PDA

View Full Version : Recess appointment for Bolton?



Ilvane
07-30-2005, 09:03 AM
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8758621/

Oddly enough it doesn't surprise me that he would do this.

I have some serious concerns about Bolton going to the UN, one of the biggest being he has been a real vocal critic of the UN. It's hard to imagine someone who has been critical of a body being a proper Ambassador.

What do you guys think?

-A

Drew
07-30-2005, 09:23 AM
Not gonna happen.


I don't really care who they appoint though, the UN is broken and even someone with some balls like Bolton can't fix it.

07-30-2005, 09:53 AM
The whole reason to appoint him is to fix how fucked up and useless the place is.

Skirmisher
07-30-2005, 10:01 AM
I think it speaks volumes regarding the way Bush has handled international relations that even with his party holding a majority he has to bypass normal approval measures and be looking at a recess appointment.

Yes, truly a rousing vote of confidence.

Ravenstorm
08-01-2005, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by Drew
Not gonna happen.

Wrong answer.

Not that I'm surprised by Dubya. It's just par for the course with him.

Raven

Warriorbird
08-01-2005, 01:07 PM
Funny seeing this happen.

Terminator X
08-01-2005, 01:12 PM
Kofi Annan should play the video of Bolton hiding nuke-you-lure weapons inside of his secret chemical weapon research laboratory. Big Kof' should then gain the undying patronage of the Polish ambassador and preemptively punch Bolton in the nuts.

Well, in a perfect world, anyway.

[Edited on 8-1-2005 by Terminator X]

Hulkein
08-01-2005, 01:15 PM
In a perfect world, the corrupt Kofi Annon wouldn't be the head of the UN.

Terminator X
08-01-2005, 01:17 PM
He would totally diss you in like at least twelve different languages for talking that smack.

Warriorbird
08-01-2005, 01:48 PM
"In a perfect world, the corrupt Kofi Annon wouldn't be the head of the UN. "

And Republicans wouldn't control three branches of American government. We can't always get what we want. Bush has a number of questionable family members too (remember Neil?).

The Republicans should give lessons on "how to make the world like you".

[Edited on 8-1-2005 by Warriorbird]

ElanthianSiren
08-01-2005, 01:50 PM
Originally posted by Skirmisher
I think it speaks volumes regarding the way Bush has handled international relations that even with his party holding a majority he has to bypass normal approval measures and be looking at a recess appointment.

Yes, truly a rousing vote of confidence.

:yeahthat:

I think his tenure there, however, is curtailed by the fact that he was a forced candidate. What I'm going to be more suspicious of is who Bush chooses to appoint once Congress can get rid of Bolton. Will he play the bait and switch game? I wait to see.

-M

Some Rogue
08-01-2005, 02:27 PM
Every President makes recess appointments. Why such a stink when it's a republican making the appointment?

And for the record, Clinton made over 60 recess appointments.

Parkbandit
08-01-2005, 02:37 PM
Originally posted by Warriorbird
"In a perfect world, the corrupt Kofi Annon wouldn't be the head of the UN. "

And Republicans wouldn't control three branches of American government. We can't always get what we want. Bush has a number of questionable family members too (remember Neil?).




First of all.. we can always get what we want.. since we elected them all to office. Maybe you should edit your post to say "I" can't always get what "I" want.. then I'll just hand you a big hankie.

And what fucking difference does "questionable" relatives have to do with anything? Name me a President that didn't have a freak relative.

Parkbandit
08-01-2005, 02:37 PM
Originally posted by Some Rogue
Every President makes recess appointments. Why such a stink when it's a republican making the appointment?

And for the record, Clinton made over 60 recess appointments.

BECAUSE IT'S GEORGE W BUSH YOU BIG STUPID HEAD!

Stop using facts and logic on this bunch man.. it's a waste of time.

