Follow us on...
Follow us on Twitter Follow us on Facebook Watch us on YouTube
Register
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 34

Thread: is it anything?

  1. #1
    Unchained
    Join Date
    03.05.00
    Location
    Columbus, OH USA
    Posts
    517
    Last Online

    12.31.69 @ 04:00 PM
    Likes
    0
    Liked 1 Time in 1 Post

    more political scrapple from the rendering plant of the internet, thanks to got donkey! hopefully you find this more relevant than "family values" love children, or more scintillating than my views on the death star playset (although 'toys we miss' is a very cool thread)


    From an MSNBC.com article about the Orrin Hatch's push to confirm all of Bush's judicial appointees as fast as he can:


    Tapia countered that Hatch was trying to be responsive to Democrats’ concerns but believed it was necessary to move quickly because Bush’s nominees had been waiting so long.
    “We hope that there will be no further delays and obstructionist gimmicks,” she said.
    Seeking to get around time-honored tactics senators use to hold up controversial appointments, Hatch has changed the rules that allowed a single senator to block a nominee from his or her own state, a procedure Democrats used during Leahy’s chairmanship to stall candidates in the first two years of the Bush administration.
    Previously, both home-state senators had to submit blue slips of paper signaling their approval for a nominee to come before the Judiciary Committee.
    Hatch said earlier this month that so-called “negative blue slips” would only be given “great weight” from now on and would not be considered vetoes.

    Of course the article fails to mention that the rule that allows a single senator to blue slip a nominee was reinstated by Hatch himself during the Clinton Administration (UPD. In 1994 Hatch required two "positive" blue-slips to move the nomination forward, so having one "negative" blue slip would block the nomination) so Republicans could more easily block President Clinton's nominees. Orrin Hatch is a f|<'n hypocrite, pure and simple. And shame on MSNBC.com's Alex Johnson for making the single-vote rule seem to be a Democratic invention to block President Bush's nominees.

    [ February 03, 2003, 09:51 PM: Message edited by: Ikeda ]

  2. #2
    Top Of The World
    Join Date
    01.25.03
    Age
    42
    Posts
    174
    Last Online

    02.29.08 @ 03:42 PM
    Likes
    0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Of course he is a hypocrit. He is a politician. Now that we agree on that I would like you to compare GW's percentage of nominees to Clinton's , Bush Sr.'s, and Ronnie's who made it to hearing. The obvious obstructionist behavior here has to be dealt with. If it can be demonstrated that any of these nominees did not uphold the law they shouldn't be confirmed. But to deny a confirmation hearing simply because a nominee does not agree with your politics is hateful and typical of the left now who resent GW and still cannot swallow the fact that the man is President. Besides, we need to fill all of the vacant seats on the Federal bench so that the left's precious trial lawyers can more effectively destroy American businesses. Sorry if this reply sounds harsh but it might just be true.
    believe the lies...there is no truth

  3. #3
    Unchained
    Join Date
    03.05.00
    Location
    Columbus, OH USA
    Posts
    517
    Last Online

    12.31.69 @ 04:00 PM
    Likes
    0
    Liked 1 Time in 1 Post

    i agree with your distaste for politicians, but i don't think we should simply accept that they are all hypocrites and/ or puppets (right AND left).

    go ahead and compare the numbers of bush II appointee's to previous administrations, but remember that reagan and bush managed to contend with democratic congresses, AND remember clinton's appointees came mostly before the '94 'revolution' and hatch's new rule. furthermore, the republicans didn't have any problem with there being vacant seats when it was clinton trying to fill them.

    i think a lot of this goes back to the bork and thomas hearings during bush I. the current situation is political obstructionism by democrats, but i guess that is a tool of last resort for congress. i don't like it, and both teams have their hands plenty dirty. i'd rather they let it go to a hearing, and then point out that an ashcroft wrote for neo-confederacy magazines, or estrada worked in florida '00 for bush during the recounts. but i guess the democrats are too chickenshit for that.

