Can no one rid me of this troublesome President?

You didn't complain when Clinton did it. Hypocrite.

What are we talking about?

 

OK, I got a joke for ya -

George W. Bush dies, and somehow gets in heaven. He's looking around, and he sees all these clocks. Some are going kind of fast, some are going slow, and some aren't moving at all. He's confused, so he asks St. Pete "What's with the clocks?" St. Pete says "Well, everyone in heaven has a clock. And every time they tell a lie, their clock ticks one minute." So George looks around again, and he says "Hey, there's Mother Teresa. Her clock hasn't moved at all. And there's Lincoln - he's got a few ticks. And Nixon, he's got a bunch." And then he turns back to St. Pete, and says "Hey, where my clock?" St. Pete says "Jesus is using it for a ceiling fan."

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Apr 5 2007, 12:23 AM) [snapback]418098[/snapback]</div>

This tacic is used by both sides, however your mock outrage is duly noted, and as swiftly as all the rest, ignored. Have a great day!

Wildkow

 

As ever, for the Republicans on here, it boils down to petty partisan arguments. What's with all the moral relativism? Is anything permissible if someone else has done it? Do you have no sense of decency or shame at all?

As far as I can tell, the constitution of the USA to you lot is some sort of arcane lawyerly word game, where the intent of the founders, or even basic common sense, matters not one jot, and it's all about trying to find any loophole you can to "win".

Wake up, fools, this isn't some sort of stupid school football match. This is your government shafting you. Don't stand there and cheer as your team rip up the pitch just because you're wearing their replica shirt.

(And for what it's worth, although I know nothing about it, I'm almost certain Clinton didn't do anything as blatant - every time Republican dittoheads pop up and claim Clinton did the same thing it's not remotely comparable, or it's an outright lie).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Apr 5 2007, 03:23 AM) [snapback]418098[/snapback]</div>

Hmmm, I heard no reason why the Senate committe, particularly Kerry and Dodd, rejected Fox other than because he donated $50,000 to the Swift Boat Veterans who made those ads. So, are they acting in the country's interests, or are they just engaging in a little political revenge? That is just abuse of power, plain and simple.

Can no one rid me of this troublesome Senate?

Remember, the Senate didn't vote down Fox. They never got the chance. Instead, he was denied a vote by a couple of Democrat Senators with an axe to grind.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(cagemo @ Apr 5 2007, 03:41 AM) [snapback]418102[/snapback]</div>

Here's another one. God decides to implement stronger security measures at the gates of heaven, so he tells St. Peter that he must verify the identity of every soul before they pass through the gates. So Albert Einstein dies and goes to heaven, and St. Peter meets him at the gate. He says, "I'm sorry, but we have new security measures in heaven. Can you verify that you are Albert Einstein?" Einstein says, "sure", and asks to borrow a blackboard. He then goes through a detailed explanation of how he derived the theory of relativity. St. Peter examines the equations and, satisified that only Einstein could explain relativity in that much detail, says, "Welcome to Heaven."
Pablo Picasso dies and goes to heaven. St. Peter meets him at the gates and asks him to verify his identity. Picasso says, "sure- can I sketch on that blackboard that Einstein used?" He then draws a sketch of Guernica, and St. Peter, satisified that it is indeed Picasso, says, "Welcome to Heaven."
George W. Bush dies and goes up to the gates. St. Peter meets him and says, "President Bush, you of all people must understand the need for security measures. We have been instructed to institute strict security at the gates of heaven, and I must ask you to prove your identity. We're asking that of everyone- I even made Einstein and Picasso verify their identities.
Bush looks at St. Peter and says, "Who's Einstein and Picasso?"
St. Peter replies, "Welcome to Heaven, George!"

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Apr 5 2007, 03:23 AM) [snapback]418098[/snapback]</div>

What did you expect from El Presidente? You should know how all politicians do things by now. They are all the same these days. We definately need this guy & the V.P. out. I can't wait. One problem: Neither party will do anything for us working class middle classers. We need a 3rd party that's for the People, not big bus., oil cos., & the elites.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Walker1 @ Apr 5 2007, 10:43 AM) [snapback]418161[/snapback]</div>

What do you want done for you working class middle classers?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(KMO @ Apr 5 2007, 09:18 AM) [snapback]418125[/snapback]</div>

In 1999, Bill Clinton made a recess appointment of James Hormel to be the Ambassador of Luxembourg when the Senate did not vote on his nomination.

 

Agreed that Clinton used it lots of times, too--140, to be precise. Most notably, the Hormel appointment. And yes, I do believe he was making a statement with that appointment. He knew that an openly gay man would never be approved by a Republican Senate, so he said "screw it" and did it.

