Bush Reportedly to Appoint Bolton Today

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

Bolton is not really qualified for any job,

hmmm...

son of a firefighter,
wins a scholarship to a Baltimore Prep School...
gets into Yale..
gets into Yale Law School

yep, he's a idiot, just like Bush..

Did you know NASA engineers are pretty bright people? Want one doing a heart transplant on you?

Oh, Bush isn't an idiot. He's worse.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
i believe Clintoon made about 150 recess appointments while he was president....i don't recall the outrage from the Left about those appointments......

And Reagan made 243, what is your point?

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Genx87
And?

Maybe the democrats should have let the senate do their job and vote on the guy?

and what about letting the government do their job and provide the information the senate requested so they could vote?

I believe the senate was just fine and dandy and ready to vote. It was a few select democrat hacks who stalled this.

Tyranny of the minority in its full form.

but does that matter how many they are? they are required to do their job on behalf of the people, they required some information for them to vote, why was it then so hard to provide that information?

Because it is classified? Because it is irrelevant? The process is being stalled by a few hacks. You provide them that information and they will require more. The whole point is to "stall" the process, not gain any information.

You think a few documents will all of a sudden make this guy ineligible for this position?
The simple fact is unless these documents linked this guy to genocide nobody is going to change their vote.

Democrats should have let the senate do their job and vote. They stalled and now the proesident is using the option provided for in the constitution.

if its irrelevent, than why even bother hiding it? And why the hell should the senate not have access to classified information?

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Genx87
And?

Maybe the democrats should have let the senate do their job and vote on the guy?

And allow Democracy to proceed? Blasphemy!

both parties are working within the rules (whether you like it or not). if you want to say that the democrats are doing something immoral here you have to say that the president is doing something immoral as well.

Ane the President worked within the rules as well. His governing rules trumped theirs! That is they way it was planned over two centuries ago. I guess mthey had six graders in positions of envy back then too.

last time i looked at history, the founders did not intend to give overwhelming power to the executive, in fact they intended the opposite.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
i believe Clintoon made about 150 recess appointments while he was president....i don't recall the outrage from the Left about those appointments......

And Reagan made 243, what is your point?

The 2nd half of the statement most likely.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

Bolton is not really qualified for any job,

hmmm...

son of a firefighter,
wins a scholarship to a Baltimore Prep School...
gets into Yale..
gets into Yale Law School

yep, he's a idiot, just like Bush..

what does any of that prove?

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
i believe Clintoon made about 150 recess appointments while he was president....i don't recall the outrage from the Left about those appointments......

And Reagan made 243, what is your point?

The 2nd half of the statement most likely.

See unlike a neocon, I take things on a case by case basis and call a spade a spade when I see it. Had Clinton made a recess appointment to the UN, someone who OBVIOUSLY was not fit to sweep floors there, I would have bitched. Clinton did much wrong, Bush can do NO wrong in the eyes of his most ardent supporters. That's the big difference.

 

[cwjerome]

Hehe, once again a handful of loose nuts in the Senate undermine the whole Senate's power and authority by playing retard political mindgames. Glad they got bitchsmacked like the $2 dollar crackwhores they are.

Looks like instead of gaining congressional seats, they'd rather hang themselves with their own shoelaces.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: Genx87
And?

Maybe the democrats should have let the senate do their job and vote on the guy?

allowing this to get voted on means he would be appointed b/c the balance of power is almost non-existent. the democratic party had no other option other than simply doing nothing.

And look where that got them. The nom they were obstructing gets the job anyway. Not only did they lose, they looked bad doing it.

Back in reality, where the Democrats, some Republicans who don't take marching orders and the public do not like Bolten, Bush snuck him in the back door. So who looks bad?

Lets see. Snuck him in the back door. In the rosegarden (or whereever) on international tv. Invited all the media with a two hour pre-announcement! Snuck is defined how? Pretty sneaky of him. I think he said last week he planned to do this as well.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: NeoV
anyone who thinks Bolton is the right person for this position is kidding themselves or just goes along with anything this admin says/does

his appointment to this position is like putting a Hatfield on the PTA of the McCoy's school.....he's been nothing but critical of the UN for the last decade...it's almost like we are trying to give the UN a giant middle finger...

