http://www.getusout.org/

thought there might be some people on here who would be interested in this. The rest of you morons can start your complaining now.

10/22/2005 2:45:19 PM

Registrant Name:The John Birch Society
Registrant Organization:The John Birch Society
Registrant Street1:770 Westhill Blvd
Registrant Street2:
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:Appleton
Registrant State/Province:WI
Registrant Postal Code:54914
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:+1.9207493780
Registrant Phone Ext.:
Registrant FAX:
Registrant FAX Ext.:
Registrant Email:webmaster@jbs.org



Pretty patriotic

10/22/2005 3:28:29 PM

can you even tell us, without namecalling of other nations, you want us out of the UN?

i mean, documented reasons, not just rhetoric

10/22/2005 4:35:59 PM

It is true, I have no objection to the UN per-se. Why withdraw? We have the right to refuse to pay the UN's bills, we may consider taking them up on that option. But getting out would just be silly.

10/22/2005 4:45:20 PM

^^can you name the times that anyone has believed in ANYTHING using documented reasons and NOT just rhetoric?

it's like asking a fish to swim without gills.

10/22/2005 4:49:11 PM

Isolationism in the age of globalization is the way to go obviously.

10/22/2005 5:13:41 PM

why should the rest of the world be able to dictate things we can and cant do here?

for example: im sure some of you care that the UN wishes to ban all world citizens from possessing firearms.

10/22/2005 5:35:22 PM

SOUNDS LIKE THAT SO-DAMN INSANE FELLOW

THUMMIN HIS NOSE AT THE UN....TELLIN HIM HE CAN'T HAVE HIS WMD'S

10/22/2005 6:30:52 PM

No reason to withdraw from the United Nations. Afterall, if utilized correctly, it's an excellent means for the United States to force our agenda down the throats of other nations. It also keeps the third world nations pacified by providing a false sense that their voice actually means something to the bigger, more powerful nations out there. Worst case, if they do ever pass something we don't like, we can simply ignore them. About every nation on the planet does this, so I see no harm in us doing it as well.

Oh yeah, and I suppose they can do some good for humanity, unite the world, etc.

10/22/2005 7:44:26 PM

Quote :

"why should the rest of the world be able to dictate things we can and cant do here? "

You mean the way we have dictated things (past and present) in terms of policy or actions to Iraq, Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, N. Korea, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Venezuela, Sudan, Nicaragua, Honduras, El Salvador, Egypt, Colombia, etc.?

10/23/2005 12:21:59 AM

What I dislike is that soo many conflicts have been started by US presidents under the UN charter, didn't even ask congress, the fucktards!

10/23/2005 8:40:07 AM

Quote :

"why should the rest of the world be able to dictate things we can and cant do here?"

Why should the US be able to dictate things that the rest of the world can and can't do?

10/23/2005 9:40:53 AM

It doesn't, only the UN has so far attempted to pull such restrictions.

Or do you think it was America's idea for most of the third world to go socialist and vote repeatedly in the UN general assembly to condemn the US.

10/23/2005 10:27:56 AM

well, we did turn tail in 'nam

10/23/2005 11:07:58 AM

Quote :

"m sure some of you care that the UN wishes to ban all world citizens from possessing firearm"

as a permanent member, we veto it.

and one U.N. diplomat saying that does not make it the U.N.

you are a dumbass.


and the John Birch Society is the luny bin.

10/23/2005 12:59:44 PM

Ideally, I'd like to erect a wall, stretching to outer space, blocking off the United States from the rest of the world. All lines of communication would be cut, and we would have loud music playing near the perimeters to keep us from hearing anything from the outside ever.

10/23/2005 2:44:56 PM

Quote :

"Ideally, I'd like to erect a wall, stretching to outer space, blocking off the United States from the rest of the world. All lines of communication would be cut, and we would have loud music playing near the perimeters to keep us from hearing anything from the outside ever."

don't forget the ground dude...extend the wall to the earth's core. you know those chinese are digging as we speak.

10/23/2005 5:53:04 PM

Quote :

"can you even tell us, without namecalling of other nations, why you want us out of the UN?"

Ok, here's a reason for you.....................................








who in their right mind wants to wear UNC baby blue to battle?!!?!







[Edited on October 23, 2005 at 6:37 PM. Reason : ~]

10/23/2005 6:35:29 PM

It's a boy!

10/23/2005 7:14:28 PM

Quote :

"nutsmackr: and one U.N. diplomat saying that does not make it the U.N. "

It's NOT just "one diplomat" saying it. Restricting private firearm ownership is a policy objective of the UN. The UN has held 5 conferences on "small arms" and plans to hold others in the future.

http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel080901.shtml

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/4/25/130646.shtml

10/24/2005 8:28:58 AM

The possibility of Isolationism died when the internet became mainsteam.

