U.S. Shocks with Promise to Back Anti-Smoking Pact (Tommy Thompson told journalists (WHO)) )

reuters ^ | 5/18/2003 | Karen Iley

[FairOpinion]

I agree, but I wish Tommy Thompson wouldn't have come out in favor of it in public.

Bush has enough trouble with Powell, we don't need Thompson making stupid public statements too.

[freekitty]

Get scr-----, Thompson. It's not for you or anyone else to say.

[Just another Joe]

Legally, President Bush isn't allowed to do this. He's not allowed to make treaties that effect the internal laws of our nation.

Maybe not but - "The president is going to make a determination as to if and when he signs it... He's still reviewing it. It got up on his personal radar screen this past week, I've given him my pitch and he was quite supportive," he said.

Maybe it's just bad reporting, maybe Tommy doesn't understand that the POTUS isn't allowed to do this, but why try to understand when most people will believe it anyway?

[TLBSHOW]

good question that Ari needs to answer for W tomorrow.

[nonliberal]

The central objection to this, IMHO, should be that any enforcment of such a treaty would render the Constitution secondary.

This is yet another challenge to the sovereignty of the United States. Bush is proving himself to be more of an internationalist than his people want the conservatives to believe.

[husky ed]

I just wish he would not try to out liberal the liberals.
Some of the personal freedoms you mention we hold dear are what we have slowly loss in the last few years.

And yes I have been very pleased with his handling of the war and the economy.

[husky ed]

Please see my post #86.

[tomakaze]

re:notice the silence from FR,,,, sad really that whatever our side does gets a free pass....
 
Yep, a while back there where quite a few folks pointing alot of this stuff out early on, but they (we) mostly got shouted down by our sides version of the kool aid drinkers.
No idea how many still post let alone, lurk.
Folks would rather freep some local restaurant for still serving french fries, or some local radio station for playing dixie chicks songs, then freep the capitol for any number of things that really threaten freedom and our way of life. (like the recent decision to "privatise" IRS collections - an plan about as nakedly fascistic as it can get)

[tomakaze]

re: 70% of the population in the third world, dies whether they smoke or not.
 
I'm no doctor, but I'd venture to say it's probably closer to 100%
:-)

[tomakaze]

re: Maybe you don't realize that Clinton actually signed us up for the International Court treaty, and Bush "unsigned it".
hold up there, he didnt "unsign it", as in completely shred it and absolve us of any connection it... he "unsigned it" as in, delayed implementation. look it up.

[FairOpinion]

"he(Bush) "unsigned it" as in, delayed implementation. look it up."
---

Sorry, your statement is not accurate. Bush didn't just delay it, he said he had no intention of sending it to the Senate, so he didn't "just delay" its implementation, as you say, but you are partially right in the sense that another president MAY send it to the Senate and it could still be approved.

"While President Clinton signed the U.N.-ICC treaty, it was never submitted to the Senate for ratification and President Bush announced last July that he had no intention of sending it to the Senate. As Press Secretary Ari Fleischer put it July 2, 2002, President Bush "thinks the ICC is fundamentally flawed because it puts American servicemen and women at fundamental risk of being tried by an entity that is beyond America's reach, beyond America's laws, and can subject American civilians and military to arbitrary standards of justice."

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-beichman042503.asp

[E Rocc]

2) Kids under 21 cannot have alcohol while they can be drafted, can vote

I agree with you that the artificially high, federally mandated drinking age is a bunch of barbarastreisand, but the last time I looked we didn't have a draft.

-Eric

[Norse]

Well, the draft can return, and if there was a crisis, under current law, those 18 and over can be drafted. The draft is not illegal. It's not being used right now.

[tomakaze]

re: "While President Clinton signed the U.N.-ICC treaty, it was never submitted to the Senate for ratification a
 
fair enough, I know I'm a suspicious bastard lol.
But since when has a detail like that ever stopped them from screwing us? the 16th ammendment was never properly ratified, but look at what we labor under now.

[FreeRadical]

EGPWS: .... see now where you get your screen name.

