US to have observers in the Nov election.

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » August 9, 2004, 9:36 am

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/ ... index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A team of international observers will monitor the presidential election in November, according to the U.S. State Department.

The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe was invited to monitor the election by the State Department. The observers will come from the OSCE's Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights.

It will be the first time such a team has been present for a U.S. presidential election.

"The U.S. is obliged to invite us, as all OSCE countries should," spokeswoman Urdur Gunnarsdottir said. "It's not legally binding, but it's a political commitment. They signed a document 10 years ago to ask OSCE to observe elections."

Thirteen Democratic members of the House of Representatives, raising the specter of possible civil rights violations that they said took place in Florida and elsewhere in the 2000 election, wrote to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan in July, asking him to send observers.

After Annan rejected their request, saying the administration must make the application, the Democrats asked Secretary of State Colin Powell to do so.

The issue was hotly debated in the House, and Republicans got an amendment to a foreign aid bill that barred federal funds from being used for the United Nations to monitor U.S. elections, The Associated Press reported.

In a letter dated July 30 and released last week, Assistant Secretary of State Paul Kelly told the Democrats about the invitation to OSCE, without mentioning the U.N. issue.

"I am pleased that Secretary Powell is as committed as I am to a fair and democratic process," said Democratic Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, who spearheaded the effort to get U.N. observers.

"The presence of monitors will assure Americans that America cares about their votes and it cares about its standing in the world," she said in a news release.

Democratic Rep. Barbara Lee of California agreed.

"This represents a step in the right direction toward ensuring that this year's elections are fair and transparent," she said.

"I am pleased that the State Department responded by acting on this need for international monitors. We sincerely hope that the presence of the monitors will make certain that every person's voice is heard, every person's vote is counted."

OSCE, the world's largest regional security organization, will send a preliminary mission to Washington in September to assess the size, scope, logistics and cost of the mission, Gunnarsdottir said.

The organization, which counts among its missions conflict prevention and postconflict rehabilitation, will then determine how many observers are required and where in the United States they will be sent.

"OSCE-participating [nations] agreed in 1990 to observe elections in one another's countries. The OSCE routinely monitors elections within its 55-state membership, including Europe, Eurasia, Canada and the United States," a State Department spokesman said.

The spokesman said the United States does not have any details on the size and composition of the observers or what countries will provide them.

OSCE, based in Vienna, Austria, has sent more than 10,000 personnel to monitor more than 150 elections and referenda in more than 30 countries during the past decade, Gunnarsdottir said.

In November 2002, OSCE sent 10 observers on a weeklong mission to monitor the U.S. midterm elections. OSCE also sent observers to monitor the California gubernatorial recall election last year.

More recently, OSCE monitored the elections in Northern Ireland in November and in Spain in March.

Hesten · Post by **Hesten** » August 9, 2004, 9:43 am

Thats nice to hear. So there might be a fair election this year

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » August 9, 2004, 9:44 am

Yeah, with luck, peopel will figure out how to poperly punch a ballot.

Hesten · Post by **Hesten** » August 9, 2004, 9:54 am

Dont bet on it Arakan. Remember that a good part of the voters are typical americans

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » August 9, 2004, 10:01 am

I'm really starting to think that the "typical" american line is getting way too much use. What makes the typical american? What defines him or her? What makes him or her any less special than any one of us? What makes us so much better than them?

masteen · Post by **masteen** » August 9, 2004, 12:19 pm

Your typical American is fat, dumb, and happy. Which is why all the skinny, smart, and angry people in the world hate us so much.

Bubba Grizz · Post by **Bubba Grizz** » August 9, 2004, 12:24 pm

masteen wrote:Your typical American is fat, dumb, and happy. Which is why all the skinny, smart, and angry people in the world hate us so much.

Count me in as being as typical as it gets then and proud of it I think.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » August 9, 2004, 1:36 pm

Someone's got to be on top!

I'd rather be criticized for making mistakes than watch another country make them instead. It's sort of like when you live in an apartment complex. I'd rather be on the top floor irritating the people below me than vice versa. Who are they going to call to make us stop? The UN? bahahaha! : )

----

Unfortunately, many americans are obnoxious overseas. Wonko encountered 3 americans in Sweden chanting, "Saddam must die" or something along those lines while also saying "I wonder if they understand us". There's not much hope of improving our image when this is happening in other countries.

