The UN has got to go.

[rchiu]

You are probably correct, or at least I hope you are. However, that doesn't take away from the fact that it's ridiculous that they are even proposing these types of taxes.

it's only ridiculous because you don't understand what the hell you are posting.

if you go read the link from fox, it is just proposal from a WHO working group. What does WHO do? Go Google it and you'd know they push health care related agenda. The working group simply come up with a study saying countries around the world need to spend more on health care and along with the suggestion, they come up with proposals on where countries would get the money for that.

First of all, it's just a proposal from a working group from one of UN's arm working on very specific area. it is far from the official UN position. Second, even if this is UN's position, this has to be agreed by member countries and sorry to disappoint you, not this shadow UN government. Third, even if this is agreed by member countries, UN has no power to enforce it, it's all up to member countries to enforce the tax if they think health initiatives are that important.

So go try to understand how things work before posting something absolutely ridiculous that only shows your shallow understanding of the topic.

 

[FaaR]

You are probably right. Unless Obama and the Democrats go "WE'D LOVE TO GIVE OUR CITIZEN'S MONEY TO OTHER COUNTRIES!!!!!".

...Because a godfearing christian nation like the US would of course never want to do such a thing.

 

[Robor]

Neocontards.

 

[bobsmith1492]

...Because a godfearing christian nation like the US would of course never want to do such a thing.

Not by force from the government. I freely give away my own money but to have some bureaucrats take it by mandate and decide who gets it is a no-no.

 

[fskimospy]

The President and the Legislature have no constitutional right to allow the UN to do this. A Constitutional Ammendment would be needed in order for this to be legal in the US.

We need a constitutional amendment to allow a group within the UN to make a completely nonbinding request for the government to pass a law?

That's a new one.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The anti-democratic, corrupt justification for the UN. Don't see that one much.

It's a good reason for one. The world isn't very nice, and it's good to have some influence. The world isn't a democracy.

I worked with a woman who once complained that she and her two daughters were going to eat at McDonalds again. I asked why and it was because she was raised in a strict family and said that she was going to have a democratic family.

Well her two daughter who were both less than 10 years old always voted as one, and she always lost.

Well of course. That's the worst possible model for a family, and for us, the worst possible situation. Africa and the ME could vote our resources right out from under us, and if the world were democratic, we'd have to let them.

Well that's not going to happen. The value of the UN is that we do have influence and that some occasionally abuse it does not change that at all.

The people who want to kick the UN out always cite things which never happen like this but completely disregard the intelligence gathering opportunities and ability use our influence to our benefit.

 

[Craig234]

It's a good reason for one. The world isn't very nice, and it's good to have some influence. The world isn't a democracy.

I worked with a woman who once complained that she and her two daughters were going to eat at McDonalds again. I asked why and it was because she was raised in a strict family and said that she was going to have a democratic family.

Well her two daughter who were both less than 10 years old always voted as one, and she always lost.

Well of course. That's the worst possible model for a family, and for us, the worst possible situation. Africa and the ME could vote our resources right out from under us, and if the world were democratic, we'd have to let them.

Well that's not going to happen. The value of the UN is that we do have influence and that some occasionally abuse it does not change that at all.

The people who want to kick the UN out always cite things which never happen like this but completely disregard the intelligence gathering opportunities and ability use our influence to our benefit.

That's one of the most fallacy-filled posts I've seen in some time.

Yes, democratic principles are completely dismissed by a foolish woman with 10 year olds.

You made a devastating point that not abusing our power to take resources has no way to be implemented but to surrender to Africa;s leading the vote to take all out resources.

And yes, the argument arguing for us to support the UN *only* because we can be as much of a tyrant as we want, blocking anything, while using it to limit others is only "us having a bit of influence".

What carp.

You waste my and every readers' (ok, every good readers') time with a reply like that.

 

[Craig234]

Not by force from the government. I freely give away my own money but to have some bureaucrats take it by mandate and decide who gets it is a no-no.

Welcome to democracy. Sorry you hate it. Haiti is freer for you.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

That's one of the most fallacy-filled posts I've seen in some time.

Yes, democratic principles are completely dismissed by a foolish woman with 10 year olds.

You made a devastating point that not abusing our power to take resources has no way to be implemented but to surrender to Africa;s leading the vote to take all out resources.

And yes, the argument arguing for us to support the UN *only* because we can be as much of a tyrant as we want, blocking anything, while using it to limit others is only "us having a bit of influence".

What carp.

You waste my and every readers' (ok, every good readers') time with a reply like that.

You don't get out much do you?

 

[drebo]

We need a constitutional amendment to allow a group within the UN to make a completely nonbinding request for the government to pass a law?

That's a new one.

To request? No. But, to pass a law that gives an extra-national organization the power to levy domestic taxes? Abso-fucking-lutely.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

To request? No. But, to pass a law that gives an extra-national organization the power to levy domestic taxes? Abso-fucking-lutely.

Assuming that this came to pass (which it won't), it will immediately come before the SCOTUS who will reject it. There is no Constitutional basis for such a tax, and although I am quite cynical regarding many government issues, I'm not going to lose sleep over this.

 

[Zepper]

Democracy = two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner... That's why American is a republic and not a pure democracy - the founders almost got it right, but they just weren't cynical enough to foresee the lousy, corrupt political class we've had lately.

.bh.

 

[drebo]

Democracy = two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner... That's why American is a republic and not a pure democracy - the founders almost got it right, but they just weren't cynical enough to foresee the lousy, corrupt political class we've had lately.

.bh.

No, the founders got it right. Modern day "Living Constitutionalists" are the ones who have it wrong.

 

[fskimospy]

To request? No. But, to pass a law that gives an extra-national organization the power to levy domestic taxes? Abso-fucking-lutely.

Where did you get the idea that the extra national organization would be the one levying domestic taxes? I can't see how you would have come to that conclusion.

 

[fskimospy]

No, the founders got it right. Modern day "Living Constitutionalists" are the ones who have it wrong.

I'd love to know what you think 'the founders' thought.