Former UN Abassador: Obama will target gun ownership in second term

[CEF1959]

John Bolton is not a credible source. Like he has a secret backchannel to the plans of Obama? He's a flaming nut.

This is like quoting Jocelyn Elders on medical issues.

 

[Stomper]

Good points, I'm not predicting the outcome of the next elections, I can't evaluate the chemistry of BS, and in my oversimplified model of the voters, this is their primary criteria. I know the flow of corporate money during the run up will be huge beyond belief, and that most of it will be supporting the GOP, 2010 was just a dress rehersal for the Citizen's United decision. The real thing in question will be, are we smart enough to see though the massed lies that will be presented to us in very clever ways? People think McDonald's has good food, so we are doomed. I'm trying to decide what corporate god the manditory shrine in my house should be dedicated to.

On the subject of corporate money flowing into to mix... BHO plans to raise one BILLION dollars for his upcoming campaign... hmmm, from school kids and ghetto rats on the dole collecting their pennies... I think not. See what I mean about BOTH parties being rotten to the core? That's why I'm a registered indepentent.

John Bolton is not a credible source. Like he has a secret backchannel to the plans of Obama? He's a flaming nut.

This is like quoting Jocelyn Elders on medical issues.

LMAO... you mean when she said that AWESOMELY intellectual statement in front of a Senate committe that, "We all will probably die of something sooner or later"? LMAO!!!

 

[Gator Monroe]

John Bolton is not a credible source. Like he has a secret backchannel to the plans of Obama? He's a flaming nut.

This is like quoting Jocelyn Elders on medical issues.

Only folks who agreed that Petreus was Betray us would think Bolton was a nut.

 

[WhyteCheddar]

Bolton verbally lambasted the UN many times before his nomination, and the senate refused to approve him, so W put him in on a recess apointment. One would have to wonder why someone who so hated the UN would serve as our ambassador, just as one would have to wonder why W felt it necessary to pick him? What you don't have to wonder about is why he was useless in that role, as he was hated by every one else there.

But I like the big ad for the John Birch Society at the cite, really a sign you've found a 'veritiable treasure trove' of objectivity!

I would think Bolton was placed there because he would take no bubblegum from anyone and would protect the rights of the US to the extent possible.
If the UN hates you, there is a good chance you are doing something right.

 

[Redcap]

If the UN hates you, there is a good chance you are doing something right.

Agreed!

 

[bugeye]

On the subject of corporate money flowing into to mix... BHO plans to raise one BILLION dollars for his upcoming campaign... hmmm, from school kids and ghetto rats on the dole collecting their pennies... I think not. See what I mean about BOTH parties being rotten to the core? That's why I'm a registered indepentent.

Obama spent 745 million in 2008, a billion is only about 25% more.
Lots of it came from big money and the dems are out to play the citizens united decision as best they can too.

Still we have the Ryan Budget (death pannel +), the endless goofy sound bites by the GOP that show they are too busy playing to the nitwits in the peanut gallery to even discuss issues (BS uber allis), and an insistence on shedding the national debt with the 'mutual sacrifce' of all of us - other than business and the rich. I could support a party that is this out of it if I wanted America to sink into a typical 3rd world country with a stable ruling class, cause that is where they are leading!

 

[bugeye]

I would think Bolton was placed there because he would take no bubblegum from anyone and would protect the rights of the US to the extent possible.
If the UN hates you, there is a good chance you are doing something right.

Or at least something to the right.

But are these the sort of statements that any US diplomat should be making?

"Diplomacy is not an end in itself if it does not advance U.S. interests. "

Rather a narrow view?

"There's no such thing as the United Nations. If the U.N. secretary building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference."

I know this sort of hoo haw appeals to the uberbubba in many of you but diplomacy does serve a purpose, and I think it was Will Rogers who put it best...

"Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. "

Not as Bolton did it saying eat bubblegum and die cause we have plenty of rocks and young people to sacrifice too, in order to defend my arrogant, stupid attitudes.

 

[2506]

Obama spent 745 million in 2008, a billion is only about 25% more.
Lots of it came from big money and the dems are out to play the citizens united decision as best they can too.