DeV
08-01-2005, 02:47 PM
Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by Some Rogue
Every President makes recess appointments. Why such a stink when it's a republican making the appointment?

And for the record, Clinton made over 60 recess appointments.

BECAUSE IT'S GEORGE W BUSH YOU BIG STUPID HEAD!

Stop using facts and logic on this bunch man.. it's a waste of time. :lol: Or maybe because he's the president and everything he does will be scrutinized by one side or the other or both at the same time or none at the same time depending on the day, month, and year that is. Hell, it's politics, that's why. Some people like the guy he picked and other don't, everyone has their reasons.

I ran across this article which may or may not be the biggest pile of crap ever written... game me a little more insight in any case. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7896-2005Apr21.html Anyone is free to denounce or proclaim its validity or otherwise.

Farquar
08-01-2005, 02:50 PM
Originally posted by Some Rogue
Every President makes recess appointments. Why such a stink when it's a republican making the appointment?

And for the record, Clinton made over 60 recess appointments.

True, but were any of these Clinton recess appointees to a high profile position?

Better yet, were any of those appointments to a high profile position that had significant repercussions on already strained relations with the world community?

Even better yet, were any of the Clinton recess appointees made against the explicit opposition of the opposite party?

Looks like ACTUAL facts and logic wins again!

CrystalTears
08-01-2005, 02:58 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,164371,00.html

— President Bill Clinton made a recess appointment of Bill Lan Lee (search) as assistant attorney general for civil rights. Clinton also used the power to name James Hormel (search) as ambassador to Luxembourg.


Yeah yeah, Fox News, not really news, blah blah blah. Save it. :P

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recess_appointment

President Bill Clinton made a recess appointment of Bill Lan Lee as assistant attorney general for civil rights, when it became clear that Lee's strong support of affirmative action would lead to Senate opposition. Similarly, when the Senate did not vote on his nomination of James Hormel to be Ambassador to Luxembourg, Clinton made a recess appointment. Many people felt that the Senate's inaction was because Hormel was an openly gay person, and when he was appointed became the first such person to serve as a U.S. ambassador. Clinton was strongly criticized by Congressional Republicans for making recess appointments. [1]

[Edited on 8/1/2005 by CrystalTears]

Valthissa
08-01-2005, 03:02 PM
Originally posted by Farquar
[quote]Originally posted by Some Rogue

Even better yet, were any of the Clinton recess appointees made against the explicit opposition of the opposite party?

Looks like ACTUAL facts and logic wins again!

1997
Bill Lann Lee

rejected by the republican senate

recess appoinment

Actual fact. You can even look it up.

C/Valth - not a fan of recess appointments

Hulkein
08-01-2005, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by Valthissa

1997
Bill Lann Lee

rejected by the republican senate

recess appoinment

Actual fact. You can even look it up.

C/Valth - not a fan of recess appointments

<< Looks like ACTUAL facts and logic wins again! >>

Yes it does.

:lol:

[Edited on 8-1-2005 by Hulkein]

Warriorbird
08-01-2005, 03:06 PM
Ooooh. Ambassador to Luxembourg!

High profile, baby.

You can pretend the right didn't scrutinize Clinton's actions, Parkbandit.

Then I can laugh.

Skirmisher
08-01-2005, 03:08 PM
Clinton was dealing with a congress controlled by the opposition.

The same cannot be said for our current President.

I do not find the situations to be quite the same.

CrystalTears
08-01-2005, 03:12 PM
Why even bother finding facts when you people come back with "oh it wasn't high profile enough"? We're just saying that other presidents have enacted this right, such as your favorite liberal, and yet, it's never good enough. You people are impossible to satisfy. :banghead:

Warriorbird
08-01-2005, 03:17 PM
Sort've like "OMG! Let's impeach the President for lying about oral sex?"

That's the nature of American politics these days. Nobody's ever satisfied. Republicans aren't even satisfied when they have it all. I can turn on the radio at night and hear Michael Savage rail about the "liberal takeover" of the country.