The United States has many positives but they are overshadowed by the single superpower model which brings plenty of hate along with it. Things will improve when China is ready to start kicking ass so there's someone else to hate again.

Hesten · Post by **Hesten** » August 9, 2004, 3:30 pm

Unfortunately, many americans are obnoxious overseas. Wonko encountered 3 americans in Sweden chanting, "Saddam must die" or something along those lines while also saying "I wonder if they understand us". There's not much hope of improving our image when this is happening in other countries.

Heh, you dont need to go to sweden to see americans behave like that.
Was in the US last year to visit my cousin who were getting married, and one of the days we were in the zoo (cant remember which one, BIG one), and since my mothers husband are pretty bad at english we of course talked danish as much as we could, so he could be in the conversation too.

And a lady in front of us say to her friend "what an ugly language". So you dont need to go outside the US to meet americans that think all non-american cant speak english

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » August 9, 2004, 3:38 pm

Akaran_D wrote:I'm really starting to think that the "typical" american line is getting way too much use. What makes the typical american? What defines him or her? What makes him or her any less special than any one of us? What makes us so much better than them?

It's the classic sign of a liberal. Liberials truely think they are elightened beyond the average, and that the rest of us need babysitting by them for our life decisions (such as heath care or retirement savings.)

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » August 9, 2004, 3:39 pm

The classic sign of a Republican is to use the word "liberal" every time they say something.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » August 9, 2004, 3:46 pm

I work with a doctorial student from China. He has mentioned to me in the past that the impression he got about the US came from Hollywood and the obnoxious American business travelers he bumped in to while growping up in Beijing.

He said that impression was dramatically different from the one he has now after living in the States for 5 years. Here people are more "normal" than what his earlier impression constructed.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » August 9, 2004, 4:08 pm

Vetiria wrote:The classic sign of a Republican is to use the word "liberal" every time they say something.

Who wants universal heath care,
Who wants to restrict social security money from being directed private savings accounts?
Who believes that childcare should be provided by the government?

Who belives that every big responsiblity in a an adult's life shouldn't be handled by the adult but rather should be handled by the Government?

Who actively work to remove individual responsiblity from the citizen because of the notion that the citizen is unable to handle it?

That philosophy is liberal.

The elightened few, gracing the neandrathal masses with their aloof wisdom.

Imagine their insulated shock when they fail to get elected. They just don't get it.

People aren't dumb. The average guy is no less human than the elitist. For the experiences that count. For the life decisions that matter, we're all on the same playing field and should be afforded the liberty to make our own choices.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » August 9, 2004, 4:12 pm

Vetiria wrote:The classic sign of a Republican is to use the word "liberal" every time they say something.

The classic sign of a Democrat is to use the word "conservative" every time they...

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » August 9, 2004, 4:51 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:Who belives that every big responsiblity in a an adult's life shouldn't be handled by the adult but rather should be handled by the Government?

Who actively work to remove individual responsiblity from the citizen because of the notion that the citizen is unable to handle it?

That philosophy is liberal.

Taking from the Sean Hannity book of liberalisms, I see? Those statements are ridiculous, Adex. I'm surprised you would post them. Not even you are that far right.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » August 9, 2004, 5:03 pm

And a lady in front of us say to her friend "what an ugly language". So you dont need to go outside the US to meet americans that think all non-american cant speak english

I've had something similar happen. My response was simply (and my English is good enough that I am usually taken for an American from a different part of the country): "When you speak another language as good as we speak English you can come back and open your mouth". Worked wonders heh.

He said that impression was dramatically different from the one he has now after living in the States for 5 years. Here people are more "normal" than what his earlier impression constructed.

Yes those tourists are the worse. Yes they leave a bad impression of Americans. And that is the impression that colors a lot of people's views of Americans for lfie since not that many will ever travel here. One of many reasons why Europeans dislike Americans.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » August 9, 2004, 5:16 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:
Vetiria wrote:The classic sign of a Republican is to use the word "liberal" every time they say something.
Who wants universal heath care,
Who wants to restrict social security money from being directed private savings accounts?
Who believes that childcare should be provided by the government?