    [ February 05, 2003, 07:37 AM: Message edited by: Ikeda ]

  4. #4
    Top Of The World
    Join Date
    01.25.03
    Age
    42
    Posts
    174
    Last Online

    02.29.08 @ 03:42 PM
    Likes
    0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    I don't think I have a distaste for politicians as much as I have a distaste for the voting public and the political process in general. We as a people do not have the character to vote for a real person. What we get is some watered down version of a human being that tries to appeal to all people. I think this is a sypmtom of a public that does not stick to its guns, has no line in the sand and doesn't stand for anything. And, if you dare to think this way you are called extreme or a kook. Maybe the Isreali version of politics where you vote for a party instead of a person would force people to stand for some principled ideas...then again, maybe not.
    believe the lies...there is no truth

  5. #5
    Unchained
    Join Date
    03.05.00
    Location
    Columbus, OH USA
    Posts
    517
    Last Online

    12.31.69 @ 04:00 PM
    Likes
    0
    Liked 1 Time in 1 Post

    that's a good point. i think any critique of the government has to point to the fact that only one in three of us bothers to show up and vote.

    i think one thing clinton can be blamed for (since he takes the fall for everything ) is this centrist tendacy in politics. clinton exploited it deftly (whether one agrees with his agenda or not) but there are so many lame imitators trying to be the next bubba. of course blaming bill for this rush to the middle is like blaming eddie for all the hair band guitarist (there's two guys you never thought you'd see in an analogy).

    this problem was really apparant in the last presidential election - mc cain and bradley were really better canidates than either bush or gore, but that's what the current political system gave us. things need fixing, that's for sure.

  6. #6
    Top Of The World
    Join Date
    01.25.03
    Age
    42
    Posts
    174
    Last Online

    02.29.08 @ 03:42 PM
    Likes
    0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    The population needs to change. Unfortunately, the threat of death is the only successfrul motivating factor so far...i.e. contemporary teens attitude towards promiscuous sex. I respect leadership, meaning that even if I disagree with a person, if their actions are motivated by a sense of right and wrong, I will respect them. If, however, their actions are motivated by a desire to gain the majority of the consensus I detest them (Clinton). Education needs to go private so that people can be properly educated as to the nuances of political manuvering and economics. I would say that 95% of the U.S. populace is ignorant to economics...which is why our tax code is able to exist. One which promotes class warfare and hinders the creation of wealth. Which inspires me to start a new thread.

    [ February 05, 2003, 05:56 PM: Message edited by: swage ]
    believe the lies...there is no truth

  7. #7
    Unchained
    Join Date
    03.05.00
    Location
    Columbus, OH USA
    Posts
    517
    Last Online

    12.31.69 @ 04:00 PM
    Likes
    0
    Liked 1 Time in 1 Post

    i don't think bush is any less worried about consensus come election time than clinton was. that's why bush didn't campaign on themes like "i'm going to get into office and make iraq our number one priority." he peddled soft stuff like "no child left behind" and "compassionated conservatism." they were both whores for votes.

    and i don't think bush is a better man than clinton was, just less investigated. clinton worked hard, and occasionally even put his political ass on the line for things that weren't popular. i know i'd feel safer with him in office now.

  8. #8
    Sinner's Swing! chewbaccamonkeylunch's Avatar
    Join Date
    12.06.01
    Location
    Weatherford, TX
    Posts
    3,839
    Favorite VH Album

    Fair Warning and Balance (Tie)
    Favorite VH Song

    Summer Nights (LWAN)
    Last Online

    02.16.16 @ 06:50 AM
    Likes
    15
    Liked 5 Times in 3 Posts


    Donor

    Originally posted by Ikeda:

    i know i'd feel safer with him in office now.
    [img]graemlins/scared.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/brickwall.gif[/img]
    He would too LOL
    The trashman was my hero.......
    -Seenbad