CrystalTears
08-01-2005, 03:20 PM
You sure love bringing up that little piece of information, don't you? You need a new piece of ammo because that one's been worn out.

08-01-2005, 03:23 PM
Originally posted by Warriorbird
Sort've like "OMG! Let's impeach the President for lying [under oath] about oral sex?"


You forgot something but I fixed it for you.

He being a lawyer was smart about it. He never directly denied it, just referred to his previous statement, and said that I recall, of what i remember etc. a lot.
We used a few clips of his grand jury testimony in a class that I was taking in Seattle a few weeks ago, part of which was about deception detection. It was very amusing when they brought up him fucking her with a cigar... His eyes grew all wide and he had a sincere look of shock on his face... one of those (how did they know that) type looks.

[Edited on 8-1-2005 by Dave]

Warriorbird
08-01-2005, 03:23 PM
You seem to like it so much.

How about "Wouldn't let Terry Shiavo die in peace so they violated the Constitution?"

Not quite as catchy, but similar.

I could come up with a slew of others, but they aren't really too the topic.

You shouldn't think that any Democrat will be satisfied until there's some more parity... much as I wouldn't have expected any Republican to have been satisfied until they retook the legislature that they lost in the 1950's.

08-01-2005, 03:26 PM
What violation of the Constitution? The courts ruled in favor of letting her die, and she is not alive anymore. It seems like everything worked out great constitutionally.

CrystalTears
08-01-2005, 03:26 PM
Originally posted by Warriorbird
You seem to like it so much.

How about "Wouldn't let Terry Shiavo die in peace so they violated the Constitution?"

Not quite as catchy, but similar.

I could come up with a slew of others, but they aren't really too the topic.

You shouldn't think that any Democrat will be satisfied until there's some more parity... much as I wouldn't have expected any Republican to have been satisfied until they retook the legislature that they lost in the 1950's.

Frankly, no. I fucking hate it, how you bring up points that have nothing to do with this just to get a jab for no fucking reason at Republicans. It's getting really fucking old. You can be a serious jerk sometimes. Bringing up Shiavo is pathetic but actually so you to be this low. I'm done talking to you.

08-01-2005, 03:28 PM
Originally posted by Skirmisher
Clinton was dealing with a congress controlled by the opposition.

The same cannot be said for our current President.

I do not find the situations to be quite the same.

The current president is dealing with what is called an obstructionist congress. Although republicans control the congress the Democrats in the Senate wont allow any work to be completed.

DeV
08-01-2005, 03:32 PM
Despite the fact that I don't always agree with WB's agressiveness when it comes to the political debate, he certainly has a point in this case and, so do the Republicans concerning Clinton's antics from back in the day. It's all relative somehow and it's also all a viscious destructive cycle.

Though alot of people have ACTUAL reasons for not wanting this guy to have been appointed. It's a wonder why we aren't debating those reasons instead of this back and forth bullshit.

Skirm made a good point that people seem to have missed. His party currently controls all branches of power.

Parkbandit
08-01-2005, 03:32 PM
Originally posted by Warriorbird
Ooooh. Ambassador to Luxembourg!

High profile, baby.

You can pretend the right didn't scrutinize Clinton's actions, Parkbandit.

Then I can laugh.

I don't pretend anything. The Right is just as stupid as the Left is. Great thing is.. I don't follow either side. Just because I am a Republican.. doesn't mean I'll do what you do and bash the opposition every chance I get. I didn't give two shits who Clintin did Recess appointments for... nor do I care about this one.

The President is following the law.. and that is all I care about. If you don't like his actions.. change the law.

Skirmisher
08-01-2005, 03:36 PM
Originally posted by Dave

The current president is dealing with what is called an obstructionist congress. Although republicans control the congress the Democrats in the Senate wont allow any work to be completed.

Well now, let's not overreach there.

