bush states his intention to make a recess appointment to teh U.N., giving the job to Bolton. yea, there gonna love working with this right wing crack pot, who has on several occaisions stated his clear disdain for the world body.
in other news, uzbackistan tosses the U.S. off its air base without an explaination, within days of a visit by rumsfeld to two of its neibhors.
the superrior statsmanship of the moral majority. my way or the high way.
i say we give bush a third term to finnish the job completly. us against the world, what do you say?
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Bush handing U.N. a poison pill.
Bush handing U.N. a poison pill.Follow
Quote:
bush states his intention to make a recess appointment to teh U.N., giving the job to Bolton. yea, there gonna love working with this right wing crack pot, who has on several occaisions stated his clear disdain for the world body.
Hmm could be because the Senate Dem's have upheld a vote on his nomination? If they dont like him that's fine. Make your arguement then take a vote, and vote no. That's how our government works.
Quote:
in other news, uzbackistan tosses the U.S. off its air base without an explaination, within days of a visit by rumsfeld to two of its neibhors.
or maybe this is the reason
Uzbekistan formally ordered the United States to leave an air base that has been a hub for operations in Afghanistan, in an abrupt protest over a secret United Nations operation on Friday to spirit out refugees who had fled an uprising in Uzbekistan this year, a senior State Department official said Saturday.
Edited, Sat Jul 30 14:30:15 2005 by DamthebiTch
Hmm could be because the Senate Dem's have upheld a vote on his nomination? If they dont like him that's fine. Make your arguement then take a vote, and vote no. That's how our government works.
-----------------------------------------
the "dems" job is to protect their supporters interest. the lefties. with a predominatly republican senate, EVERY republican will get nominated in a vote.
the act of not voting is the check and ballance that FORCES moderation out of BOTH parties, and thus ensures EVERYONE is represented to some degree.
are you suggesting we get rid of that check and ballance system? and if so, are you going to keep your mouth shut in a few years when the "dems" have the majority and have the opertunity to appoint anyone they choose?
the republicans should find a more moderate candidate so EVERYONES interest is protected, kind of liek they did with Roberts. america is for EVERYONE, not just the party with the majority ATM. something this addministraiton tries to ignore.
---------------------------------------------------
in an abrupt protest over a secret United Nations operation on Friday to spirit out refugees who had fled an uprising in Uzbekistan this year, a senior State Department official said Saturday.
-------------------------------------------------
political spinn. designed to make you sheep look......over there.
1. the U.N. is a world body. nothing they do is done without the consent of SEVERAL countries, and thus the term "secret U.N. operation" is as much an oxymoron as a "republican for the people"
uzbekistan is on the threshold of an islamic uprising within their country for their support in our operation in iraq and afganistan. to the point civil war could break out. we are getting tossed out to prevent that from happening by their predominatly muslim government.
it is something we saw comming though.
secret U.N. operation. hahahahaha, they dont do "secret" operations. the whole point of the U.N. is to demonstrait the will of many nations in a very public way.
"hey look, an iraqi al-quada member with a nuke".....bet you repubs looked.....
-----------------------------------------
the "dems" job is to protect their supporters interest. the lefties. with a predominatly republican senate, EVERY republican will get nominated in a vote.
the act of not voting is the check and ballance that FORCES moderation out of BOTH parties, and thus ensures EVERYONE is represented to some degree.
are you suggesting we get rid of that check and ballance system? and if so, are you going to keep your mouth shut in a few years when the "dems" have the majority and have the opertunity to appoint anyone they choose?
the republicans should find a more moderate candidate so EVERYONES interest is protected, kind of liek they did with Roberts. america is for EVERYONE, not just the party with the majority ATM. something this addministraiton tries to ignore.
---------------------------------------------------
in an abrupt protest over a secret United Nations operation on Friday to spirit out refugees who had fled an uprising in Uzbekistan this year, a senior State Department official said Saturday.
-------------------------------------------------
political spinn. designed to make you sheep look......over there.
1. the U.N. is a world body. nothing they do is done without the consent of SEVERAL countries, and thus the term "secret U.N. operation" is as much an oxymoron as a "republican for the people"
uzbekistan is on the threshold of an islamic uprising within their country for their support in our operation in iraq and afganistan. to the point civil war could break out. we are getting tossed out to prevent that from happening by their predominatly muslim government.
it is something we saw comming though.
secret U.N. operation. hahahahaha, they dont do "secret" operations. the whole point of the U.N. is to demonstrait the will of many nations in a very public way.