Still we have the Ryan Budget (death pannel +), the endless goofy sound bites by the GOP that show they are too busy playing to the nitwits in the peanut gallery to even discuss issues (BS uber allis), and an insistence on shedding the national debt with the 'mutual sacrifce' of all of us - other than business and the rich. I could support a party that is this out of it if I wanted America to sink into a typical 3rd world country with a stable ruling class, cause that is where they are leading!

A billion is more like A THIRD more. No wonder China is going to eat our collective (see that pun there?) lunch.

 

[WhyteCheddar]

Or at least something to the right.

But are these the sort of statements that any US diplomat should be making?

"Diplomacy is not an end in itself if it does not advance U.S. interests. "

Rather a narrow view?

"There's no such thing as the United Nations. If the U.N. secretary building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference."

I know this sort of hoo haw appeals to the uberbubba in many of you but diplomacy does serve a purpose, and I think it was Will Rogers who put it best...

"Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. "

Not as Bolton did it saying eat bubblegum and die cause we have plenty of rocks and young people to sacrifice too, in order to defend my arrogant, stupid attitudes.

There is probably not enough time or space for you to actually place these quotes in proper context. So, I will just say that in view of the beating the US typically takes from the typical UN type fools and criminals, it takes a (brilliant) mind like Boltons to get the job done. If Bolton is making such a comment (diplomacy) it is in fact diplomacy after a fashion. You may not like it, but I like the fact that our soverignity is being defended under no uncertain terms within that context.
I would pay good money to see Bolton in a debate with Barry. It would be a seriously one sided affair. The POTUS would look ever more out of his element than he does normally.

 

[armedredneck]

SuperJew:

People like you are why we get things like the AWB. You sound like Bill "No one needs more than 10 rounds" Ruger.

These people don't' want to stop Laughner, they want to stop everyone. This has been proven so many times in the past no more proof needs to be given. And once you open that Pandora's of "mentally unstable," (With no involuntary commitments) I can absolutely guarantee you the next step is everyone who's ever been on anti-depressants when a relative died. It's not a slippery-slope fallacy, it's a slippery slope that's been demonstrated in recent history, in this country, time after time.

It's completely a slippery slope and "mentally unstable" will be BROADLY defined. Once a law passes, the definitions contained therein are ALWAYS adapted over time to fit the needs of the ruling class. It's the history of our nation. We are so far from the form and intent of the Constitution that I'm surprised we haven't already had a revolution. (There was a second American Revolution, they call it the "Civil War").

But anyway, I am one of those that's concerned about how the term "mentally stable" will be applied. I am diagnosed with PTSD due to service related events. I take medication to help. I am no danger to anyone except those that would seek to cause me or my family serious/deadly harm. My brain and thought process work just fine. I function normally in society and hold down a more than full time job where I possess a HUGE amount of responsibility. I am under a ton of stress, diagnosed with PTSD, take medication, and yet.....I'm harmless and functional. However, if any of these ideas were to take legal form, I guarantee you that with time they will come looking for my guns. It is my firm personal belief that here should be absolutely NO restrictions on the ownership of firearms in any way, shape, or form. The Constitution does not say "...shall not be infringed, except when blah blah blah". The problem is that people in this country have given up their responsibility for their own self defense to the Nanny State. If people of this country were self sufficient and didn't rely on the gov to take care of their every need, it wouldn't matter who had a gun. You misbehave with that weapon and the rest of the citizenry will make dang sure you don't EVER do it again. That's the way it was intended, and the way it should be now. Think along the lines of welfare. (Just drawing a parallel, not trying to start another un-related debate here). It should be up to the communities, churches, families, friends, to help those in need. Not the government. We don't take care of our own and as a result, we also don't take care of ourselves. We don't need the Feds telling us who can and can't own a gun. We can do that ourselves.

 

[armedredneck]

Also Superjew,
It that's what you really think......enjoy your enslavement.

 

[MikeSettles]

Mental incompetence: I agree with David Codrea - a person who is adjudicated incompetent to the point of needing a custodian; else, hands off!

Felons? The law didn't differentiate between "violent" and "non-violent". If someone is a threat to society, lock them up (or legally kill them): A felon who has paid her dues must have the means to self-defense, no matter what else you think about Martha Stewart.

