Posted on 11/08/2006 11:31:37 AM PST by West Coast Conservative
Next shoe to fall in Bush WH: John Bolton as US-UN ambassador?... Developing...
I think Rudy Giuliani would be a good UN ambassador. Though I doubt Rudy would be interested...
Anyone with their eye on 2008 will stay clear from any WH cabinet position.
"The people ARE the country, the first and last sovereign authority."
Thank you. Civilian control of the military is a key part of what separates the US from Banana Republics.
I feel like throwing up after this election, but the writing was clearly on the wall. Someone once quipped, the writing on the wall is clearest when the wall is falling on you. I'm not so sure if this is true 100% of the time. The wall fell hard, and now I see Republicans arguing amongst themselves and blaming various factions in the party. Who does this help? Howard Dean and Raum Emmanuel are probably smoking cigars and banging bongo drums with Slick Willie right now. I'll bet that Hillary now sees a clear path to a third term in the WH.
We need to unite. I think that if Republicans do not return to the bedrock conservative principals of Reagan/Goldwater (limited government, strong military, low taxes, and strict interpretation of the Constitution), and divide into factions over litmus test issues and start blaming so-called RINOs, Libertarians, and Social Conservatives for the "thumping" we took, we will have a Dem Congress and WH. The horror!
Agreed. That is why I think Rudy wouldn't be interested. I think that he would make a kick-ass, take-no-BS from the third world anti-American scum that has infected the UN, ambassador, though.
I'm pissed too. The Vietnamese did not defeat us, we beat ourselves. Our GIs deserve better than what they got on Tuesday, but I think it is too early to declare defeat in Iraq due to this election. And this time around, no one (well, except for the Cindy Sheehan psycho) is spitting on our brave troops when they return this time, unlike the 70s.
If Republicans don't get it together quickly, and reach concensus on core beliefs, and the Dems take the WH in '08, I will agree with your point "a" and begin stockpiling. I'm not gonna be a Dhimmi.
"Are you against democracy?"
I SURE AS HELL AM! As were our Founding Fathers.
We are NOT a democracy! We are a constitutional republic which protects individual rights and liberties from the "tyranny of the majority." We are a Republic, with democratically elected officials.
Oh please, let's not quibble about democracy meaning Athenian direct democracy, and republic meaning representative democracy. In any case, I was asking the previous poster if he was against the democratic process.
Because, you know, that's kind of the whole reason this country was founded. And why we're over there in Iraq.
Sorry, I re-read the post you were responding to, and you are right. I was being anal.
All this internal hostility has apparently gotten under my skin.
I initially replied because your approach was vaguely authoritarian. Thanks for removing the vagueness.
The latter has now become inevitable, because the folks who control the purse don't want to stop it. (Don't want to impose our patriarchal neo-colonial views on those poor misunderstood religious fanatics, dontcha know.)
Therefore, something will need to be done about the former. Unfortunately, it's going to be something along the lines of Pinochet.
Please note that I do not like that solution. But it will, barring divine intervention of the like not seen since the parting of the Red Sea, become necessary.
Sir, are you talking treason? That we have to destroy our republic and our way of life in order to save it?
No. The treason is quite openly discussed and performed by the Democrats.
The Constitution is many things. One that it isn't is a suicide pact.
My bet is Bush will not fight for anything. He will compromise and give the Dems what they want. I know, he will fight for Immigration Reform - OOPS, wrong subject.
... and the authoritarianism is even less vague.
Tell me, do you plan to leave flowers for the Founders when you finish pissing on their graves?
"... governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
You can nit-pick over the distinctions between democracy as defined in the late 18th century and as defined today, or over the imagined distinction between a democracy and a republic, but the fundamental point is right there, and it's democracy. However many mediators, however many safeguards and limits and roadblocks, the people are the ultimate and final sovereign.
Please see posts 208-9. Yes, I was picking nits, but believe it is important to realize that "majority rules" does not trump individual rights and liberties granted to us by our Constitution.
Agreed, to a point. A sufficiently large popular majority can amend the Constitution. Abolish or replace it, even. The Founders sought to slow down and moderate the winds of popular opinion, but they always left an out-clause where the people could make absolutely any change, with enough numbers and time and will.
I totally agree. The Constitution itself spells out the Amendment process.
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.