Let Barack lead the Attack

I'm a southerner living in the north. The racism is worse here. They just whisper it here instead of saying it out loud like they do down south.

The north is more segregated than the south. Oh, they don't pass laws against minorities living in certain places and frequenting certain places. But it's amazing how the townships can make zoning work to cause that very thing to happen.

 

I could and would vote for a black person if they "were a conservative, pro family, morally upright individual who stressed state and individual rights".

Obama does not match that description.

 

They would if we threatened to pull our money from them. They would elect an American or not have enough money to exist.

 

:laugh: Are you serious? Please tell me you are joking!?! :laugh:

Honestly, care to guess how many years the UN has gone without the dues of the USA?

 

First I have heard of that. Link me to a story, please.

 

http://www.globalpolicy.org/finance/tables/core/un-us-06.htm

“The following table and chart illustrate the contributions owed to the UN by all member states and the contributions owed by the US. As the US continues not to pay UN contributions in full, the US is responsible for approximately half of the UN debt.”

http://www.globalpolicy.org/finance/info/usdebt.htm

US Debt to the UN: Monthly Totals- Percentages show US proportion of debt to the total UN debt in each category

http://english.people.com.cn/english/200108/22/eng20010822_77973.html

2001 article: US Debt to UN Reaches Record High

 

Zero, I believe.

 

I take it you didn't bother to even look at the links.... You believe wrong....

BTW... I'm sorry for derailing this thread even more....

 

I have seen you use this phrase at least twice now, what in the world are you talking about?

As for Obama, I like what I have seen thus far.

 

I certainly did and your links confirmed that the UN has never "gone without the dues of the USA".

 

Try http://www.usunnewyork.usmission.gov/fact2.htm

 

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200110/NAT20011001e.html

http://dir.salon.com/story/books/int/2002/02/20/clinton/index.html
is another view of the phrase.

 

That's succinct :thumbs:

 

Yes, and that link does not address what I was talking about. DeeJay made the claim that the UN would be forced to take on Bill Clinton as the UNSG if we threatened to withdraw our money. That statement in itself is laughable considering the UN has to fight to receive the money it is already owed by the US. The US has frequently failed to pay the money it owes, to the point of almost losing our vote in the General Assembly, (although it never affected our power in the Security Council). If we did pay out the money we owed all along than there would not have been 1.3 billion dollars in arrears in 1999.

 

Whatever, Carpo. You see things how you want, not as they really are, anyway.

 

My! Aren't we nasty this morning?:laugh:

The US has not been paying their full assessment, but I have not seen anything in your sources that shows the UN is doing entirely "without" US dues as you indicated.

The US is only one of many countries not paying their full assessment.

Properly wording your post to make a point does make a difference.

 

If you say so..... Either way it is still laughable to expect the UN to elect an American for the SG by threatening to withold money.