The Democrats in Washington are not there to rubber stamp the Presidents agenda. Sorry if they are not quite willing to sell out all they campaigned on and were elected on to do anything Bush desires.

Find a way to deal with it.

He still has the majority. If he is rendered as innefectual as you say by a minority opposition, you must be saying that Clinton was incredible to get done what he did with an opposition party in the majority. I never knew you were such a fan of Bill.

08-01-2005, 03:37 PM
Filibuster is a amazing thing isn't it.


That or the republicans were not as childish when it came to legislative matters as the dems currently are.

[Edited on 8-1-2005 by Dave]

Warriorbird
08-01-2005, 03:41 PM
Yep. I find it funny that the Republicans are strongly considering working against what they fought so hard to stop the Democrats from removing back in the Democratic congress days... and that the Democrats had the balls to try that initially. It was ridiculous.

Warriorbird
08-01-2005, 03:42 PM
"Just because I am a Republican.. doesn't mean I'll do what you do and bash the opposition every chance I get."

-Parkbandit

Make a note. I'd actually been staying out've political threads till Hulkein and Dave annoyed me earlier today.

DeV
08-01-2005, 03:42 PM
Originally posted by Dave
Filibuster is a amazing thing isn't it.
When Congress isn't trying to end it, yes.

Skirmisher
08-01-2005, 03:43 PM
Originally posted by Dave
Filibuster is a amazing thing isn't it.


That or the republicans were not as childish when it came to legislative matters as the dems currently are.

[Edited on 8-1-2005 by Dave]

Well judging by your own ability to compromise I can see why you would think that all elected Republicans would have been looking for a moderate middle ground and the evil communist pinko lib Dems were just looking to block them at any cost with no attempt to ennact legislation of their own.

Warriorbird
08-01-2005, 04:01 PM
"Frankly, no. I fucking hate it, how you bring up points that have nothing to do with this just to get a jab for no fucking reason at Republicans. It's getting really fucking old. You can be a serious jerk sometimes. Bringing up Shiavo is pathetic but actually so you to be this low. I'm done talking to you."

-CT

It offends me every single time I realize what a screwed up state we've allowed our country to sink into. It offends me when I hear conservative talking heads day after day and it hurts my heart when I realize relatively decent people buy into their notions of the world. I'm sorry that you can't associate overzealousness with overzealousness, but I'd be ashamed too if I was a Republican.

It offends me that Bush won the presidency again, but it doesn't suprise me. Kerry did a lot of namsy pamsy bullshit, and I think being direct about what's going on is a lot better than trying to be some lame slightly more socially conscious versions of Republicans (like Kerry).

I'm sorry if I come off as abrasive, but it honestly shocks me whenever I hear people spouting their party line. It means we haven't educated properly and maybe our message hasn't sunk in, and none of their message strikes me as logical in the slightest.

The only thing we have to fear is fear itself. I'm not afraid of conservatives. I'm not going to let fear of terror overwhelm my morals. I'm not about to let myself be insulted and derided without some sort of response. I'm not about to be told that it isn't polite to think what I think so I shouldn't think it. "They won, we need to give up!" isn't something I've ever quite understood. There's a lot of Republicans that feel similarly in their own way, I imagine. I'd most likely be more financially successful if I espoused Republican views right now. I just don't work like that. The arrogance and lack of empathy sticks in my craw.

I'm working on putting myself into a position where I can be more effective for what I believe.

[Edited on 8-1-2005 by Warriorbird]

Hulkein
08-02-2005, 01:14 AM
Originally posted by Skirmisher
I do not find the situations to be quite the same.

What a shock!

Delirium
08-02-2005, 01:45 AM
Warriorbird, just a view observations from your post.


It offends me when I hear conservative talking heads day after day and it hurts my heart when I realize relatively decent people buy into their notions of the world. I'm sorry that you can't associate overzealousness with overzealousness, but I'd be ashamed too if I was a Republican.