"hey look, an iraqi al-quada member with a nuke".....bet you repubs looked.....
Let it go to vote they can represent their constituency through their vote.
http://www.islamonline.org/English/News/2005-07/30/article04.shtml
Washington 's relations with the authoritarian ex-Soviet state have been strained since the bloody suppression in May of a rebellion in the eastern town.
Uzbekistan, an impoverished agrarian state of 26 million, came under criticism from several Western human rights groups for the mass jailing of Muslims who did not subscribe to state-sponsored Islam.
So let me get this straight. The Uzbek's are persecuting a group of people for thier religious beliefs. (this sounds like something the UN would get involved in) The US and other Western Human rights groups cry foul. The Uzbek's dont like attention being called to these things so in retaliation they ask the US to remove their troops from their country.
This makes President Bush and his administration bad.
Just how would you suggest this situation have been handled?
Isnt Voice of America a Liberal Media Outlet?
The moves followed strong criticism from the United States and other Western nations of President Karimov and calls for a formal inquiry into deadly clashes between Uzbek security forces and civilians in the city of Andijan in May. The United Nations has called the incident a mass killing.
"The trigger was Uzbek anger at U.S. criticism of the Uzbek government for the Uzbek government's failure to agree to an independent international inquiry into what happened in Andijan," said Martha Brill Olcott, a central Asian expert with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "To say that the U.S. leadership and the Uzbek leadership don't see eye to eye with one another today is an understatement. It's probably the tensest point in U.S.-Uzbek relations any time since the existence of an independent Uzbekistan. I don't know that the Uzbek regime would have wanted the base removed if Andijan had not occurred."
On Friday, the United Nations said some 440 Uzbek refugees who had fled to Kyrgyzstan following the Andijan violence had been flown to Romania. Uzbekistan says the refugees are criminals who should be repatriated.
Even they dont agree with you Shadow...
http://www.islamonline.org/English/News/2005-07/30/article04.shtml
Washington 's relations with the authoritarian ex-Soviet state have been strained since the bloody suppression in May of a rebellion in the eastern town.
Uzbekistan, an impoverished agrarian state of 26 million, came under criticism from several Western human rights groups for the mass jailing of Muslims who did not subscribe to state-sponsored Islam.
So let me get this straight. The Uzbek's are persecuting a group of people for thier religious beliefs. (this sounds like something the UN would get involved in) The US and other Western Human rights groups cry foul. The Uzbek's dont like attention being called to these things so in retaliation they ask the US to remove their troops from their country.
This makes President Bush and his administration bad.
Just how would you suggest this situation have been handled?
Isnt Voice of America a Liberal Media Outlet?
The moves followed strong criticism from the United States and other Western nations of President Karimov and calls for a formal inquiry into deadly clashes between Uzbek security forces and civilians in the city of Andijan in May. The United Nations has called the incident a mass killing.
"The trigger was Uzbek anger at U.S. criticism of the Uzbek government for the Uzbek government's failure to agree to an independent international inquiry into what happened in Andijan," said Martha Brill Olcott, a central Asian expert with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "To say that the U.S. leadership and the Uzbek leadership don't see eye to eye with one another today is an understatement. It's probably the tensest point in U.S.-Uzbek relations any time since the existence of an independent Uzbekistan. I don't know that the Uzbek regime would have wanted the base removed if Andijan had not occurred."
On Friday, the United Nations said some 440 Uzbek refugees who had fled to Kyrgyzstan following the Andijan violence had been flown to Romania. Uzbekistan says the refugees are criminals who should be repatriated.
Even they dont agree with you Shadow...
Baron is correct at least on the Uzbekistan part. They want the U.S. out for overstepping their authority and involving themselves in an incident which they feel these refugees are criminals. It has nothing to do with Rumsfield, and to claim that it does is sheer lunacy on a fantasy level. Maybe you should spend a little less time chasing shadows and getting facts.
K shadowrelm, you are a ******. First of all, if the senate majority is made up of republicans, that means that the majority of Americans in the country are Republicans, so to speak. Because we are in an indirect democracy, the amount of Republicans/Democrats in the Senate is directly proportional to the number of Republicans/Democrats in the country. So when a republican is nominated, it is a direct representation of the majority of the country's wishes. If the Senate were, say, 90% Democrat and 10% Republican, the majority wins, because we live in a majority rule society, and a democrat is nominated.