Who belives that every big responsiblity in a an adult's life shouldn't be handled by the adult but rather should be handled by the Government?

Who actively work to remove individual responsiblity from the citizen because of the notion that the citizen is unable to handle it?

That philosophy is liberal.

The elightened few, gracing the neandrathal masses with their aloof wisdom.

Imagine their insulated shock when they fail to get elected. They just don't get it.

People aren't dumb. The average guy is no less human than the elitist. For the experiences that count. For the life decisions that matter, we're all on the same playing field and should be afforded the liberty to make our own choices.

I happen to agree with most of what you said, being that the adult should be in control opposed to the government on economic issues. Yet Republicans are hypocrites as they push freedom and economic responsibility, yet they dont believe a women should have the right to do what she wants with her body, they dont believe even criminals have the right to persue rehabilitation, they dont believe in science, and progressing in research that could save millions of lives, they dont believe that all citizens, regardless of sexual orientation should have the freedom to marry, hell they dont even trust you to watch what you want to on TV, they dont trust you to listen to the radio station of your choice, they dont even trust you to be responcible for your own body, and that adults should bare the responcibility to judge what drugs they are able to consume in a peaceful manner
A true liberal stands for liberty(as the word liberal is derived from this) and freedom...a conservative stands for regression and is opposed to progressing (hence, conserve)

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » August 9, 2004, 5:41 pm

Vetiria wrote:
Adex_Xeda wrote:Who belives that every big responsiblity in a an adult's life shouldn't be handled by the adult but rather should be handled by the Government?

Who actively work to remove individual responsiblity from the citizen because of the notion that the citizen is unable to handle it?

That philosophy is liberal.
Taking from the Sean Hannity book of liberalisms, I see? Those statements are ridiculous, Adex. I'm surprised you would post them. Not even you are that far right.

That you consider these issues "far right" is a sad commentary on your lack of historical perception.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » August 9, 2004, 5:46 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:
Vetiria wrote:The classic sign of a Republican is to use the word "liberal" every time they say something.
Who wants universal heath care,
Who wants to restrict social security money from being directed private savings accounts?
Who believes that childcare should be provided by the government?

Who would take the money all of that would cost, multiply it by twenty and then spend it on a pork barrel anti missile net guaranteed to stop almost 10% of the nukes fired at the US if war were to break out.

people like you need smart people like me to keep your from choking on your own tongues.

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » August 9, 2004, 6:03 pm

kyoukan wrote:
Adex_Xeda wrote:
Vetiria wrote:The classic sign of a Republican is to use the word "liberal" every time they say something.
Who wants universal heath care,
Who wants to restrict social security money from being directed private savings accounts?
Who believes that childcare should be provided by the government?
Who would take the money all of that would cost, multiply it by twenty and then spend it on a pork barrel anti missile net guaranteed to stop almost 10% of the nukes fired at the US if war were to break out.

people like you need smart people like me to keep your from choking on your own tongues.

Liberal elitism! Caught by her own words! Call Fox News!

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » August 9, 2004, 7:12 pm

Metanis wrote:That you consider these issues "far right" is a sad commentary on your lack of historical perception.

I didn't say that. Try again.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » August 9, 2004, 7:22 pm

Vetiria wrote:
Adex_Xeda wrote:Who belives that every big responsiblity in a an adult's life shouldn't be handled by the adult but rather should be handled by the Government?

Who actively work to remove individual responsiblity from the citizen because of the notion that the citizen is unable to handle it?

That philosophy is liberal.
Taking from the Sean Hannity book of liberalisms, I see? Those statements are ridiculous, Adex. I'm surprised you would post them. Not even you are that far right.

Actually you did say it. Maybe the highly advanced art of inference has avoided you all these years.

The fact that you believe an individual can better take care of ones own finances better than a governing body, makes you a liberal, by its modern definition. You are an elitist. You and Hillary believe you can better distribute the wealth of the people. You believe a multi million, should have to pay more than 45% to the federal government. You disgust me.

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » August 9, 2004, 7:31 pm

Vetiria wrote:
Metanis wrote:That you consider these issues "far right" is a sad commentary on your lack of historical perception.
I didn't say that. Try again.

OK, I'll try again...

