John Bolton

Paper Tigress · Veteran Member

John Bolton

kspeer · Senior Member

John Bolton will do the UN Good. Kofi could use a reality check.

-- Edited by kspeer at 20:00, 2005-08-02

truthpatrol · Veteran Member

John Bolton is exactly the type of guy I want to see at the U.N. Hopefully he can straighten out some of the hideous corruption. The U.N. is essentially useless as it stands right now. He can do no worse that the status quo. Bush would not need to exercise his constitutional right if it were not for obstructionist leftists denying his selections an up or down vote. He has the support of a duly elected majority in the Senate. That is good enough for the majority of Americans that elected these people to represent them so it should be good enough for me. If you don't like his choices find a party that has some ideas and can win an election. Last I checked Bush was President, Republicans own the House and Senate and all the Dems have is obstructionist politics. I look forward to winning the 60 seats we need to really get things done. It is a sad and desperate day for the Left. As least I have something to amuse myself. It is like watching a fish flopping around on the floor.

Mindcrime · Guru

truthpatrol wrote:

Bush would not need to exercise his constitutional right if it were not for obstructionist leftists denying his selections an up or down vote....Last I checked Bush was President, Republicans own the House and Senate and all the Dems have is obstructionist politics.

Haven't we over-used this phrase 'obstructionist' yet? It's pathetic when the best negative adjective conservative rhetoric can come up with is 'obstructionist.'

In most cases, I see liberal obstructionism as a good thing. It shows that not everyone is marching to the same drum. They're fighting for what they believe to be right and just. They are merely opposing that with which they see as inappropriate, or in some cases, downright wrong. They are fighting to keep their government from becoming a nightmarish, Orwellian autocracy. What could be more noble?

I know, let's turn the term around. "The U.S. is obstructing terrorism." Hmm, that phrase sounds kinda positive, doesn't it?

truthpatrol · Veteran Member

What could be nobler? Hmm...How about adhering to the will of the majority? These people were elected by the people for the people. I over use the word obstructionist..I know of no other word to describe what a floundering minority is doing. They need to cling onto some semblance of power. There views are clearly in the minority.

They're fighting for what they believe to be right and just. They are merely opposing that with which they see as inappropriate, or in some cases, downright wrong.

So is Al Qaeda. Do you think the founding fathers intended for the filibuster to be tossed around so cavalierly? I get it. If I have no new ideas and no support from the people I will still flex my political might by stalling progress and then pointing out the lack of results from the majority. It is pathetic.

An Orwellian autocracy is eloquently posed BS. How many of your left wing buddies even know what that means? I do know what it means and it certainly doesn't pertain to Senate filibuster. It goes against the grain of the previous post that you questioned Bush's IQ. He is intelligent enough to hijack all branches of government but not capable of forming a sentence. Chose one and stick with it.

I would still like to hear all of these great ideas that left would like to implement if it weren't for the big bad right. I appreciate and recognize the need for balanced debate in the House and Senate. It is important to have a devils advocate in any important meeting. It can breed creative thought and point out flaws in a plan. I do not see how stalling the will of the elected majority is good for government. The Majority of this country believes Bush will make good decisions and appointments. I know it sucks to be on the losing side. I was there during the Clinton administration. I think it would be a better tactic to allow the Republicans to proceed, and if like many believe, they fail miserably then you are sure to win some elections. The stall tactics they are using now are only well received by the extreme left.

Scott Leffler · Guru

Truthbetold,

Was there no potential candidates that would have passed a fillibuster? Someone who was a uniter, for example? And could bring the left into the fold ... as shared vision for the US's plan in the world? Not one person? Instead we need John Bolton? Who has been said to bully his underlings and may have lied to the FBI as part of the ongoing "Plamegate" issue? That's the best we could do?

I mean, we're sending someone to the UNITED Nations. We're not even United behind the new ambassador. What the hell does that tell the rest of the world?

You're right - Bush had the authority ... and the arrogance ... to do it this way.

Remember in 2000? Then-Governor Bush said he was going to change the way they do things in Washington. Bring in a positive tone. And unite the country. Is that what we have?

Whine all you want about the left not marching in lock-step with your man. Have we forgotten 9/11, blah blah blah. We stood behind the president on September 12th. As did the rest of the WORLD. Then he took a hard right and left us behind.

You want Bolton? The guy who wanted to dismantle the UN? You got him. Hope you're proud. Just don't pretend like your point of view is somehow in the best interest of the UN, let alone the United States.

As for the left's ideas? We're not allowed to have ideas. Only the president is.

And finally, the left's obstruction ... what has the president accomplished? Or even attempted? The right's goal for the past 25 years has been to undo the gains of the previous 80. If the left is obstructing that, good for them.

Date: Wed Aug 3 6:16 AM, 2005

truthpatrol wrote:

How about adhering to the will of the majority?....The Majority of this country believes Bush will make good decisions and appointments.

"Sometimes a majority means all the fools are on the same side." The majority of those founding fathers believed ALL men were created equal, except for blacks and indians and women and poor people, etc.

Paper Tigress · Veteran Member

There's nothing wrong with obstructionism, because both parties engage in it all the time. Sad to say, a lot of politicians automatically try to invalidate anything the other party says, and both are equally guilty here.

Howard Dean: "I'll have a ham on rye..."

Rush Limbaugh: "Rye, huh? Sounds like Dean's been into the 'rye' a lot considering his outrageous lunch orders in the past..."

Obstructionism isn't a bad thing. Pointless comeupance and bickering is. John Bolton is going to represent us to the rest of the world. Are you really happy with that?

shughes · Senior Member

"The president has made 106 recess appointments, many of them judges. Bolton is the highest-level such appointment of Bush's administration and the first U.S. ambassador to the U.N. named by a recess appointment."

I have a problem with using the back door to make so many appointments. This is a loophole that should be closed. It's one thing to make an emergency appointment, but this is manipulating the system to further your own agenda.

Date: Sat Aug 6 11:37 AM, 2005

ok , close the back door and stop resess appointments , but only after opening the front door and allowing all presidential appointees to be voted on before the senate . apply the rules to both parties no matter who holds the reins .

spr