you, daphne greys, cannot (or will not) answer.
So much for that....go away.
Posted by Bagley at March 16, 2006 06:00 PMHow many of my elected representatives are in the UN General Assembly?
Your rep in the UN is supposed to be approved. Bolton wasn't. He was appointed on a recess. If you approve, through your rep's, then good for you. Your offspring and their number will see how this works out.
No matter how you try, it is on you to prove that funding of the UN has no effect on performance. That was my point.
Yours seems to have been the old try of not funding, then asking where our taxes go, then putting it off on me.
Please let me know how I CAN FUNNEL ALL my income taxes to the UN, k?
Posted by daphne greys at March 16, 2006 06:13 PMBagley, depends on how macro you want to go, I have an old F1.8 50mm portrait lense with a reversing adapter that I use. That will get you really up close and personal.. Or you can get a set of tubes for the kit lens for the D50 they work fine also... I had the old film camera Nikkor Nikon lens laying around and just bought a reversing adaptor and it works fine.. You have to shoot in manual tho...
Posted by Ken Jackson CPO USN Ret. at March 16, 2006 06:37 PMdaphne greys, I must assume, at this point, that you are not able to count. It is the only explanation for your reluctance to answer the very simple questions that I have posed: questions that may be answered with numbers.
This inability to count (which precludes any functionality in basic arithmetic) renders null-and-void any "argument" that you may make regarding any aspect of public policy that involves monetary units, otherwise known as "legal tender" (elements of legal exchage that may be quantified and counted).
Additionally, your references to "fairness" intone a prejudice to a conceptual framework: [that] your definition of "fairness" is of greater import and accuracy than the definition of "fairness" that may be held by someone else: "fairness" is un-exact.
May I also add, that yours was the argument that originally pre-supposed that "full-funding" (whatever that means in light of you inability to quantify the nature of the phrase and your reliance simply upon the un-exact nature of "fairness") would solve the ills of the UN: ills that I have cataloged and you have yet to refute. This explicitly makes your argument
"...it is on you to prove that funding of the UN has no effect on performance."
self-referrential. You depend on others to prove your premise. This is intellectually dishonest....not to metion sophomoric. (I take it that you have yet to complete your first course in critical thinking.)
Go away...you are making a fool of yourself.
P.S.
"Please let me know how I CAN FUNNEL ALL my income taxes to the UN, k?"
I do not know, butI do believe that you can make direct contributions to the UN. You probably know this: after all, given yourbelief in this organization, I am sure that you donate generously. Right?
Posted by Bagley at March 16, 2006 06:39 PMSo much for that....go away.
Making someone go away is easy. You, Bagley, are allowed to comment and probably email.
I, on the other hand, made the mistake of causing the complete shutdown of comments. Bagley can you claim that? I did what no troll could.
Match that, and then give me numbers of how much you have givn to the UN or not.
You start at a deficit. I'll let you catch up.
Ken Jackson,
"...you can get a set of tubes for the kit lens for the D50 they work fine also."
I will look into that (it sounds less expensive for macro work than a new lens). Thank you.
R,
T
P.S. I perfer manual. It is how I first learned to shoot.
Posted by Bagley at March 16, 2006 06:44 PM"I, on the other hand, made the mistake of causing the complete shutdown of comments."
Funny, comments appear to be working. This whole computer-Internet-thingy is new to you, right?
"...and then give me numbers of how much you have givn to the UN or not."
Via my tax dollars, far to much. This has been my argument: do you have a problem with reading comprehension, as well logic, counting, and by extension, arithmetic?
daphne greys, you are really out of your depth.
Posted by Bagley at March 16, 2006 06:53 PMI think I am starting on another comment that will ban me, but Bagley, you will be able to spout on.
This post started with Bolton. He was not confirmed. He is acting without the will of the populus. The Senate DID NOT approve of him. He slipped through on a recess appointment.
You did not know much about this topic eariler in the thread. You googled and then counted your sheep.
I caused a shutdown and an ignore of my email from one topic. You, Bagley, get to comment at will. Yeah, I found a way to comment. I bet you didn't have to go another route.
Lucky for democracy, I am a pacifist. I support the cause despite the authoritarians.
dorita
Posted by at March 16, 2006 06:54 PMdorita? Is that you? What do you mean you were banned? When?
Posted by iamcoyote at March 16, 2006 06:57 PMGood work with the 'bagger, though, you got him stomping his feet and yelling "go away" just like a little girl.
Posted by iamcoyote at March 16, 2006 06:59 PMI just noticed that daphne greys response to one of my postings was actually an edit of that posting!
Curious. Which one of the admins here at the Left Coaster is "daphne greys."
I think I know who....
Posted by Bagley at March 16, 2006 07:00 PM"He slipped through on a recess appointment."
Ohhh, jeeez....
Dorita, the Constitution allows for recess appointments. Clinton did it...Bush I did it...Bush II does it....
Have you ever read the Constitution?
"You googled and then counted your sheep."
No, I actually have an education. And I do a lot of reading.
"Good work with the 'bagger, though, you got him stomping his feet and yelling "go away" just like a little girl."
And iamcoyote makes another contribution to the thread.
Posted by Bagley at March 16, 2006 07:05 PMDorita,
You were banned. Hmmmm, props!
Posted by Bagley at March 16, 2006 07:12 PMAsk Mary about being cut off. I can say with certainty that Bagley could email if he wanted, but me no. I don't care.
