Posted on 06/11/2007 1:19:30 PM PDT by Squidpup
That is nuts. Fred starts out by raking Mugabe's ecomonic policy over the coals. Then he points out that even the UN thinks millions of people are gonna starve to death because of Mugabe. Then he points out that in the brilliance of the UN, they appoint Zimbabwe, the worst economic example on the face of the earth, to lead the UN Commission on Sustainable Development. Then he points out similar idiotic appointments of Lybia and Iran to Commissions that are exactly the opposite of what they stand for. He then states the UN does this because they agree with the idiotic socialists policies of Mugabe. The WHOLE article was a scathing attack on the UN and its "substanable development' garbage. If you can read that and not get it, that is your problem, not Freds. I really give up, if you can't see that.
I am at a lose? What position do you want Fred to declare? There is not a candidate out there attacking the UN and its socialist agenda as Fred just did. I have no idea what your crossing threading dispute is with the other poster, and I really don't care. But this piece was brilliant.
No. Ol Dewey din't have a hare on his backside the way ol County Commissioner Truman did!!! Truman said:"I don't give 'em hell! I just tell the truth and they think it's hell!" (but never forget he was a socialist, nonetheless. Medicare was HIS dream. LBJ made sure Harry was at the bill signing!)
You really can't do this WW?D thing with that stupid Jimmy Carter, though... can you?
??? Please read it again. I made a comment about a specific definition ("promoting sound long-term economies") he used as the mission of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development.
What is illogical or non sequitur about that?
My point was he either needs to be better informed or hire better advisors or script writers (while hoping he doesn't truly believe what he said).
I can see that.
I have no idea what your crossing threading dispute is with the other poster, and I really don't care.
I have no idea what you just said.
please be so kind as to point out exactly which UN policies Fred was “laudatory of,” as you claim.
You can contact Fred and tell him.
http://www.imwithfred.com/contact.aspx
From what I read, I don’t think that’s what FRED thinks the UN commission actually DOES, but what the commission is supposed to do.
If that were the case, he would be really off target.
Try reading some of the links I provided. This one, for example (the founding documents):
http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/47/ares47-191.htm
Let me take a stab at answering your question. If they are as apoplectic, foaming at the mouth over George W. Bush as they seem to be...a true Conservative might restore Conservatives to the majority overnight....the Libs would be the first party to eliminate themselves in a spasm of aneurysms.
Could happen...but of course we shouldn't wish for that....should we?
Anybody who reads this article and interprets it as Fred being supportive of the UN, is a conservative equivalent of a moonbat, IMHO.
So making a comment regarding one item makes one a “gnat”?
Can things not be discussed without juvenile name-calling?
Oh, get a grip. It’s a Fred reference.
Yes... I’ve seen how it has been referenced on past Fred threads.
The intent is quite obvious.
HELL NO !!!! Why should we, the people of the United States, send money to any country that is totally controlled by a dictator?? The money, if sent, would just end up in someone’s pocket who doesn’t need it.
Zimbabwe is almost like Italy was during WWII and just after. Italy was agricultural rich before the war. Then a dictator, helped by Hitler, literally stripped the country of every resource it had. Every resource includes young men. Men between the ages of 16 to 50. All drafted by the Axis to defend against the Allies. Zimbabwe may be worse off than Italy was, but why do we have to go and save it?? There are numerous other countries who are members of the United Nations. Let them help these nations.
Hey! He starts out, alright, then jumps around from pillar to post until the real point is lost! I think Thompson is fine, but you celebrity worshippers with your knee-jerking, conclusion jumping, defensive pouncing have just got to develop some class and lighten up and clean up your act!!!
Let the record show that in response to my expressing a strong opinion, complete with rational justification, you were the first to start throwing the (bleepin) insults!!! Therefore, you are hereby dismissed!!! That means you will be shunned until you can straighten your hand and stop the bad behavior, which also proves your name is dead wrong!!!
Fred Thompson will be a fine VP to the committed, consistent conservative that we can all actually rely upon to behave as we expect and end the all too frequent disappointments. Heck, even ol Loserman is showing more leadership that a whole sack full of so-called, self-identified Republican "CONservative" candidates at this moment in time!!!
I guess you are gonna be disappointed when Fred wins the nomination and defeats Hillary soundly in the general election. Fred is the right man for the job. If you wanna read the tea leaves and assume things that just aren’t there, so be it. Fred is a conservative’s conservative.
Well - such a lovely little time we had here. Let’s work on the reading comprehension skills next time.
Over and Out
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.