lets see, let me count the ways... he's White, Male and Conservative, do i REALLY need to go on???
Posted on 08/01/2005 6:47:06 PM PDT by woodb01
Why John Bolton Terrifies the Liberal Democrats Liberal Democrat Saying "liberal democrat" is an oxymoron--, there is no such thing. It is kind of like saying "jumbo shrimp," it sounds tasty, but if you stop and think about it, it is just silly. It is just as silly to say "liberal democrat," if you are left of the left you are simply a hardcore socialist. Socialist At its most basic, socialism is another name for the belief that government is god. In socialism (and its dear brothers National Socialism, communism, and fascism) government is the source of all power and of all sustenance and life. If the socialist god of government says you die, then, you die. Remember Terri Shiavo? Or what about partial birth abortion? Just like with Hitler and the gas chambers, Stalin-Lenin and the gulags, China and the "re-education camps," and the list goes on. I digress but you get the picture, whether you are a "choice" supporter or not, under socialism it is government that defines whether or not life is important. Bolton as Ambassador to the U.N. The United Nations is the world's pre-eminent socialist organization. It exists solely, exclusively, completely and totally for the centralization of global government power and for no other reason. Its entire purpose is to create a collectivist government body to control the world's governments. And how dare the United States defy their mandate to submit its sovereignty to the jurisdiction of the "International Criminal Court." Why is John Bolton so scary to the "Liberal Democrats?" Mr. Bolton's mistake, horror of horrors, is that he is gone on record as believing the United Nations needs real investigations into its corruption. The "liberal democrat" god is being challenged! By all the socialist gods, they are not going to sit still for that! Mr. Bolton made the fatal mistake of believing the corruption in a government body should be investigated and cleaned up. What a novel concept that is frightening to this little god's worshippers. How very sad that the "liberal democrats" attack Mr. Bolton for doing what any conscientious, red-blooded, patriotic American should do. I for one am thrilled that the socialists, er, I mean, the "liberal democrats" just lost another fight. For more background information, please see:
Week of August 1, 2005
NoDNC.com staff
Let's clear up definitions first, just so that we're all on the same page and with these definitions in mind, we'll deal with the terrible horrors of John Bolton, and why he seems to positively evil to the liberal democrats.
Personally, I don't think that Bolton can fix the UN. But he sure will make a lot of liberals mad, and that's worth the price of admission in itself.
I don't want Bolton to fix the UN. I want Bolton to torment the UN and everyone associated with it unceasingly.
I sure was proud of my President this morning as I watched him turn Bolton loose on that corrupt,sleazy U.N. Let the fruitcakes in the Senate whine and moan. Nobody cares. No one in their right mind has any respect for that whorehouse anyway. The Senate is a waste of taxpayer dollars that needs to be shut down. We've got the House of Representatives. The Senate is just a place where we warehouse old Congressmen once they've become senile.
I want Bolton to begin disbanding the UN.
Absolutly and the very idea of the UN must be shown to be the septic sore that it is and destroyed too.
Because he has a pair of a hairy boyz?
> ... I don't think that Bolton can fix the UN.
He certainly will put a stop to any further US tolerance
of and contribution to the festering corruption. Imagine
if a Clinton had been given the job.
Bolton may just be a stopgap until NATO is redeployed as
the GDA (Global Democratic Alliance), replacing the UN
(and having zero seats for thugs).
The 17th Amendment needs to be repealed.
If the left considers the U.N. the last best hope for this country, things are looking up. If conservatives reform or demolish the U.N., they can take back the universities next.
No thanks.
lets see, let me count the ways... he's White, Male and Conservative, do i REALLY need to go on???
Bingo!
Time for "GOPs Extreme UN Makeover staring Tye Bolton"
Another one of those inane read meat screeds - pretty embarrassing.
> No thanks.
Presumably in response to my speculation about a replacement
for the UN.
I don't think we need one either. Both the League of Nations
and the UN not only failed to prevent wars, they probably
enabled them.
But unfortunately, I suspect Bush does think such
organizations can be useful, even necessary.
No, we are not.
And frankly, I don't give a damn about the rest of the world.Why should I? Mostly, the rest of the world is ruled by thuggishly ignorant despots.
OTOH, neither does the actual UN, as presently constituited.
The UN deserves the same fate as the League of Nations.
Perhaps the third incarnation will work, but the present structure has failed, and must end.
Glad you said that! 17th Amendment provides for popular election of US senators instead of the original construction of having state assemblies appoint them. I remember Antonin Scalia pointing this out as a mistake in a speech he gave years ago. The showboating and histrionics would have no audience among politicians back at the state capitals, so it would disappear.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.