  9. #9
    Unchained
    Join Date
    03.05.00
    Location
    Columbus, OH USA
    Posts
    517
    Last Online

    12.31.69 @ 04:00 PM
    Likes
    0
    Liked 1 Time in 1 Post

    hey, at least with clinton, you knew it was him calling the shots, and not al gore

  10. #10
    Top Of The World
    Join Date
    01.25.03
    Age
    42
    Posts
    174
    Last Online

    02.29.08 @ 03:42 PM
    Likes
    0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Dude, Clinton appointed a woman as secretary of state. I'm all for women's rights but you have to agree that our enemies would have to view this as a show of weakness. Before you make the Thatcher comparison consider that she sent men to do her work and Bubba sent a woman to do his work. The ignorant testosterone driven muslim societies of our enemies were probably emboldened by this situation. Also, Clinton's willingness to pay off North Korea instead of dealing with them as they deserved. Oh yeah...balking on Hussein's obligation to disarm. I know you are not going to be converted but you seem like an intelligent person. You have to admit that patronizing communist regimes and evading the Saddam problem does not make you the harbinger of peace. These actions (or lack thereof) implied weak spots in our resolve. Just the motivation these wackos needed. Also, Somalia REALLY made us look as though we would half ass any military action.
    believe the lies...there is no truth

  11. #11
    Atomic Punk MikeL's Avatar
    Join Date
    02.17.00
    Posts
    11,536
    Last Online

    03.03.15 @ 08:31 PM
    Likes
    0
    Liked 2 Times in 1 Post


    Donor

    Originally posted by swage:
    Also, Clinton's willingness to pay off North Korea instead of dealing with them as they deserved.
    *sigh* Where is it that you got that idea?

  12. #12
    Top Of The World
    Join Date
    01.25.03
    Age
    42
    Posts
    174
    Last Online

    02.29.08 @ 03:42 PM
    Likes
    0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Providing aid in return for a non-proliferation promise is a pay off. Are you saying we did not give aid to NK in exchange for a promise not to develop a nuclear program?
    believe the lies...there is no truth

  13. #13
    Atomic Punk MikeL's Avatar
    Join Date
    02.17.00
    Posts
    11,536
    Last Online

    03.03.15 @ 08:31 PM
    Likes
    0
    Liked 2 Times in 1 Post


    Donor

    A pay off implies something shady, or does to me at least. You would have preferred war, or letting the North Koreans actively pursue their nuclear program? Those were the two other options.

  14. #14
    Unchained
    Join Date
    03.05.00
    Location
    Columbus, OH USA
    Posts
    517
    Last Online

    12.31.69 @ 04:00 PM
    Likes
    0
    Liked 1 Time in 1 Post

    swage - i think clinton never should have pulled out inspectors in '98, but we kinda shot ourselves in the foot too by using the inspectors as spies. hussein is a shadow now of what he was in '90, and he'd be even worse off if we had kept up the pressure from '98 to '02.

    he did the right thing with n. korea by bargaining and trying to strip their capabilities. the n. koreans had already accumulated their material during reagan/bush, a fact everyone conveniently ignores. when bush II came into the white house, he deliberately ignored n. korea because he didn't want to walk in clinton's footsteps. i think that was foolish.

    those servicemen in somalia died under bush I's half-assed intervention. it was clinton who brought them out, and who led successful peacekeeping missions in the former yugoslovia, as well as furthering the peace process in ireland and isreal. i think africa was neglected after somalia, and much unrest persists there. but again, bush II decided he didn't want to further clinton's initiatives.