Bagely has not answered any of my questions. Thanks iamcoyote, now Bagley can write me off as an alcolite of yours.
What he doesn't realize is that I am outside your realm.
Damn. I tried to be nice. Hurricane season is upon us. Agian.
bagboy, you got owned, and you know it.
dorita, I really don't understand, but I hope all is well.
Posted by iamcoyote at March 16, 2006 07:23 PMBagley, you have not proven anything.
I did what I had to.
In terms of the UN, it is not a good thing to have Bolton in place. Living in the potential path of another hurricane or a tropical storm, the bolton response is? nothing.
Posted by daphne greys at March 16, 2006 07:25 PM"Bagely has not answered any of my questions."
I answered your questions.
Which one(s) did I not answer: pose them again, daphne greys.
"Thanks iamcoyote, now Bagley can write me off as an alcolite of yours."
That is not something that (I think) that you should be proud of.
" I am outside your realm."
Realm. Hmmmmm, archaic term. Often used in fantasy role-playing games: (by definition) where the participant is removed from reality.
Once again: please restate your questions for me to answer. (The fact that you have not answered my questions. Simple questions. Questions answered by single numebrs. Easy questions. Well, I do suppose that for reasons I detailed in a previous post...you are unable.)
"I did what I had to."
And that was exactly, what?
What did the voices tell you?
" Living in the potential path of another hurricane or a tropical storm..."
If it is that concerning: move!
"bagboy, you got owned, and you know it."
No. I do not.
Please, turn your excruciatingly fine-tuned intellect to explaining to me how "I got owned."
Now, mind you, such a task will probably require multi-syllabic words: I will afford you the time to look in the dictionary....and read them aloud to yourself.
Posted by Bagley at March 16, 2006 07:35 PMdaphne, you're right about Bolton, and you did try. Poor baggie didn't know what hit him.
Posted by iamcoyote at March 16, 2006 07:36 PMdaphne greys,
I am waiting for your questions.
Posted by Bagley at March 16, 2006 07:41 PMAsk Mary about being cut off. I can say with certainty that Bagley could email if he wanted, but me no. I don't care.
dorita? can you let me know if you are getting an error message when trying to post? I've searched our blacklists (which we use for spam) and could not find an obvious match. I definitely would not and do not want you banned. Your comments are definitely welcome here and you have been missed.
Posted by Mary at March 16, 2006 11:59 PMI, on the other hand, made the mistake of causing the complete shutdown of comments. Bagley can you claim that? I did what no troll could.
You cannot have shutdown our comments unless you have posted hundreds of comments in a very short time (15 minutes or so). We have been having problems with spam commenters that have shutdown our comments. Perhaps you were commenting when the spammers were also hitting our site?
I think I have figured out how to stop them from stealing our bandwidth and messing up with our blog. This is something I hope to put in place this weekend if I can get all the technical details ironed out.
Posted by Mary at March 17, 2006 12:05 AMThanks, Mary, something must have happened, but a couple of us were recently wondering what happened to dorita. I hope she didn't get an error and think she got banned.
Posted by iamcoyote at March 17, 2006 05:22 AMSweet Jesus...dorita...I've missed you!! I'm glad your back and I hope you stay.
TLC had some minor difficulties for a day or 2 but other than that it's not too serious.
"...fundemental mission [of the UN]..."
That would be graft, corruption, and sex slavery. Correct?
Posted by Bagley at March 16, 2006 03:26 PM
No - what you have pointed to seems to be the ancilliary mission of the Publicans who are currently running this country into the ground. Nice try, BagMan.
Oh - and that comment about others being generous with your (taxpayer) wallet - where the hell were you when the Publicans gave our tax money to the rich in tax breaks? Where were you when Congress gave huge tax breaks to the oil companies, credit card and health industry, let Halliburton steal billions in tax dollars, pay for Tom Delay's legal defense fund, and wasted over $70 million on the Great Clenis Hunt? Funny how I couldn't stop the government for wasting my tax money on all that crap. And extremely funny that all that matters not one whit to you, but wasting one penny on the UN gets you up in arms.
I'd tell you to go sit in the corner. Except I'm not an arrogant Publican who thinks he has a right to tell others what to do, what they're thinking, why they do what they do, and dismiss them from liberal blog's comment sections.
Posted by (: Tom :) at March 17, 2006 07:31 AMIn an interview Bolton was asked why aren't we sending US troops to Dafur region of Sudan to prevent the ethnic cleansing carried out by the Sudan Militia? His answer was that such a move will result in casulties for our soldiers. The Militia that is doing these atrocities are riding on horseback or on camels carring shot guns and swords. If Bolton thinks that US military cannot handle this Militia, shows how much confidence he has in world's best arm force.
Posted by suresh at March 17, 2006 09:39 AMI think I know who....
You would be wrong, Mr. Lipton - like you are about everything.
See - two can play at that absolutist dismissal game!
Posted by pessimist at March 17, 2006 11:45 AM"...where the hell were you when the Publicans gave our tax money to the rich in tax breaks?"
I am one of the "rich." I was ammending my tax returns.
"...thnic cleansing carried out by the Sudan Militia?"
But..but...the UN has already determined that it is not ethic cleansin (genocide)? Are you advocating unilateral action?
"I think I know who....
You would be wrong, Mr. Lipton - like you are about everything.
See - two can play at that absolutist dismissal game!"
Sweethheart. I knew it was you!
Posted by Bagley at March 17, 2006 05:05 PM