• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Yet again the UN sticks its nose into a US state's business

The World Court should spend more time bringing the Bushwhacko torturers and war criminals to trial.
 
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
You realize that the Bush Administration and the UN are on the same side in this case right?
Click to expand...

yes I do and that's why I said I hope Perry tell the Feds to stick it.
 
Originally posted by: Harvey
The World Court should spend more time bringing the Bushwhacko torturers and war criminals to trial.
Click to expand...

Yeah, because they set such a good precedent with Tibet and China.
 
When will the World Courts hold the MEXICAN GOVT responsible for their country being so fucked up that their citizens illegally enter others trying to escape poverty in their own???
 
If the UN doesn't like the way we do things, they should just invade us with their military already. Oh wait, thats us!
 
I don't know anyone here in South Texas that gives a fig what the UN wants.

I think they should be sent packing - set up their headquarters elsewhere like in Europe.

You rape and kill, you die. What's so hard to comprehend.
 
Originally posted by: dahunan
When will the World Courts hold the MEXICAN GOVT responsible for their country being so fucked up that their citizens illegally enter others trying to escape poverty in their own???
Click to expand...

You forgot that the Mexican government actively encourages their citizens to come on over.

That being said, we do have a problem if we aren't fulfilling obligations that we pledged to uphold.

Like Geneva we can't pick and choose which rules to follow depending on our mood for the day.

Don't you think we might object to one of the Mexican states basically ignoring a law that Mexico signed and didn't give one of our citizens rights that were guaranteed?

Edit - I see the nativist tough guys are asserting their 'Mericaness' for all to see
 
Originally posted by: woodie1

You rape and kill, you die. What's so hard to comprehend.
Click to expand...

How about, "You start unjustified wars, you torture, you commit war crimes, you stand trial." What's so hard to comprehend?
 
Originally posted by: ayabe
-snip-
That being said, we do have a problem if we aren't fulfilling obligations that we pledged to uphold.

Like Geneva we can't pick and choose which rules to follow depending on our mood for the day.
Click to expand...

We aren't picking and choosing which rules to follow.

Texas didn't sign off on the deal.
The US goverment did.

Texas is prosecuting the Mexicans.
The US government isn't.

Were they being prosecuted by the federal government, I'm sure the fed would have complied. Texas is under no obligation to do so.

States typically decline to follow treaties, I've seen it often with international tax treaties.

This is a result of our system of government. And SCOTUS has affirmed it is in accordance with the laws.

Fern
 
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: woodie1

You rape and kill, you die. What's so hard to comprehend.
Click to expand...

How about, "You start unjustified wars, you torture, you commit war crimes, you stand trial." What's so hard to comprehend?
Click to expand...

What a novel idea.
 
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: woodie1

You rape and kill, you die. What's so hard to comprehend.
Click to expand...

How about, "You start unjustified wars, you torture, you commit war crimes, you stand trial." What's so hard to comprehend?
Click to expand...

Trying to hijack another thread, eh.
 
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: ayabe
-snip-
That being said, we do have a problem if we aren't fulfilling obligations that we pledged to uphold.

Like Geneva we can't pick and choose which rules to follow depending on our mood for the day.
Click to expand...

We aren't picking and choosing which rules to follow.

Texas didn't sign off on the deal.
The US goverment did.

Texas is prosecuting the Mexicans.
The US government isn't.

Were they being prosecuted by the federal government, I'm sure the fed would have complied. Texas is under no obligation to do so.

States typically decline to follow treaties, I've seen it often with international tax treaties.

This is a result of our system of government. And SCOTRUS has affirmed it is in accordance with the laws.

Fern
Click to expand...

This was of course yet another 5-4 decision, and one that I think should be circumvented without delay. I don't think it's too difficult to imagine all of the problems that would crop up if states started frequently declining to follow treaties to which the US is signatory. It could quickly turn to other countries saying 'well you can't enforce your side of the treaty anyway, so why bother?'. The USSC said that all congress needs to do is pass a law that forces all states to comply with all treaty obligations. (although I still can't figure out why this is necessary in light of the supremacy clause) They should do so immediately.
 
Texans love nothin' better than a good BBQ, Friday Night High School Football and executing Mexicans.

Hey if the Feds or the Mexican Gov is going to foot the bill for the cost of the review, why not review it? He's going to bloat when he's dead whether it's this August or next August.
 
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: ayabe
-snip-
That being said, we do have a problem if we aren't fulfilling obligations that we pledged to uphold.

Like Geneva we can't pick and choose which rules to follow depending on our mood for the day.
Click to expand...

We aren't picking and choosing which rules to follow.

Texas didn't sign off on the deal.
The US goverment did.

Texas is prosecuting the Mexicans.
The US government isn't.

Were they being prosecuted by the federal government, I'm sure the fed would have complied. Texas is under no obligation to do so.

States typically decline to follow treaties, I've seen it often with international tax treaties.

This is a result of our system of government. And SCOTRUS has affirmed it is in accordance with the laws.

Fern
Click to expand...