10/24/2005 10:35:51 AM

bttt

11/20/2005 2:09:48 PM

Is "bttt" big girl speak for "holy crap this thread sucked?"

11/20/2005 3:32:35 PM

Quote :

" can you even tell us, without namecalling of other nations, you want us out of the UN? i mean, documented reasons, not just rhetoric "

Reasons to get out (or defund) the UN,

1. pro-death policies (euthanasia and abortion encouraged by the UN )
2. widespread corruption ( remember? oil for food...)

[Edited on November 20, 2005 at 3:40 PM. Reason : / not\]

[Edited on November 20, 2005 at 3:42 PM. Reason : ah]

11/20/2005 3:40:19 PM

omg it's MathFreak's doppelganger

11/20/2005 3:42:32 PM

yeah, we should have let iraq starve, just like saddam wanted. fuck humanitarianism.

11/20/2005 3:44:17 PM

^ well we kinda waisted the money b/c we've blown them all up now.

11/20/2005 4:17:18 PM

Quote :

"pro-death policies"

don't mess with texas (and it's death penalty!)

11/20/2005 4:23:04 PM

can someone please tell me how the UN will restrict our rights, if the U.S. has a veto?

11/20/2005 4:23:15 PM

^ you gotta scare peopel about something

11/20/2005 5:14:27 PM

12/7/2005 5:48:41 PM

12/7/2005 6:17:51 PM

Personally, I think the states in the union should have retained a right to veto federal shit.

Something like "a bill passed in no less than 3/5 of the member states, utilizing their respective processes, is sufficient to rescend any federal statute/bill."

12/7/2005 6:37:01 PM

Agree with THABIGL on this one too. UN is bad news: conditioning people to accept world government, surrenduring our national sovereignty to the UN, the UN is pushing gun control and gun bans, etc.


"Avoid foreign entanglements" -- George Washington

12/9/2005 3:27:12 PM

^IRAQ!!!!!!!!!

12/9/2005 3:31:13 PM

Quote :

"Agree with THABIGL on this one too."

Oh dear god, salisburyboy and tha big girl agreeing on something. Time to duck and cover.

12/9/2005 3:45:11 PM

the UN and our hatred of the "tolerance" movement

and "liberals" agree with me on opposition to the war in Iraq, etc.

that's being independent and not locked into supporting and being blindly loyal to one party

12/9/2005 3:48:48 PM

^^^^ Yes lets use a quote from a prestigious well-known source to prove our point..

OOOOOPPS!!! I just forgot he said that in an age which the entire world was in a COMPLETELY different situation than it is today.

Seems like good policy making to me. Lets go study how the esteemed leaders of the day handled the trade situations of the 18th Century and then base our current trade policies using one sentence quotes from their policy.

The best part is, it's unpatriotic to not agree with a founding father!!!! win-win!!

12/10/2005 12:22:43 PM

^
/thread

12/11/2005 1:22:09 AM

^^ Actually, the trade situation was not altogether dissimilar to todays. Shortly after Washington spoke those words, the second round of globalization started.

12/11/2005 9:49:45 AM

Quote :

"Personally, I think the states in the union should have retained a right to veto federal shit. Something like "a bill passed in no less than 3/5 of the member states, utilizing their respective processes, is sufficient to rescend any federal statute/bill.""

Yay for segregation.

12/11/2005 2:00:10 PM

I think the downfall of segregation was a result of the south being unable to maintain a majority. As such, if 50% was beyond their reach then I'm certain 60% would be.

That said, I suspect it would still work if the requirement was higher, say 3/4th or so.

[Edited on December 11, 2005 at 7:38 PM. Reason : .,.]

12/11/2005 7:37:05 PM

I agree with Thabigl (*gasp*). I believe the UN is simply a prelude to a world government. They are already trying to wrestle control of the internet away from the US. Nonsense. I say we pull out of the UN and kick their HQs out of the US. Let them set up shop in Brussels, the world capital for socialism.

12/12/2005 12:21:07 PM

WHAT A SHOCK! PEOPLE WHO AGREE WITH ME! I had almost lost hope in this place!

12/12/2005 1:53:31 PM

And then the US can set its own course for the world! (b/c you know theres guys up top that will)

EU=/=UN, I dont get where socialism comes into this.

12/12/2005 1:58:55 PM

12/12/2005 2:33:58 PM

I thought the Big L was a show about lesbians?

12/12/2005 5:26:53 PM