Fox, on the other hand? Seems very partisan to appoint a guy who hates the American military and it's members like that...and Bush has used it 167 times in his six year administration, most of which he did in spite of having a toady Congress until this January. Why? Seriously...why? Perhaps afraid that the truth about some of his nominees will come out? Bush did the same thing with Bolton, remember?

It's unbelievable how much the Right hates Americans, and therefore, America. (Wow--this "talk like a Republican" thing is really easy!)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(livelychick @ Apr 5 2007, 11:17 AM) [snapback]418185[/snapback]</div>

And when a Democrat Senator with a personal axe to grind, along with his buddy, abuse their power by blocking the vote on the nomination of a man because he opposed the Democrat Senator's presidential campaign, Bush said "screw it" and appointed him anyway.

Remember, the Senate didn't reject Fox. They never had a chance to vote on it. The vote was blocked by a Senator with a personal vendetta.

Personally, I think this whole concept of a committee approving a candidate before the vote can go to the full Senate is a bad idea. Sure, have a committee hold hearings and ask questions to get information about the nominee. Let them publish recomendations if they wish. But they shouldn't have the power to block the vote by the full senate.

 

Come on folks, let's not be naive. It's not about the general welfare or the common good. It's not about service to your country. It's all about stuffing your pockets. The guy gave fifty grand to help get Bush elected. So he gets an ambassadorship. That's how the game is played. If you'd given Bush fifty grand, you could have an ambassadorship too.

What do you want? Ambassadors who actually know something about diplomacy or the country they're posted to? Get real! This is America, where Greed is the official state religion and Money is god. If you have money you can buy stuff: a house, a life-saving operation, an ambassadorship. If you don't have money you're a criminal, because in America, being poor is the only real crime. So kvetch and complain all you want. That and two dollars will get you a cup of coffee.

 

They should should think about making these kind of appointments (not that Bush ever gives anything much thought). Sure, ambassadorships are just patronage jobs- presidents of both parties hand them out to their big donors. But an ambassador is supposed to be diplomatic. To appoint someone who is such a devisive figure, who was a major sponsor of a smear campaign against a presidential candidate, is really stupid. Among other things, Bush will be forever regarded as a "divider, not a uniter."

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Marlin @ Apr 5 2007, 11:31 AM) [snapback]418198[/snapback]</div>

Please read the rest of my post (ignoring my sarcasm at the end), and if that doesn't make sense for you, then Michael's. Contributing 50,000 to a campaign or another PAC...okay. But for the Swift Boaters? They were just horrendous. I can't believe anyone would want to support an organization dedicated to slandering a good military record--just because they wanted their man elected. This is a far cry from nominating someone in order to break through a pink ceiling.

I guess he's stickin' to the Bushies. And supporters of the SBV are among the WORST kind.

And once again, Bush has every right to do what he did. Just because he has the right doesn't make his decisions right. And it's become a broken record--double entendre intended.

 

And honestly, i don't think ambassadors really do much anymore. They throw parties and don't pay their speeding tickets. But when it comes down to needing any sort of negotiation or diplomatic presence, the president just picks up the phone.

Now, back 50 years ago ambassadors had a huge job. It wasn't nearly as easy for heads of state to talk and meet as it is today. While i feel it's an abuse of power for any president (Bush OR Clinton) to circumvent the system this way, there are much worse abuses we've seen (lying to the public about Iraq, for one)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(KMO @ Apr 5 2007, 09:18 AM) [snapback]418125[/snapback]</div>

Ummmm, Oh pot to kettle....

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Apr 5 2007, 11:51 AM) [snapback]418211[/snapback]</div>

You are entirely right. Ambassadors don't do much- especially to countries such as France, England, or Belgium. They are patronage positions. Not many big campaign contributors clamor to be ambassador to, say, Sierra Leone, so those positions go to career diplomats.
The Ambassador to Belgium is purely a symbolic position, and what this appointment symbolizes is a president who is arrogant and divisive.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(livelychick @ Apr 5 2007, 08:48 AM) [snapback]418207[/snapback]</div>

You can't? Think again: Neo-conservatives hate draft-dodgers, unless they are fellow neo-conservatives. They love veterans, especially veterans who've seen combat, unless they are democrats, in which case the neo-conservatives are sure the veteran must have done something awful enough to make his service worthless.

How can a neo-conservative support and praise a draft-dodger while slandering a combat veteran? It's easy: George Orwell called it new-think: black is white and white is black. You have to learn it or they'll take away your neo-conservative membership card.

 

Why do we care who is the ambassador to Belgium anyways? Do they have oil?