    as for putting albright in at state, clinton wanted powell for the job, but he turned it down. i think albright was a good choice, and to say we shouldn't let her serve because she's a woman is no better than saying powell shouldn't serve because that might offend factions who consider blacks inferior. if we're concerned about projecting an image of power, then why do we currently have men like bush, cheney and rumsfeld serving in the white house? aren't they seen as weak and cowardly for avoiding the draft for vietnam? [img]graemlins/devil.gif[/img]

    i think the lunatics who attacked us would have found cause to no matter what. i think that's why we need to concentrate on hunting down al queda and exterminating the roots of terrorism, not start a new war in iraq.

    anyways, thanks for the compliment. see ya [img]graemlins/thumb.gif[/img]

  15. #15
    Top Of The World
    Join Date
    01.25.03
    Age
    42
    Posts
    174
    Last Online

    02.29.08 @ 03:42 PM
    Likes
    0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Originally posted by Ikeda:
    swage - i think clinton never should have pulled out inspectors in '98, but we kinda shot ourselves in the foot too by using the inspectors as spies. hussein is a shadow now of what he was in '90, and he'd be even worse off if we had kept up the pressure from '98 to '02.

    he did the right thing with n. korea by bargaining and trying to strip their capabilities. the n. koreans had already accumulated their material during reagan/bush, a fact everyone conveniently ignores. when bush II came into the white house, he deliberately ignored n. korea because he didn't want to walk in clinton's footsteps. i think that was foolish.

    those servicemen in somalia died under bush I's half-assed intervention. it was clinton who brought them out, and who led successful peacekeeping missions in the former yugoslovia, as well as furthering the peace process in ireland and isreal. i think africa was neglected after somalia, and much unrest persists there. but again, bush II decided he didn't want to further clinton's initiatives.

    as for putting albright in at state, clinton wanted powell for the job, but he turned it down. i think albright was a good choice, and to say we shouldn't let her serve because she's a woman is no better than saying powell shouldn't serve because that might offend factions who consider blacks inferior. if we're concerned about projecting an image of power, then why do we currently have men like bush, cheney and rumsfeld serving in the white house? aren't they seen as weak and cowardly for avoiding the draft for vietnam? [img]graemlins/devil.gif[/img]

    i think the lunatics who attacked us would have found cause to no matter what. i think that's why we need to concentrate on hunting down al queda and exterminating the roots of terrorism, not start a new war in iraq.

    anyways, thanks for the compliment. see ya [img]graemlins/thumb.gif[/img]
    Respectfully,

    Clinton didn't pull inspectors...Hussein threw them out.

    It is now obvious that the Clinton policy in NK was not effective. Evidence? No aid...here comes the Nuke threat again. If you prefer a funded lie as opposed to the truth about the situation then I can see how you approve of Clinton's policy.

    Was Bush 1 president when those men were denied armored support in Somalia? Was Bush 1 president when those men were dragged through the streets as naked corpses? Remember, we hunted that warlord because he was intercepting food that we were trying to supply to those starving people.

    To make the comparison of Powell's color to Albright's gender shows me that you really don't want to understand a society that kills women because they were raped, does not permit them to show their faces in public and denies them education. This also shows me that you can't get the correlation between showing weakness and emboldening a foe such as this one.

    Even our Kosovo campaign showed an unwillingness to suffer casualties in a military effort. Clinton announced...announced no less that we would not employ ground forces to resolve this conflict.

    This foe is not a country and they no longer hang out on a known piece of land. They are scattered. They need nations like Iraq and NK that would be willing to provide them with the weapons they need to kill us. How would you neutralize their ability to carry out their agenda? The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Any country like Iraq, NK, Iran with the ability to mass produce weapons and the willingness to sell them is a major threat to the US. You can't agree with that? If yes, how should we deal with threats on the lives of our citizens?

    Because they are beast-like in their visciousness, because they respond to percieved weakness, a strong show of force will motivate those enemies (with a country and power to lose) that maybe they shouldn't associate with something that we take so seriously as a threat. If you are a "kill me some more please, I don't mind" passivist then you will not even try to digest my reasoning here...which I feel reflects the reasoning of the current administration.
    believe the lies...there is no truth

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •