It is my contention that the majority of nations in the world and their governments are not morally and ethically ready for democracy, and hence can only corrupt any organization such as the UN. Quite obviously, they have.

It has also been my contention that a coalition of the strong, free and democratic nations of the West would be far preferable to the UN, would give us a forum to replace the UN, and ensure that issues and voting would be along moral lines that free societies can have the will to support.

we should clear out our offices and let the kleptocrats have it.

Better yet, let them build their own goddamn building- preferrably in Seoul, right on the DMZ. Convert the existing UN building to high priced NY apartments. The yearly income alone would make a big dent in the national debt. Of course, Charlie Wrangle gets a couple of floors for free.

And yes, close down the United Nations in the United Nations. The UN really only does two things well. 1.)Undermine America’s just interests. 2.)Undermine Israel’s just interests. I think the argument for keeping the United States in it over the years probably goes something like this: while the UN is hostile to America, it would continue to exist even without American support and it would continue to be hostile to America. By having it in the United States and by the United States being a member of it we are at least able to have some input. If we were not a member, we would have no input. While I understand and can empathize with such an argument, I think any benefits of the Untied States being involved in this are outweighed by the negatives.

Five Suggestions:

1) Learn to Read.
2) Pay special attention to reading comprehension.
3) Learn to write above a 7th Grade level.
4) Practice responding to points made in the piece you are writing about,not imaginary straw people.
5) Be Polite. Believe it or not, if you address Rick politely others will take your arguments more seriously, even when they are poorly thought out and even more poorly expressed.

Have A Better Day!

PS: People come to this site because Rick thinks and writes clearly. It is perfectly fine to disagree, as I sometimes do. But I for one, want to read polite, intelligent disagreement that shows the other side of the argument, not simple screed.

“I know the fact that science has determined the climate change is real.”

HHhhhmmmm. . . of course climate change is real. Distinct climate changes of a degree or two are recordable every hour if not every minute. Thus their revised statement/accusations, from global warming to climate change, are not incorrect. But, one just has to buy into such a bizarre, constructed, unprovable, narrative about the world to believe what they believe. If non-believers are the equivalent of (holocaust) “deniers” then believers are the equivalent of extremist eco-terrorists who, like their other religious brethren, also believe they will get your 27 eco-virgins payoff in the next life for their righteous but often criminal acts now.

All I demand is that those who do not believe are given the same hearing as all of the Elmer “algore” Gantry’s out there who are pushing and profiting from this sophistry. Oh and, are algore and Dr. Rajendra Pachauri not the jesse jackson and al sharpton of environmentalism?

Moran censures the UN for its conflict of interest of investment in “related technologies” but, with malice and forethought or sheer zealotry, uses this sophomoric reasoning as a club to beat up the science. This should leave no doubt that he dastardly veneers the denier-amorous, deeply concealed within, with the correlation does not prove causation fallacy. He doesn’t deny the science on its merit but he invites us to be awry of “Climategate” because that somehow undermines the “science.”

Moran, you’ve gone from a fence sitter to crowd surfing on the ocean of conspiracy theorists. Congratulations! Of course, if Moran wishes to adequately correct himself, I might be an assistant: “I accept the science for its finding but vigilant of certain elements for their environmentalist kookary. I know the fact the science has determined the climate change is real — it’s just that I don’t accept certain solutions offered to address the issue.”

Ranting about Climategate when you do not have an ensemble of scientific credibility to discern the correspondence in the context which was provided and firing a panoply of “anecdotal” spiel of piffle regarding the issue day after day, pretty much brands you another denier neophyte who is cozying to the worst of the worst. The pattern is clear for anyone with more than two brain cells to see.

AMEN, BROTHER!