Once again..there is nothing to indicate that we will reconize the "World Court" except when it rulings are in our favor or are in our political interest to do so....Sorta like being on the UN Security Council...sit and listen to the whining.....but veto anything that goes against this country's interests.

The original contention was that there was no World Court, which obviously there is.

The ruling being referred-to was in fact, against the U.S., so there is some response from GW, though not of this date, substantive.

This is reminiscent of Bush's pledge to get back the killer of a So Cal sheriff's deputy (among over 100 alleged killers protected from extradition by Mexico). Bush made the pledge over a year ago, but has accomplished nothing.

Wasn't the World court part of the GATT agreement mid 90's I remember Ralph Nader arguing against the GATT because we would lose our sovereignity.

I think the point is not "is there a body calling itself the World Court?"...but "is there really a World Court?" My contention is that there is not unless it's authority extends to everyone in the world. As long as the most powerful countries refuse to ratify it and can do as they please......there is no "World Court." It is just an attempt by the weaker countries and their crybaby surrogates in this country to futher give up our soverignty.

I believe GATT had already been promoted to WTO at that time

"I am the first president in decades to execute a federal prisoner."

And that's a bad thing?????? I don't get it.

It isn't necessarily a negative, but the person executed was a decorated Gulf War veteran who claimed diminished capacity from PTSD/exposure to nerve agents in the Gulf. A lot of people thought it was a matter for Texas state law, where the crime was committed. Others thought that there were mitigating circumstances.

The key point for many conservatives is that it was a states rights issue.

Well at least GW didnt Mow down a 12 year old with a M-60 machine gun.

Nope, king george sends out our nation's troops to do his dirty work for him but I am sure he will not be subject to the same penalties he enforces against other criminals.

:rolleyes:

No matter what side you are on....far right or far left...the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

And....no matter who is in office: Bush, Kerry or Alfred E. Newmann (what me worry?) the fact is that he or she will make tons of enemys and have tons of accusations (true or otherwise) thrown at him.

Its up to the descriminating minds of the US citizens to seperate the fact from fiction, truth from lies, spin from unspin.

From this...all I can say or ask is is "am I better off today than I was 4 years ago?"... will I be "better off 4 years from now than I am today?"

Much of that lies in my own hands and not in the hands of some politician.

Yeah, four years ago SUCKED!

. ..The economic bubble had burst, and some really bad men had been planning to hit US harder than we have ever been hit before.

"It isn't necessarily a negative, but the person executed was a decorated Gulf War veteran who claimed diminished capacity from PTSD/exposure to nerve agents in the Gulf. A lot of people thought it was a matter for Texas state law, where the crime was committed. Others thought that there were mitigating circumstances.

The key point for many conservatives is that it was a states rights issue."

Sorry, I'm not buying that! McVeigh deserved to die for his crimes and no excuse from his defense lawyer is acceptable. I'm a Gulf War vet, does that mean any and all crimes I would commit would be excused???

Yup, those evil doers of the bush administration sure did a buch of damage . . . ;)

PS...the Timothy McVie thing pisses me off. Not only did Bush not "throw the switch" .... but the A-hole was tried and convicted by the court system. He was executed under Federal Law...not by Bush.

By the way... McVies mass murdering terroristic crime took place under the Clinton Administrations watch. Any mention of that?

That just debunked this entire thread and it now rates a One Star.

If Clinton can be held liable for the actions of crazies in Oklahoma, what about September 11 2001?

Back to a multi star rating!!

<G>

azasadny "Sorry, I'm not buying that! McVeigh deserved to die for his crimes and no excuse from his defense lawyer is acceptable. I'm a Gulf War vet, does that mean any and all crimes I would commit would be excused???"

The original 'Federal execution' reference wasn't to McVeigh, but to Louis Jones.

Don't any of you guys do any research?

The original post in this thread was supposedly "long debunked" and althoguh some are in the "gray", not a single point in that post has yet been proven wrong. Interesting.