This was of course yet another 5-4 decision, and one that I think should be circumvented without delay. I don't think it's too difficult to imagine all of the problems that would crop up if states started frequently declining to follow treaties to which the US is signatory. It could quickly turn to other countries saying 'well you can't enforce your side of the treaty anyway, so why bother?'. The USSC said that all congress needs to do is pass a law that forces all states to comply with all treaty obligations. (although I still can't figure out why this is necessary in light of the supremacy clause) They should do so immediately.
Click to expand...

states rights.
 
Originally posted by: woodie1
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: woodie1

You rape and kill, you die. What's so hard to comprehend.
Click to expand...

How about, "You start unjustified wars, you torture, you commit war crimes, you stand trial." What's so hard to comprehend?
Click to expand...

Trying to hijack another thread, eh.
Click to expand...

Buahahahaha!!! :laugh:

The OP made this thread about the jurisidiction U.N. and, the World Court at the Hague.

You replied to embarrass yourself and all of south Texas with your dumbass, cavalier dismissal of the U.N.

I replied with a statement that directly refered to yours AND the authority of The World Court.

After all of that, instead of replying to any of that, you attempt to hijack the thread with a personal attack calling me out for hijacking the thread.

It's a good thing I've met some intelligent Texans because, between you and Bush, that's now two jackasses I know come from Texas. :cookie:

We now return control of the thread to the thread.
 
Originally posted by: Citrix

states rights.
Click to expand...

Supremacy Clause?

Again, the USSC said that all Congress and the President need to do to force every state to comply is pass a law. So if this is a state's rights issue it's one that is remarkably flimsy.
 
Originally posted by: DonaldC
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: woodie1

You rape and kill, you die. What's so hard to comprehend.
Click to expand...

How about, "You start unjustified wars, you torture, you commit war crimes, you stand trial." What's so hard to comprehend?
Click to expand...

What a novel idea.
Click to expand...

Not really. Harvey said the first thing that crossed my mind.
 
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: woodie1

You rape and kill, you die. What's so hard to comprehend.
Click to expand...

How about, "You start unjustified wars, you torture, you commit war crimes, you stand trial." What's so hard to comprehend?
Click to expand...

This case has nothing to do with anyones beliefs on "the war on terrer"

This is about pieces of shit that raped and killed 2 teenagers.

The U.N. is worthless. It's great for those that get something out of it, but for America and Americans all we're doing is paying to do stuff we don't want to do.

I have faith in Perry. He'll tell them to throw the switch and be done with these pieces of trash.
 
At least the UN is simply making a suggestion; they're not going to war over it.
 
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: ayabe
-snip-
That being said, we do have a problem if we aren't fulfilling obligations that we pledged to uphold.

Like Geneva we can't pick and choose which rules to follow depending on our mood for the day.
Click to expand...

We aren't picking and choosing which rules to follow.

Texas didn't sign off on the deal.
The US goverment did.

Texas is prosecuting the Mexicans.
The US government isn't.

Were they being prosecuted by the federal government, I'm sure the fed would have complied. Texas is under no obligation to do so.

States typically decline to follow treaties, I've seen it often with international tax treaties.

This is a result of our system of government. And SCOTRUS has affirmed it is in accordance with the laws.

Fern
Click to expand...

This was of course yet another 5-4 decision, and one that I think should be circumvented without delay. I don't think it's too difficult to imagine all of the problems that would crop up if states started frequently declining to follow treaties to which the US is signatory. It could quickly turn to other countries saying 'well you can't enforce your side of the treaty anyway, so why bother?'. The USSC said that all congress needs to do is pass a law that forces all states to comply with all treaty obligations. (although I still can't figure out why this is necessary in light of the supremacy clause) They should do so immediately.
Click to expand...

So basically fuck all of our laws and system of government. The high court in the land said something but you don't agree with it so you'll follow through, even though you will be breaking the law. You don't happen to be the Mayor or Police Chief of D.C. do you?
 
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Texans love nothin' better than a good BBQ, Friday Night High School Football and executing Mexicans.

Hey if the Feds or the Mexican Gov is going to foot the bill for the cost of the review, why not review it? He's going to bloat when he's dead whether it's this August or next August.
Click to expand...

But I as a Texas tax payer, don't want to pay for his food clothing and lodging for another year.
 
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: woodie1
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: woodie1

You rape and kill, you die. What's so hard to comprehend.
Click to expand...

How about, "You start unjustified wars, you torture, you commit war crimes, you stand trial." What's so hard to comprehend?
Click to expand...

Trying to hijack another thread, eh.
Click to expand...

Buahahahaha!!! :laugh:

The OP made this thread about the jurisidiction U.N. and, the World Court at the Hague.

You replied to embarrass yourself and all of south Texas with your dumbass, cavalier dismissal of the U.N.

I replied with a statement that directly refered to yours AND the authority of The World Court.

After all of that, instead of replying to any of that, you attempt to hijack the thread with a personal attack calling me out for hijacking the thread.

It's a good thing I've met some intelligent Texans because, between you and Bush, that's now two jackasses I know come from Texas. :cookie:

We now return control of the thread to the thread.
Click to expand...

Glad to be of service.
Feel better, I hope.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top