Aren't there some Republican Senators opposed to this as well?

Would it have been that hard to come up with a better candidate? Instead, since Bush never makes a mistake, they push it through anyway...now they guy has a 1 yr temp pass...and again the USA looks like a circus to the rest of the civilized world...

Isnt the job of a diplomat to express the views of their nation and not kiss ass? You want something to get done or do you want to play footsy with the UN?

The UN needs a major overhaul, since we provide 26% of the budget. I think we should express our views on how to get the job done. It is obvious our previous course of action only helped lead to the current problems at the UN.

No, a diplomat's job is to work with other nations and come up with mutual benefitial solutions, hence the word "diplomatic". Bolton was never the diplomatic type, and he is the wrong chice to representative US in UN, especially during this critical time when the US needs to work with every country in the world to fight terrorism.

US provides 22% of UN fee not 26%, and still owes 1.3 billion in those fees. See this link
But no matter what, UN was not created to be US's tool to carry out "our veiws", or get "our job" done. It is called a "United Nations" and it is created for all countries in this world to solve problems in a fair, and mutually benefitial manners.

But I guess this is too difficult a concept for Bush or people like you to grasp.

Diplomacy = walk softly and carry a big stick!

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Todd33

Bolton will be fine and just like all the other things liberals turn hysterical over, they will be proven wrong

Like post war Iraq? Like WMDs? Tax cuts creating a deficit? Like Rove leaking? Like Delay being a crook? I can't recall being wrong in the last five years...

It took a liberal to figure out if you cut revenue intake and left spending the same you would create a deficit?

Of course you cant recall being wrong because like most on the left you carry a serious case of narcicism.

Haha, that's funny. It seems to me that the ultra-right are the one having problem recall being wrong. It's you guys that bravely stood in front of the world, declared Iraq had WMD and started a war based on that, only ended up with zero WMD. Oh, and at the same time lost thousand plus US soldiers for that mistake, spent hundreds of billion on the largest nation building project, which you said you weren't going to do, and killed hundred thousands of innocent Iraqis in the entire process.

And we are suppose to trust you and your fearless leader bypassing the senete to nominate someone who had a history of problems getting along with peope, to one of the most important international post during one of the most critical time in American history?

Convient to forget that for most of his career, when he had most of his imagined problems, he was serving a Democratic administration. He qualified for positions of power under Democratic administrations (spell Clinton) and he is qualified now.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: tommywishbone
Great. I was hoping the '1886 Wyatt Earp look' would come back in style. Where's my chewin' tobacco & six shooter?

This from someone who has "Barney" as party chairman!

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Genx87
And?

Maybe the democrats should have let the senate do their job and vote on the guy?

And allow Democracy to proceed? Blasphemy!

both parties are working within the rules (whether you like it or not). if you want to say that the democrats are doing something immoral here you have to say that the president is doing something immoral as well.

Ane the President worked within the rules as well. His governing rules trumped theirs! That is they way it was planned over two centuries ago. I guess mthey had six graders in positions of envy back then too.

last time i looked at history, the founders did not intend to give overwhelming power to the executive, in fact they intended the opposite.

Nor did they want a losing party of elitiest fools to retain power once the people had spoken. The system really works!

 

[ntdz]

Just to be clear, Bush didn't circumvent the Senate. The democrats did that by not allowing a vote, which Bolton would have won easily.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: ntdz
Just to be clear, Bush didn't circumvent the Senate. The democrats did that by not allowing a vote, which Bolton would have won easily.

LOL. He didn't even have all the republican votes you are thinking he did. Who cares, the appointment is only good for 2 years. The country has survived and endured through 5 years of herr Bush, we can survive through this.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: ntdz
Just to be clear, Bush didn't circumvent the Senate. The democrats did that by not allowing a vote, which Bolton would have won easily.

LOL. He didn't even have all the republican votes you are thinking he did. Who cares, the appointment is only good for 2 years. The country has survived and endured through 5 years of herr Bush, we can survive through this.

Then why not allow an up or down vote? If he is such a bad candidate the vote would have been no and that would have been the end of it.