I agree, overzealousness is bad. When you look at your views do they seem moderate to you? Tame? When i read your posts i see the same extreme as when i read (insert most conservative poster here)'s posts. I can understand being disapointed or bitter at the way politics has been going lately, i really can. Your views are just as extreme though. In the big picture i think its important for both parties to get their chance. When one rules for too long(either way) things get out of whack. So rest assured, the dems will get their chance again. Id bet on it.


I'm sorry if I come off as abrasive, but it honestly shocks me whenever I hear people spouting their party line. It means we haven't educated properly and maybe our message hasn't sunk in, and none of their message strikes me as logical in the slightest.

You dont think you spout off the democratic party line? Just because someone disagrees on gun control or abortion doesnt make them uneducated hillbillies. I would wager there are republicans and democrats that make both of us look like we are mentally challenged.


The arrogance and lack of empathy sticks in my craw.

Ive had this thought many times when discussing politics here and elsewhere. Supposed "bleeding hearts" ripping someone to shreds makes me wonder quite often. Not that conservatives are any better in this. I think compassion has more to do with the person than who they vote for.

Hulkein
08-02-2005, 08:11 AM
Originally posted by Warriorbird
"Frankly, no. I fucking hate it, how you bring up points that have nothing to do with this just to get a jab for no fucking reason at Republicans. It's getting really fucking old. You can be a serious jerk sometimes. Bringing up Shiavo is pathetic but actually so you to be this low. I'm done talking to you."

-CT

It offends me every single time I realize what a screwed up state we've allowed our country to sink into. It offends me when I hear conservative talking heads day after day and it hurts my heart when I realize relatively decent people buy into their notions of the world. I'm sorry that you can't associate overzealousness with overzealousness, but I'd be ashamed too if I was a Republican.

It offends me that Bush won the presidency again, but it doesn't suprise me. Kerry did a lot of namsy pamsy bullshit, and I think being direct about what's going on is a lot better than trying to be some lame slightly more socially conscious versions of Republicans (like Kerry).

I'm sorry if I come off as abrasive, but it honestly shocks me whenever I hear people spouting their party line. It means we haven't educated properly and maybe our message hasn't sunk in, and none of their message strikes me as logical in the slightest.

The only thing we have to fear is fear itself. I'm not afraid of conservatives. I'm not going to let fear of terror overwhelm my morals. I'm not about to let myself be insulted and derided without some sort of response. I'm not about to be told that it isn't polite to think what I think so I shouldn't think it. "They won, we need to give up!" isn't something I've ever quite understood. There's a lot of Republicans that feel similarly in their own way, I imagine. I'd most likely be more financially successful if I espoused Republican views right now. I just don't work like that. The arrogance and lack of empathy sticks in my craw.

I'm working on putting myself into a position where I can be more effective for what I believe.

[Edited on 8-1-2005 by Warriorbird]

I think you went off the deep end when Bush won in November, bossman.

Take a step back if your current course of action involves getting back at Republican's via Players' Corner Forums.

Warriorbird
08-02-2005, 08:44 AM
Uh, Hulkein... I was talking about doing more political volunteerism in my community.

Warriorbird
08-02-2005, 08:52 AM
"You dont think you spout off the democratic party line? Just because someone disagrees on gun control or abortion doesnt make them uneducated hillbillies. I would wager there are republicans and democrats that make both of us look like we are mentally challenged. "

I don't think I do. I disagree with the "Democratic Party line" in a lot of ways. I disagree with just about ALL of the current Republican party line, however. If gun control and abortion were the only parts of what they said that I disagreed with, I'd be a lot happier. I actually am against gun control, and I think abortion probably should be decided by the states. I support the death penalty quite vigorously. Other issues are what get me angry.

"I think compassion has more to do with the person than who they vote for."

Oh, I think there's a lot of empathetic people who vote Republican. I just don't see much coming from the party leadership.

08-02-2005, 11:00 AM
Originally posted by Skirmisher

Originally posted by Dave
Filibuster is a amazing thing isn't it.


That or the republicans were not as childish when it came to legislative matters as the dems currently are.

[Edited on 8-1-2005 by Dave]

Well judging by your own ability to compromise I can see why you would think that all elected Republicans would have been looking for a moderate middle ground and the evil communist pinko lib Dems were just looking to block them at any cost with no attempt to ennact legislation of their own.

All i heard in that entire post was...

Originally posted by Skirmisher

I [am a]... evil communist pinko lib Dem

08-02-2005, 11:05 AM
Originally posted by Warriorbird

I don't think I do. I disagree with the "Democratic Party line" in a lot of ways. I disagree with just about ALL of the current Republican party line, however. If gun control and abortion were the only parts of what they said that I disagreed with, I'd be a lot happier. I actually am against gun control, and I think abortion probably should be decided by the states. I support the death penalty quite vigorously. Other issues are what get me angry.

Jumping geewilikers batman!
At least get yer story straight, you closet republican you.

DeV
08-02-2005, 11:13 AM
Originally posted by Dave
All i heard in that entire post was...

Originally posted by Skirmisher

I [am a]... evil communist pinko lib Dem :lol: She must have gone way over your head.

08-02-2005, 11:27 AM
Originally posted by DeV

Originally posted by Dave
All i heard in that entire post was...

Originally posted by Skirmisher

I [am a]... evil communist pinko lib Dem :lol: She must have gone way over your head.

bah go ahead and mess up my joke why dont ya :(

Hulkein
08-02-2005, 02:00 PM
Originally posted by Warriorbird
Uh, Hulkein... I was talking about doing more political volunteerism in my community.

Good, glad you found something to replace the posting of nothing but political jabs at a GS forum.

xtc
08-02-2005, 02:40 PM
I can't say I am surprised by the recess appointment of Bolton as UN ambassador. Stupid move by a stupid man. I am hoping that Bolton will have one of his famous uncontrollable temper tantrums, at the UN, and that the TV cameras pick it up.

BOLTON'S OWN WORDS

"There is no such thing as the United Nations. There is an international community that occasionally can be led by the only real power left in the world and that is the United States when it suits our interest and we can get others to go along.''


The International Face of America

[Edited on 8-2-2005 by xtc]

Delirium
08-02-2005, 02:49 PM
I don't think I do. I disagree with the "Democratic Party line" in a lot of ways. I disagree with just about ALL of the current Republican party line, however. If gun control and abortion were the only parts of what they said that I disagreed with, I'd be a lot happier. I actually am against gun control, and I think abortion probably should be decided by the states. I support the death penalty quite vigorously. Other issues are what get me angry.

That was a good reply, thank you. Id be willing to bet that most of the republicans here would have their disagreements on some issues too tho with their party line. For instance im generally pretty conservative but i think it would do more harm than good if they made abortion illegal. Theres more but im too lazy to think of them now :) The thing i try to remember when someone disagrees with me politically is that it doesnt make them stupid. They want pretty much the same outcome i do. Its the "how to get there" that is the problem.

Warriorbird
08-02-2005, 03:36 PM
"Good, glad you found something to replace the posting of nothing but political jabs at a GS forum. "

-Hulkein

So... what do you add? How is slamming me and responding to something a non conservative posted beneficial? Unless, you know, like me, you like political discourse or something... I doubt it effects people's Bolton opinions so you must care about it.

[Edited on 8-2-2005 by Warriorbird]

Skirmisher
08-02-2005, 03:43 PM
What else anyone could expect WB to post/debate in a political folder?

If his posting is to your disliking you can either disprove him, or ignore the thread, but to not expect political give and take in a political folder is an error.

Hulkein
08-02-2005, 03:55 PM
Originally posted by Skirmisher
What else anyone could expect WB to post/debate in a political folder?

If his posting is to your disliking you can either disprove him, or ignore the thread, but to not expect political give and take in a political folder is an error.

I wasn't referring to his posts here.

If you look at his history of posts (especially in the last six months or so) you'll know what I'm talking about.

To think I was talking solely about this thread or political threads would be an error.

Warriorbird
08-02-2005, 04:03 PM
Chances are you might've forgotten about the relatively recent introduction of this political folder.

Have a nice day!

Hulkein
08-02-2005, 04:09 PM
I'll spell it out for you.

For the past couple months you have been making pretty fucking stupid comments in threads that have absolutely nothing to do with politics.

One thing off the top of my head was CT (I think it was her) saying something about shaving in a thread about shaving, and you replied with something about Republicans.

I'm just glad you'll have a new outlet for your political frustrations, good luck with it.

Warriorbird
08-02-2005, 04:10 PM
I'm not sounding like the one frustrated here. You also seem to have a lot of trouble recognizing my sense of humour. Maybe you ought to not invest so much into someone else's message board conduct.

I'm not remembering the thread in question, but I believe it involved shaving "bush". Not exactly a shockingly inappropriate place for political humour.

[Edited on 8-2-2005 by Warriorbird]

Warriorbird
08-02-2005, 04:15 PM
If anything, you playing "attack dog Hulkein" draws me back into it. What's that have to do with Bolton? Not much, other than perhaps his penchant for hating the organization he's been appointed to.

Hulkein
08-02-2005, 04:16 PM
If me pointing out that a lot of your so called 'jokes' are both off-topic and not funny makes me frustrated, then I'm frustrated.

I'll just go back to ignoring the garbage you post.

[Edited on 8-2-2005 by Hulkein]

Warriorbird
08-02-2005, 04:19 PM
Sort've like a bunch of folks telling racist jokes in a thread wasn't funny to a lot of people? It was, shockingly enough, the Off Topic folder. I think you not paying any attention to me would be an excellent policy for you.

As to the Bolton thing? I think the heat on him will probably die down with the other issues and I'm sure his plans will work. The US has the UN by the economic short hairs.

Skirmisher
08-02-2005, 04:22 PM
I don't think it will die down soon.

I think this may be a larger error when looked back upon in a year or three.

Of course he was elected a second time, so I could be wrong about this as well.

Warriorbird
08-02-2005, 04:23 PM
Oh, I think flouting the UN was an error as well. But a majority of Americans resent it, so it will have to follow or get the heck out've the way.

CrystalTears
08-02-2005, 04:28 PM
The Girl Topic post in question:


Originally posted by Warriorbird
"Waxing is of the wyrm!"

Now I know the problem. Damn Republican Garou! You're supposed to be saving the Earth!

Yeah, it just had to be said like that. Right.

Not that I want to feed this anymore, but I have no problem with the usual political banter. The problem I have here is his are aggresive little jabs at the people who are Republican or voted for Bush, as though they are neanderthals and should be spoken and treated as such, and quite frankly, I was tired of ignoring it and had to say something. He doesn't seem to want to change his tactics and I don't expect him to bother. I'm no one in the grand scheme of things. Although I do have the right to bitch about it.

Incidentally, I wasn't a big fan of Bolton. I felt that Bush could have chosen someone better than someone as rash as him, but that was his decision and apparently not for anyone to change his mind. :shrug:

Warriorbird
08-02-2005, 04:33 PM
:shrugs: Folks on the other side of the coin get similar from Parkbandit and myriad others. I'm sorry people are so sensitive.

Considering the constant barrage of "liberals are terrible" chatter that people face today, there's bound to be some backlash (Quite literally, in this case). We're not all timid Massachusetts denizens.

I'll try to avoid harming people's tender sensibilities. I don't expect I'll get the same in return.