Vetiria wrote:Taking from the Sean Hannity book of liberalisms, I see? Those statements are ridiculous, Adex. I'm surprised you would post them. Not even you are that far right.

Let A=B=C

If D=A then D=B and D=C

Logic would suggest you felt those statements were "far right".

Or did you attend the Bill Clinton School of Advanced Logical Thinking? You know the one, "it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is..."

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » August 9, 2004, 9:21 pm

It's sad that I have to explain this to supposed adults. Adex posted traits of what he thought were "liberals," trying demonize the characteristic of being a liberal. I then posted:

Not even you are that far right.

Make sense now? Idiots.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » August 9, 2004, 9:28 pm

You know, I agree that the average American is rather lame, but remember the 20% of the Americans who have it together have dominated the world for 100 years.

Or best is better than theirs, and our worse is worse than theirs, just makes sense.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » August 10, 2004, 12:22 am

Vetiria wrote:
Adex_Xeda wrote:Who belives that every big responsiblity in a an adult's life shouldn't be handled by the adult but rather should be handled by the Government?

Who actively work to remove individual responsiblity from the citizen because of the notion that the citizen is unable to handle it?

That philosophy is liberal.
Taking from the Sean Hannity book of liberalisms, I see? Those statements are ridiculous, Adex. I'm surprised you would post them. Not even you are that far right.

Ok, fine, where am I wrong about liberalism? What am I missing?

BTW I work, I don't have time to listen to daytime radio.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » August 10, 2004, 12:41 am

Or best is better than theirs

Is it?

Truant · Post by **Truant** » August 10, 2004, 7:37 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:
Akaran_D wrote:I'm really starting to think that the "typical" american line is getting way too much use. What makes the typical american? What defines him or her? What makes him or her any less special than any one of us? What makes us so much better than them?
It's the classic sign of a liberal. Liberials truely think they are elightened beyond the average, and that the rest of us need babysitting by them for our life decisions (such as heath care or retirement savings.)

It's the classic sign of a conservative. Conservatives truely think they are enlightenend beyond the average, and that the rest of us need babysitting by them for our life decisions (legislating christian morality)

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » August 10, 2004, 8:20 pm

Interesting Truant,
A woman should have full freedom to kill her baby if she wants to.

I should support that eh?

Liberty taken past the point to where it denies liberty to another.

Amazing what a difference in definition will do to complicate consensus on where the line of liberty should be drawn.

Truant · Post by **Truant** » August 11, 2004, 9:38 am

Adex_Xeda wrote:Liberty taken past the point to where it denies liberty to another.

Gay Marriage ring a bell? I really don't feel as strongly as my replies to you often indicate whenever I turn your words on you. I just would like you to see how blind you are to the other side of things.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » August 11, 2004, 11:57 am

Adex_Xeda wrote: Amazing what a difference in definition will do to complicate consensus on where the line of liberty should be drawn.

If a pregnant woman does not have the right to abort under a set of criteria, is she committing "child abuse" by smoking or drinking alcohol while pregnant? or worse abusing illegal drugs? contributing to the deliquency of a minor?

I do agree with legislation that makes it "more" of a crime to harm a pregnant woman, especially if the fetus is damaged.

I do also agree that partial birth abortions should be illegal ***EXCEPT TO SAVE THE MOTHER'S LIFE***, but i think the number of practioners who perform 3rd trimester abortions is extremely small. And i also think doctors should have the full authority to make the call on 3rd trimester abortions regarding saving a mother's life.

but the real question is the fetus "endowed" with its rights at conception, at viability (~24 weeks but there is a very high mortality for premature births at this age), or not until the mother chooses to birth the child.

Not to be didactic, but if we are "endowed by our Creator", with our rights specifically to life: are we not quite literally created from the flesh of our mothers?

masteen · Post by **masteen** » August 11, 2004, 12:06 pm

Truant wrote:
Adex_Xeda wrote:
Akaran_D wrote:I'm really starting to think that the "typical" american line is getting way too much use. What makes the typical american? What defines him or her? What makes him or her any less special than any one of us? What makes us so much better than them?
It's the classic sign of a liberal. Liberials truely think they are elightened beyond the average, and that the rest of us need babysitting by them for our life decisions (such as heath care or retirement savings.)
It's the classic sign of a conservative. Conservatives truely think they are enlightenend beyond the average, and that the rest of us need babysitting by them for our life decisions (legislating christian morality)

Bullshit. That Christian rightie adgenda got tacked on to our party because the Democrats were so concerned about courting the academics, who are traditionally non-secular. Those fucking retards have nothing to do with a true conservative adgenda.