 

[CEF1959]

Guys no one gets banned for their opinion here.

Hmmm....

 

[Trlsmn]

Hmmm....

Hmmm?

 

[bugeye]

There is probably not enough time or space for you to actually place these quotes in proper context. So, I will just say that in view of the beating the US typically takes from the typical UN type fools and criminals, it takes a (brilliant) mind like Boltons to get the job done. If Bolton is making such a comment (diplomacy) it is in fact diplomacy after a fashion. You may not like it, but I like the fact that our soverignity is being defended under no uncertain terms within that context.
I would pay good money to see Bolton in a debate with Barry. It would be a seriously one sided affair. The POTUS would look ever more out of his element than he does normally.

Bolton made both quotes before W appointed him our Ambassador, if you want to find out the history of Bolton trashing the UN you have google and they have plenty.

Bolton was a worse choice for the UN than Brownie was for FEEMA, Brownie was only inept, while Bolton is a hater.

In a debate if you put an irresponsible yapper up against a responsible party all the advantages go to the yapper.
If the yapper wins does that mean that the yap was practical at all? NO!

If you really hate the UN, there are better, cheaper, and more legitimate ways to attack it than making a counterproductive hater our Ambassador, as this alienates our friends as well as our foes.

 

[svxr8dr]

................... as this alienates our friends as well as our foes.

As opposed to what our CIC is doing????

 

[bugeye]

As opposed to what our CIC is doing????

Yes, Obama believes that diplomacy is valuable and this admin does it pretty well.
We can always nitpick diplomacy.
Obama, is stuck in Iraqastan, but he didn't get us into that fiasco!
I think the UN has value too, after 60 million people died in WW2 I guess the world felt it might have some value too.

 

[svxr8dr]

Yes, Obama believes that diplomacy is valuable and this admin does it pretty well.

Like his silence during the Iranian uprising, what about his Libya policy? Syria? U.A.E.? Bahrain? Pakistan? Any one who thinks this is good diplomacy probably thinks the pre 67 borders are defensible as well.

Reality, allow me to introduce you to bugeye, as it's apprent you have never met.

By the way, I like the U.N. as well. If anyone ever forgets what institutionalized anti-semetism looks like they need only study the U.N.
But please do elaborate on the mighty U.N., I would love to hear more about who member states and human rights lol

 

[bugeye]

Like his silence during the Iranian uprising, what about his Libya policy? Syria? U.A.E.? Bahrain? Pakistan? Any one who thinks this is good diplomacy probably thinks the pre 67 borders are defensible as well.

Reality, allow me to introduce you to bugeye, as it's apprent you have never met.

By the way, I like the U.N. as well. If anyone ever forgets what institutionalized anti-semetism looks like they need only study the U.N.
But please do elaborate on the mighty U.N., I would love to hear more about who member states and human rights lol

As I said we can always nitpick diplomacy.
What do you suggest we do in relation to the 'Arab Spring'?
What we have done is to take very little risk, and that is pretty good considering there is no predicting where these revolts are going!
The oil is still flowing!

Obama said in his speech that there would be swapping of territory based on the 67 borders to make them defensible. What you missed that part of reality? You actually believe that the parties involved were not in on this statement, that it was a surprise? I think you miss the point of diplomacy, much must be kept secret.

Your view of the UN seems to focus on the first world, just like Bolton, but about two thirds of the worlds population lives in poverty, keep in mind everyday 40,000 children die of starvation, and this is where the UN does the most good. Programs to end hunger, promote agriculture, keep populations in check, disease control, aids, refugees, peace keeping, election monitoring, and war crimes prosecution have limited but good results. A lot better than nothing. If your focus is only the spitball throwing contest in Israel - Middle East then you have a point, the UN provides an arena for this contest, as it provided an arena for the cold war. If you didn't like the outcome of the superbowl do you blame the stadium?

 

[svxr8dr]

How neat a U.N. worshipper. I truly dont understand how one can support the 2nd Amendment and in the same breath worship at the alter of the U.N.

"Arab Spring"...is that what the P.R. firm for the Muslim Brotherhood is still calling it?

As for what good the U.N does....well I am very aware.......as a U.S. Tax payer I'm funding alot of it. Alas that is another discussion entirely.