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: ntdz
Just to be clear, Bush didn't circumvent the Senate. The democrats did that by not allowing a vote, which Bolton would have won easily.

LOL. He didn't even have all the republican votes you are thinking he did. Who cares, the appointment is only good for 2 years. The country has survived and endured through 5 years of herr Bush, we can survive through this.

Then why not allow an up or down vote? If he is such a bad candidate the vote would have been no and that would have been the end of it.

they apparently thought they could dig up more dirt and secure their win. it makes perfect sense why they did it.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Condor

Nor did they want a losing party of elitiest fools to retain power once the people had spoken. The system really works!

So, if the Dems take back the House and/or Senate in '06, does that mean that the people have spoken and are saying that they want to do things opposite of the way the Repubs have been doing it? Does Bush's "mandate" then become to do as the Dems dictate over the last two years of his presidency?

 

[zendari]

Sure, if you admit that the Bush mandate in 04 meant the country supported his actions.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: ntdz
Just to be clear, Bush didn't circumvent the Senate. The democrats did that by not allowing a vote, which Bolton would have won easily.

LOL. He didn't even have all the republican votes you are thinking he did. Who cares, the appointment is only good for 2 years. The country has survived and endured through 5 years of herr Bush, we can survive through this.

Then why not allow an up or down vote? If he is such a bad candidate the vote would have been no and that would have been the end of it.

they apparently thought they could dig up more dirt and secure their win. it makes perfect sense why they did it.

How very true. That's Democratic leadership for you! Dig up the dirt! I still remember them enlisting Larry Flynt to get women to say that they slept with Bush. Why do you folks follow such leaders?

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: zendari
Sure, if you admit that the Bush mandate in 04 meant the country supported his actions.

I think that you need to check you sarcasm meter. It appears to have gone haywire.

I, in no way, believe that the Dems would have or Bush has a mandate. I believe that the role of elected officials is to do what is in the best interest of the MAJORITY of the people which does not appear to have been the case over the last 5+ years. And before you try to twist the words to support something that I didn't intend....getting a majority of the votes is in no way indicative of your policies supporting said majority.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Condor

Nor did they want a losing party of elitiest fools to retain power once the people had spoken. The system really works!

So, if the Dems take back the House and/or Senate in '06, does that mean that the people have spoken and are saying that they want to do things opposite of the way the Repubs have been doing it? Does Bush's "mandate" then become to do as the Dems dictate over the last two years of his presidency?

If your money is on a Democratic win in those years, prepare for the poor house! Most Americans are still disgusted with Democratic party antics. I think that Bush would have lost handily had the opposing party been anyone but who they are. This last election was all about dissatisfaction with Democratic leadership and all that they stand for! Too bad they still haven't gotten the message!

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Condor

Nor did they want a losing party of elitiest fools to retain power once the people had spoken. The system really works!

So, if the Dems take back the House and/or Senate in '06, does that mean that the people have spoken and are saying that they want to do things opposite of the way the Repubs have been doing it? Does Bush's "mandate" then become to do as the Dems dictate over the last two years of his presidency?

If your money is on a Democratic win in those years, prepare for the poor house! Most Americans are still disgusted with Democratic party antics. I think that Bush would have lost handily had the opposing party been anyone but who they are. This last election was all about dissatisfaction with Democratic leadership and all that they stand for! Too bad they still haven't gotten the message!

i haven't noticed this - you have some poll numbers or something? this past election wasn't exactly a landslide by any means....

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: zendari
Sure, if you admit that the Bush mandate in 04 meant the country supported his actions.

I think that you need to check you sarcasm meter. It appears to have gone haywire.

I, in no way, believe that the Dems would have or Bush has a mandate. I believe that the role of elected officials is to do what is in the best interest of the MAJORITY of the people which does not appear to have been the case over the last 5+ years. And before you try to twist the words to support something that I didn't intend....getting a majority of the votes is in no way indicative of your policies supporting said majority.

Does not appear to be the case? According to who? You? The ACLU? Democratic Underground? Harry Reid? Certainly not according to the people of the United States.

So what does a majority of votes, in both Congress and the Presidency, indicate, if not that the people support your policy?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

This thread (at least the last 20 or so posts) is a picture-perfect example of what's wrong with P&N.