 Yeah,  I'm a well rounded, mellow fellow, but I am not tolerant of those that can not live by the law of our land.  As a US Citizen I'm bound morally and legally to support the Bill of Rights and Constitution.  I actively, openly and daily discriminate for the good of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. It is an obligation to shame, shun, scorn and ridicule those enabling the status quo of our Federal Government.   For many friends and neighbors, even family, the very idea of even attempting to return to the rule of law under the Constitution and Bill of Rights is summarily dismissed as an absurdity.  Trouble is that dismissal, if not treason, is piss on the graves of our grandfathers.  If taking offense makes me a radical, then I'm guilty as charged.

FairOpinion:  Apparently you would have been happier if Gore were president?

Don't be a schmuck.  I pull the lever for candidates most likely to make an honest attempt to return to the rule of law under the Constitution and Bill of Rights.  Whoring a vote out to the lesser of two evils is aiding and abetting the enemy.   It can not be less.  The Bush voter goes through life knowing he used his precious vote to help a man scarcely bothered by the Constitution and Bill of Rights and a man thriving in an ecosystem of statist scum not worthy of our respect.   Waste your vote if you want, but as for me, I will stand with people that respect the Law of the Land.

[FairOpinion]

My point was merely that you may have very high ideals, but there is nothing perfect. We do not have a choice between "George Washington" ( and you may not like him...) or some ideal "perfect person" (and your perfect person may not be considered so by others) and GW. We have the choice between some slimey Democrat and GW.

Criticizing Bush about something is OK, but overdoing it only helps the Democrats cause, helping to elect Kerry or whichever of the 8 Dem Dwarfs gets the candidacy.

[EGPWS]

EGPWS: .... see now where you get your screen name. Yeah, I'm a well rounded, mellow fellow, but I am not tolerant of those that can not live by the law of our land. As a US Citizen I'm bound morally and legally to support the Bill of Rights and Constitution. I actively, openly and daily discriminate for the good of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. It is an obligation to shame, shun, scorn and ridicule those enabling the status quo of our Federal Government. For many friends and neighbors, even family, the very idea of even attempting to return to the rule of law under the Constitution and Bill of Rights is summarily dismissed as an absurdity. Trouble is that dismissal, if not treason, is piss on the graves of our grandfathers. If taking offense makes me a radical, then I'm guilty as charged. FairOpinion: Apparently you would have been happier if Gore were president? Don't be a schmuck. I pull the lever for candidates most likely to make an honest attempt to return to the rule of law under the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Whoring a vote out to the lesser of two evils is aiding and abetting the enemy. It can not be less. The Bush voter goes through life knowing he used his precious vote to help a man scarcely bothered by the Constitution and Bill of Rights and a man thriving in an ecosystem of statist scum not worthy of our respect. Waste your vote if you want, but as for me, I will stand with people that respect the Law of the Land

I agree with your concept, however with a touch of realism. The days have never existed, (in my lifetime anyway) of a perfect society in the good ol' USofA. I will stay content and take the buoyancy device and survive in the whirl pool and maintain SOME semblance of what the Constitution stands for(stick to Rebublican support) rather that give up that support to an entity that would only mean throwing away my efforts and going down the toilet competely in that whirl pool of Liberal thinking. Lately I have seen much progress moving the country politically from the "Far Left" to the Center and this pleases me. It may not seem like much, but just the change in direction 180 degrees is a very major hurdle that has been jumped. IMHO.

Your the 1st to make note of my screen name! How did you figure it? Or maybe you figured wrong?

[TLBSHOW]

Global Tobacco Treaty Moves Forward With US Support
http://www.crosswalk.com/news/1201161.html

[carenot]

Thanks for the link, TLB.

[TLBSHOW]

If you liked that one then you will really love this one...

U.N. states adopt first ever anti-smoking treaty

GENEVA, May 21 (Reuters) - The 192 member countries of the World Health Organisation on Wednesday adopted the world's first anti-smoking treaty aimed at breaking a habit that kills nearly five million people every year.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/915382/posts?page=