If we have say, 52% Republican and 48% Democrat in the Senate (which I think that is what it is now, not sure on this), then the MAJORITY of americans have republican leaning views, and therefore a Republican is nominated. Thats the way it works, if you don't like it you should change the constitution. When making nominations, the job of the Senate is not to respect and accomodate EVERYONE's beliefs and views, its job is to represent its constituency. It's job is to represent the majority, not try to make everyone happy and satisfied.
Edited, Sun Jul 31 17:33:00 2005 by PraetorianX
If we have say, 52% Republican and 48% Democrat in the Senate (which I think that is what it is now, not sure on this), then the MAJORITY of americans have republican leaning views, and therefore a Republican is nominated. Thats the way it works, if you don't like it you should change the constitution. When making nominations, the job of the Senate is not to respect and accomodate EVERYONE's beliefs and views, its job is to represent its constituency. It's job is to represent the majority, not try to make everyone happy and satisfied.
Edited, Sun Jul 31 17:33:00 2005 by PraetorianX
PraetorianX wrote:
Because we are in an indirect democracy, the amount of Republicans/Democrats in the Senate is directly proportional to the number of Republicans/Democrats in the country.
Honestly, I'm getting tired of the continual Democratic stonewalling. I'm not fond of Bush and it stands to reason that I won't be fond of most of his choices for appointees but nothing is gained by constantly holding up votes that have foregone conclusions. I'll most probably be voting Left in the next elections simply because I disagree with many stanmces from the Right but what's happening now isn't winning any favors.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
I kinda feel the same about the stonewalling and filibustering.
The intent of the filibuster for instance was so that the Senate could be forced to consider an issue it was debating at length and to the satisfaction of all parties. It was not and was never intended to be a defacto method of requiring a higher approval ratio for everything in order to break the filibuster. It definately is not intended for external debate issues like approving executive appointments.
There are set ratios that are required for various votes in the Senate. The assumption is that if the vote requires 2/3rds of the senate, then if 2/3rds agree, it should pass. Same with majority votres, 3/4th votes, and so on. Requireing all votes to break a filibuster makes that whole disctinction invalid.
There's also a time and place for it. Using it to block an appointment because you don't agree with the politics of the appointee is absurd. Guess what? Democrats are not going to agree with the politics of a Republican appointee. The same can be said in reverse. If you oppose the appointee because he's molested small children, or embezzeled funds, or commited treason or something, then those are valid objections to bring up, and if it takes a filibuster to ensure that you get to air your disagreements, then that's the correct time and place. To use it purely to stall and delay an appointment just because you don't agree with him flies in the face of the appointment process, and ultimately uses up your political capital on things that it might not be best spent on.
The intent of the filibuster for instance was so that the Senate could be forced to consider an issue it was debating at length and to the satisfaction of all parties. It was not and was never intended to be a defacto method of requiring a higher approval ratio for everything in order to break the filibuster. It definately is not intended for external debate issues like approving executive appointments.
There are set ratios that are required for various votes in the Senate. The assumption is that if the vote requires 2/3rds of the senate, then if 2/3rds agree, it should pass. Same with majority votres, 3/4th votes, and so on. Requireing all votes to break a filibuster makes that whole disctinction invalid.
There's also a time and place for it. Using it to block an appointment because you don't agree with the politics of the appointee is absurd. Guess what? Democrats are not going to agree with the politics of a Republican appointee. The same can be said in reverse. If you oppose the appointee because he's molested small children, or embezzeled funds, or commited treason or something, then those are valid objections to bring up, and if it takes a filibuster to ensure that you get to air your disagreements, then that's the correct time and place. To use it purely to stall and delay an appointment just because you don't agree with him flies in the face of the appointment process, and ultimately uses up your political capital on things that it might not be best spent on.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
I kinda feel that shadowrelm may secretly be republican, but moreover a O.C.D. republican who is suffering immensley.
Suffering from the presence of obsessions and compulsions.
His obsessions are in the form of repetitive, unwanted democratic thoughts(as is in the party), and horrible grammatical lapses. There is a sense of urgency and tension that rises until shadowrelm feels compelled to act on the obsessive thought, i.e. inane ultra-left wing jargon, even though he is a "dyed in the wool red-meat republican". He simply cannot help himself.
