Peter Franks wrote:

Josh Rosenbluth wrote:

Peter Franks wrote:


no. the people (majority rule in a republic) have voluntarily
given up some freedom in exchange for medicare.


My rights can't voluntarily be given up by someone else. To say so
implies that rights aren't inalienable.

What are you trying to justify here?


what inalienable right did the minority unjustly have to forfeit
thanks to medicare?


The right of choice.

that's broad enough to preclude a great number of laws on the books.
everything from zoning laws to dress codes to building codes to energy
efficiency standards to environmental regulations, and even the military
draft.

so we can rest this debate on the worthiness of medicare - or if you
prefer - whether our system of government as practiced by majority rule
routinely abridges inalienable rights.

Science at (no spam) Science.com wrote:

On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 15:58:51 -0400, Josh Rosenbluth
jrosenbluth at (no spam) gotcha.comcast.net> wrote:


The resolution "supported" and "encouraged" diplomatic efforts by
President George W. Bush to "strictly enforce through the U.N.
Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding
Iraq" and "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council
to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and
noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant
Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

I don't see how that language doesn't require authorization from the
Security Council, particularly in light of the next paragraph in your
link:


The reason why Bush didn't "have" to follow that language---was that he
told us the Attack was REQUIRED to protect us----outright lies---but
didn't push congress to "re-visit" that resolution

the resolution did not require re-visiting. Bush had his authority the
moment it was signed into law.

All the GOP congress had to do (in Feb, or mar) was to convene and
rescind that resolution.

the senate was in Dem hands.

I seriously doubt you have read, much less comprehend, the
justifications spelled out in the Security Council resolutions or even
the "Joint Resolution to Authorize the use of United States Armed
Forces Against Iraq"

Nope...along with the other members of the coalition, Bush had the
security council resoltuions enforced. Iraq no longer is in violation
of said resolutions.

Congress cannot negate the Security councils authority

Ha! So now you think the United Nations Security Council has authority
over the US Congress?

The "Vote to authorize force" was predicated on false,
misleading, and outright lies-----which we KNEW were
untrue prior to the attack

So you continue to claim...but post no evidence

Josh Rosenbluth wrote:

Peter Franks wrote:

Josh Rosenbluth wrote:

Peter Franks wrote:


no. the people (majority rule in a republic) have voluntarily
given up some freedom in exchange for medicare.



My rights can't voluntarily be given up by someone else. To say so
implies that rights aren't inalienable.

What are you trying to justify here?



what inalienable right did the minority unjustly have to forfeit
thanks to medicare?



The right of choice.


that's broad enough to preclude a great number of laws on the books.
everything from zoning laws to dress codes to building codes to energy
efficiency standards to environmental regulations, and even the
military draft.

so we can rest this debate on the worthiness of medicare - or if you
prefer - whether our system of government as practiced by majority
rule routinely abridges inalienable rights.


For the latter, yes, it does, which makes it totalitarian.

On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 19:41:44 -0400, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:


Science at (no spam) Science.com wrote:


On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 15:58:51 -0400, Josh Rosenbluth
jrosenbluth at (no spam) gotcha.comcast.net> wrote:



The resolution "supported" and "encouraged" diplomatic efforts by
President George W. Bush to "strictly enforce through the U.N.
Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding
Iraq" and "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council
to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and
noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant
Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

I don't see how that language doesn't require authorization from the
Security Council, particularly in light of the next paragraph in your
link:


The reason why Bush didn't "have" to follow that language---was that he
told us the Attack was REQUIRED to protect us----outright lies---but
didn't push congress to "re-visit" that resolution

the resolution did not require re-visiting. Bush had his authority the
moment it was signed into law.


It -did- require authorization from the UN security council, however.
You can't get around that.

All the GOP congress had to do (in Feb, or mar) was to convene and
rescind that resolution.

the senate was in Dem hands.


Yeah, and most Dems voted against it.

so we can rest this debate on the worthiness of medicare - or if you
prefer - whether our system of government as practiced by majority rule
routinely abridges inalienable rights.

For the latter, yes, it does, which makes it totalitarian.

On Mon, 7 Sep 2009 14:51:20 -0700 (PDT), Info Junkie

bondr... at (no spam) att.net> wrote:
Congress cannot negate the Security councils authority

Ha! So now you think the United Nations Security Council has authority
over the US Congress?

THe US was operating under UN authority in Iraq

The US can protect it'self

The US was not in any danger

The US Congress gave the authorizaton to "use force IF
NECESSARY" because they were told we were "in danger"

A lie.

On Mon, 7 Sep 2009 14:51:20 -0700 (PDT), Info Junkie

bondr... at (no spam) att.net> wrote:
The "Vote to authorize force" was predicated on false,
misleading, and outright lies-----which we KNEW were
untrue prior to the attack

So you continue to claim...but post no evidence

You continue to deny

But you can't rebut any of the proven evidence that
NONE of Bushs reasons for wanting to attack Iraq were
truth.

On Mon, 7 Sep 2009 14:02:17 -0700 (PDT), Info Junkie

bondr... at (no spam) att.net> wrote:

Being a signator did not extend ANY authority outside
the Governing body's rulings.

Only you are trying to claim some requirement for "additional" but
irrelevent "authority" to enforce said resolutions.

The UN denied the authority

THEY were the ONLY  legitimate entity to do so.

On Mon, 7 Sep 2009 14:21:55 -0700 (PDT), Info Junkie

bondr... at (no spam) att.net> wrote:
They were not authorized by the governing body to do
so.

ROTFLMHO. WHOM do you think is the "governing body" sonny? The votes
had  ALREADY been voted on by members of the Security Council. re: Un
Security Council resolution 1441...which INCLUDED another Security
Council resolution 687 which ALREADY had been voted on to "ENFORCE"
said resoltutions!

An invasion was NOT authorized

No action apart from enforcing the sanction was
authorized

No evidence was ever presented (truthful) that a
further action was necessary

The evidence that was presented was found flawed,
untrue, and without signifcant threat to anyone.

On Sep 7, 6:18 pm, Scie... at (no spam) Science.com wrote:
On Mon, 7 Sep 2009 14:02:17 -0700 (PDT), Info Junkie

bondr... at (no spam) att.net> wrote:

Being a signator did not extend ANY authority outside the Governing
body's rulings.

Only you are trying to claim some requirement for "additional" but
irrelevent "authority" to enforce said resolutions.

The UN denied the authority

Where? Oh that's right...you don't provide evidence, just claims.

THEY were the ONLY  legitimate entity to do so.

Who is the "they" of which you post? Where's is this omnipotent
"authority" over the United States?

THe US was operating under UN authority in Iraq

The US was fulfilling it's treaty obligations.