Posted on 03/04/2005 6:15:15 PM PST by Peach
Rule of thumb: If a leftist refers to a leader as "democratically elected," you can be almost certain that said leader is a blood-splattered tyrant.
Corollary: If the United States assists, however remotely, in the overthrow of a blood-splattered tyrant, the left will declare said tyrant to have been "democratically elected."
Bear this always in mind when considering the intentions the left has for "democracy" in your/their own country!
BTTT
Well stated. Nothing new from the anti-freedom crime syndicate spokesman. Every word spoken, every action taken cements his legacy and seals his fate. Good people are connecting very rapidly.
Actually it really is. Clinton is, in most respects, and unlike his wife, a liberal rather than a leftist. Yet here he is spouting far left myths that he normally advises fellow 'Rats to refrain from affirming. (Although, in establishing "red baiting" as an inviolable taboo, even moderate liberals long ago gave up actively denouncing bilious blame-America lies.)
worst?
I am not sure, here is a 3rd to add to the list:
http://www.rooseveltmyth.com
Nothing this man says surprises me. The vast majority of his blood supply feeds the head between his legs rather than on his shoulders due to his scheduled activities. The fact that people take notice to his utterings is surprising.
Actually, Mossadegh WAS elected, fair and square, but he went bonkers, he had dignitaries visit his office while he was in various stages of undress, and the Brits and the US saw him going to re-open trade and conections with the Soviets.
Mossedegh had to go!
there is a new book out on Iran, it is a must read:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1400063159/qid=1109990944/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/102-2554705-4760957
Exactly. The left never met a dictator they didn't like.
I'm starting to wonder if the reason they don't want economic freedom and democracy for these Arab countries is because their $$$/payola via the UN will go away.
Did Bill Clinton speak to the accusation by Juanita Broaderick that he raped her in this address? If not, then he is still the pervert that I view him to be and is not worthy to be addressing anyone. And his lovely wife, the heir-apparent to be the next democrat presidential candidate, had damned well better talk about her pervert hubby before she even thinks about tossing her pants suit into the ring..... JMHO.....
Just joking....he is a sack'o'shit and will remain so, even if it takes the rest of my life and many others here to point it out.
I don't want to talk about his "wifebeast" right now. Gonna watch a movie with my dogs. They want "Mr. Smith Goes To Bathroom", but I'm leaning towards "I Was A Soldier".........we'll see who wins....
FMCDH(BITS)
Yes, interesting.
I've been reading up on Arab anthropology, and while Iranians certainly are not Arabs, maybe clinton is one(metaphorically speaking). Something interesting about Arabic and Arabs is that there seems to be much more import placed on *how* words are said, than what words are actually said.
It's like music... sometimes the tune is more important than the lyrics. People can love a good tune without even really understanding the lyrics. A speech in Arabic is often judged by the listener more on the rythm and the delivery than on the specific words used. This is *absolutely* what makes Clinton tick.
He could get up in front of a bunch of liberals and give a speech about eradicating social security, welfare, and the graduated income tax and still get a standing ovation. They don't *care* what he says and they're not even listening. They're just tapping to the beat.
Double Ditto
Herpes. He used to tell Monica that they couldn't do anything tonight because he was "flaring up."
You might have read this in some of the testimony collected in his impeachment.
Would this be the same World Economic Forum in Davos that Eason Jordon attended???
The one where the MSM are hiding the video tapes from the public??
Bump for Later
Maybe so. I'm not up to speed on that history, although I'd tend to defer to Taheri who seems to say otherwise. But clearly the left often is misleading is conferring the title of "democratically elected". Their favorite example is Allende in Chile. In that case I've several times had lefties tell me this, but none were aware of the facts: That Allende came to power not by popular vote, but by a vote of the legislative body to settle an electoral impasse between right, left, and center; that the centrists (Christian Democrats) made him sign an agreement on power sharing and civil rights, etc, that he immediately violated (and admitted in an interview in '71 that he never intended to abide by), that the military waited until the legislature formally voted in '73 that Allende was governing beyond constitutional bounds, that Allende had overridden the judiciary as well as the legislature, had formed private militias, confiscated property, made hundreds of illegal arrests; that the coup had the support of the legislature, the courts, and nearly every segment of society, etc, etc.
Occasionally the left's conferation of a democratic mandate is true, more often it's at least misleading, but I don't believe it has ever been true that America colluded in removal of a leader who was governing democratically. This, of course, is the lie that the left always means promulgate.
Sometimes I think that I am not so interested in freedom. The world would be better off if we could lock Jimmy and Billy in a cell somewhere.
But maybe it's a better example that we can show emerging democracies that even the strongest countries can survive a nutcase or two as long as we have regular elections.
Bill is th leftist, the Hildabeast is a Marxist!!!!!!!!!
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.