Also, liberals fucking invented welfare, social security, and affirmative action, which are the biggest "babysitter" programs of all.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » August 11, 2004, 12:14 pm

the fundamentalist Chritian agenda got tacked onto "real conservatism" because it is their means to power. For the most part, if you gave a certain amount of lipservice to some social issues consistent with the Christian Coalition's agenda, you could stand a decent chance of being elected. The problem is now the Christian Coalition knows that without them, the Republicans cannot win national elections unless they go rationally moderate. so they expect results.

Going rationally moderate is something that nobody in our country seems to be interested in doing because there is so much profiteering to be done on the extremes

masteen · Post by **masteen** » August 11, 2004, 12:22 pm

Which is why we really, really, really, need a third party.

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » August 11, 2004, 12:47 pm

masteen wrote:Which is why we really, really, really, need a third party.

I don't really agree we need a 3rd party.

However I strongly urge all my Democratic friends to support Ralph Nader in 2004.

We would have to invent a new language for a multi-party system in the USA. For example, instead of calling John Kerry two-faced we would have to call him something like diamond-faced.

Post by **Sylvus** » August 11, 2004, 1:34 pm

Metanis wrote:I don't really agree we need a 3rd party.

That's not really surprising, you and your ilk probably don't even believe that we need a second party. Go GOP!

Are you fucking kidding? What we really need is the pepsi challenge where they don't show you a picture of a candidate or tell you what party he is a member of but instead a list of his past accomplishments, current views and future plans. You'd make your choice and come out and go "no shit, the guy who fit best with me this time was a [Republican | Democrat | Libertarian | Whig | Voodoo Witchdoctor]" rather than just automatically voting for the guy who is a member of your party because he's not a "pussy liberal". Hell, the president might even end up being a woman or jew or a black person!

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » August 11, 2004, 1:36 pm

We need another liberal party that will split votes with the democrats.

Platform:

-We will protest everything, even our own platform.
-No rich white male americans allowed (except Michael Moore and Bill Clinton if he party hops)
-We are prepared to be another country's bitch in the name of peace.
-We will whine our way to victory!

That would be impossible to resist for most liberals. I may have created a monster!

Niffoni · Post by **Niffoni** » August 11, 2004, 1:45 pm

'Christian' (as if they had anything to do with the religeous principles) coalition nutters got tacked onto the GOP because Republican numbers would be laughable if they didn't get those votes. Same thing for democrats and their crackpots. The far right and the far left are currently balancing the political system. Makes you wonder what happened to the rest of the bird.

Sylvus wrote:Hell, the president might even end up being a woman or jew or a black person!

Okay, let's not get all crazy here. You liberals sure have some nutty ideas!

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » August 11, 2004, 3:01 pm

You can pretty much thank your god Ronnie Regan for bringing in the crispies to God's Own Party. Prior to that, the GOP was a true conservative organization with centrist agendas. Even Nixon, who was far right for his time, was amazingly moderate by today's standards (and he had outstanding foreign policy, unlike GW) and did little to push any sort of secular agenda. Ronnie changed all that, though to his credit Bush Sr did step away from the secular crap during his term. The GW people embraced it and are trying to redesign the government around it, with faith based initiatives and other such nonsense. The worse off GW gets in the poles, the stronger you will see him pushing the crispie agenda, even though the whole gay marriage ban amendment fiasco bit them in the ass.

As for the original topic, the only people with anything to lose by having observers are people who try to rig the election. The GOP are telling people to absent tee vote in Floriday (with Diebold machines that have proven easily susceptible to manipulation and leave no paper trail despite it being ridiculously simple for Diebold to implement it) and the same sort of profiling that excluded black votes in Florida last time is happening on a larger scale there this year. The chicanery is already going on, probably on the Dem side as well. If we have nothing to hide, then there is no harm in having outside observers.