Resulting in actions based on an obsessive thought that are called a compulsions. His compulsions range from mild checking behavior (is the stove off?)or(have I blamed something on bush?) to severe cases where the person is unable to function based on their compulsions having taken over their life.
He's like someone lighting a sack of dog-shi[/i]t on the proverbial porch of the asylum, ringing the door-bell and running away, but he does it over and over again.
Edited, Mon Aug 1 22:23:54 2005 by RedjedBlue
Suffering from the presence of obsessions and compulsions.
His obsessions are in the form of repetitive, unwanted democratic thoughts(as is in the party), and horrible grammatical lapses. There is a sense of urgency and tension that rises until shadowrelm feels compelled to act on the obsessive thought, i.e. inane ultra-left wing jargon, even though he is a "dyed in the wool red-meat republican". He simply cannot help himself.
Resulting in actions based on an obsessive thought that are called a compulsions. His compulsions range from mild checking behavior (is the stove off?)or(have I blamed something on bush?) to severe cases where the person is unable to function based on their compulsions having taken over their life.
He's like someone lighting a sack of dog-shi[/i]t on the proverbial porch of the asylum, ringing the door-bell and running away, but he does it over and over again.
Edited, Mon Aug 1 22:23:54 2005 by RedjedBlue
Quote:
the "dems" job is to protect their supporters interest. the lefties. with a predominatly republican senate, EVERY republican will get nominated in a vote.
the act of not voting is the check and ballance that FORCES moderation out of BOTH parties, and thus ensures EVERYONE is represented to some degree.
are you suggesting we get rid of that check and ballance system? and if so, are you going to keep your mouth shut in a few years when the "dems" have the majority and have the opertunity to appoint anyone they choose?
the republicans should find a more moderate candidate so EVERYONES interest is protected, kind of liek they did with Roberts. america is for EVERYONE, not just the party with the majority ATM. something this addministraiton tries to ignore.
the act of not voting is the check and ballance that FORCES moderation out of BOTH parties, and thus ensures EVERYONE is represented to some degree.
are you suggesting we get rid of that check and ballance system? and if so, are you going to keep your mouth shut in a few years when the "dems" have the majority and have the opertunity to appoint anyone they choose?
the republicans should find a more moderate candidate so EVERYONES interest is protected, kind of liek they did with Roberts. america is for EVERYONE, not just the party with the majority ATM. something this addministraiton tries to ignore.
Shadow, do you even stop to think about what your saying? This argument about checks and balances is null and void because the system of checks and balance isn't built around maintaining balance between polital factions. It's designed to ensure that no one branch (i.e. judicial, executive and legislative) becomes more powerful than any of the others.
The congress, regardless of political ideology is able to block a nomination from the executive branch. That's the point of checks and balances.
But I'm sure you knew that, what with being so well educated in government affairs.
Edited to include more commentary on your absurd ideas:
In the final bit that I quoted you suggest that the republican completely abandon what they believe and nominate somebody that will appeal more to on opposite ideology. What the fu[/sm]ck is going through your mind? Would you so readily agree to chucking your values for the sake of appeasing your political opponents? Oh, that's right, you're beliefs are completely moderate and mainstream. It's those wascally wepublicans that are so very radical.
[sm]Edited, Mon Aug 1 19:23:10 2005 by Natdatilgnome
Natdatilgnome wrote:
Edited to include more commentary on your absurd ideas:
In the final bit that I quoted you suggest that the republican completely abandon what they believe and nominate somebody that will appeal more to on opposite ideology. What the fu[sm][/sm]ck is going through your mind? Would you so readily agree to chucking your values for the sake of appeasing your political opponents? Oh, that's right, you're beliefs are completely moderate and mainstream. It's those wascally wepublicans that are so very radical.
You haven't been listening to the talking heads of the Left recently have you?
I'm not kidding here when I say that they are actively trying to redefine "American" as "Liberal". If something is non-liberal, it's un-American. If someone opposes a liberal idea, they are un-american. It's a pretty simplistic bit of rhetoric, and most people see right through it, but they really do seem to believe it.
And while I give most people the benefit of the doubt as to their thought processes, I don't feel I'm far off at all when I assume shadow's just parroting what the far left talking heads are saying.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Recent Visitors: 211
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (211)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Bush handing U.N. a poison pill.
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC