Printable View
Complain? More of an observation, I'm used to your republican attack dog tactics. Since you swallow the right wing stuff whole, 100%, completely unprocessed, I don't for a minute buy your libertarian line. Doesn't really matter for me who you claim to have voted for.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
Kettle, meet pot... Anyhoo back to the topic...
The only reason liberals oppose Bolton is that they don't want change from the UN's ineffective way of doing business. Heaven forbid that someone goes to the UN and actually points out the curroption and inneffectiveness of this world body.
Seems like everyone dosent agree with youQuote:
Since you swallow the right wing stuff whole, 100%, completely unprocessed, I don't for a minute buy your libertarian line. Doesn't really matter for me who you claim to have voted for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kagemusha
Gawain you shoul stop beeing the president of Conservative Club.When i read your posts here i think You ,Don and Devastating Dave are more moderate then conservatives.
Thats all I ask of you by the way. ~;)Quote:
What i mean,is that you reason your arguments.You are not extremist.
I can't speak for "liberals" but I'm opposed to putting anyone with such poor judgement into such an important post. I don't believe that his stated views (in the public record) are conducive to successful reform of the institution. I actually want reform of the U.N., but from what I've seen of Dubya and his appointee, I don't believe either is qualified to do it. The "go it alone" approach makes no sense in trying to enact reforms of such a large international body. Someone who attempts to have an analyst fired for honesty, and who has an established history of bullying people is not a good choice for an important diplomatic post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
Once more enough of your accusations back what you claim up for once.Quote:
Someone who attempts to have an analyst fired for honesty, and who has an established history of bullying people is not a good choice for an important diplomatic post.
Did you not pay any attention to the quotes that were made during the confirmation hearings? Would requoting them change your mind? Go waste your own time doing it. Might be good for you to broaden your horizons. I'm fairly certain they are still out there, one of my own old threads had one of the links.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Dubya= President Bush right? The man that was elected and is Constitutionally in his right to appoint who he wants to appoint correct? Case closed, build a bridge and get over it... If you feel so strongly about it send a check to the dems over here and some suggestions on how to win an election with ideas and actual plans, not just snippish name calling, obstructionist tactics, and overplayed hyprhole rhetoric, then again, I don't see much coming from you besides the same snippish name calling, obstructionist tactics, and overplayed hyprhole rhetoric. I guess its too difficult for people with such ingrained ideological biases to change, no matter where they are located geographically. Lucky for me, my side keeps winning over here!!! ~D
Hmmm, and I thought we were discussing whether or not he was a good choice. Obviously those representing 48% of us felt otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
Did you vote in the last election? Its an unfortunate thing to not win an election. But that's just the way it is. Don't worry though, you guys still have your courts to run to when you need to overrun the will of the people... BTW, I thought you were Brittish?
Again and again we hear this argument... Step 1: Make a wild or sweeping claim. Step 2: When asked to back it up, claim it's a waste of time and 'I know what I know and don't need to prove anything to anybody'. If that works for you, fine- but don't expect other people to buy into what your saying if you're not willing to defend your statements. ~:handball:Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
The only hard evidence you have presented on Bolton..... Why should we believe this was anything other than an oversight? How many hundreds of pages are the questionaires that nominees fill out? I remember hearing Robert's was 157 pages or some such.... What did he have to gain by "lying" as you put it? He was asked a couple of questions by an investigator, don't you think its possible to overlook then when filling out a mammoth questionaire? Are you positive it was a deliberate lie?Quote:
I posted a link about his lying...oops, failing to answer accurately on his application if he had been involved in any investigations. Despite the investigation being fairly recent he claims he forgot and would "correct his application." I didn't realize we could revise job applications after the fact once "errors" had been discovered...
I voted, but I'm in Texas, so there wasn't much point. Still don't see what that has to do with Bolton...Quote:
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
Don't think the brits would take me, my teeth are in too good of a condition. See ~D
Good one!!! ~:cheers:Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
i feel your pain, I live in Illinois and this state has more dead people voting democrat than anywhere. In fact Abraham Lincoln voted for Kerry this last election...
You're almost at 3000!!! LOL
No, it's more the standard operation of the Backroom with the right wingers in pack attack mode. Seriously irks me especially the way the comments are couched, and I don't feel I have to justify every damned thing I say with a link. I know the info is out there as I've read it months ago. I'm not out reading the BS blogs that some quote, I'm looking at mainstream sources. If you folks aren't seeing some of the same and act as if several month old stuff like that is a "wild or sweeping claim" then you must be living under a rock.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Considering the process and the implications, I would be very careful answering the questionaires if it were me. Overlook it? Lie or not? I don't know, I was having a bit of fun with the wording, and gave the various spins: PRO *AND* CON. Not just one side. Personally, I don't see how he could make such a mistake of omisision. It's not like he had a bunch of investigations to keep straight and forgot to mention one--he had a single one and didn't mention it. Talking to an investigator about an investigation that was still making headlines from time to time would seem to be something an average person would remember. To flip your question: Why should I believe it was not a lie? Seems too convenient and a way to avoid questioning.Quote:
The only hard evidence you have presented on Bolton..... Why should we believe this was anything other than an oversight? How many hundreds of pages are the questionaires that nominees fill out? I remember hearing Robert's was 157 pages or some such.... What did he have to gain by "lying" as you put it? He was asked a couple of questions by an investigator, don't you think its possible to overlook then when filling out a mammoth questionaire? Are you positive it was a deliberate lie?
I don't see why it matters that much, the US wasn't going to be doing much with the UN anyhow.
The arguments presented in favor of Bolton:Quote:
The only thing I've heard from the other side of the political spectrum is that Bolton likes yes-men and wanting personel success too much.
Could you back that up with, I dunno, something more concrete than posts on a gaming forum?
It appears that they can't go beyond the talking points doesnt it?
Quote:
He has held governmental office
Quote:
Bolton is a strong critic of the UN
Quote:
stick it to them.
Quote:
Bolton is the man, you hear his rendition of when a man loves a woman.
Better than the reasons against him, huh?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
Nope, and certainly not good enough to accuse the other side of not being able to go beyond talking points.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Have they? Redleg outlined his experience nicely, and he shares the presidents views about UN reform and what roles it should have in the world. The president chose him as a nominee and, if it had been allowed to come to a vote, he would've been confirmed by the majority of the Senate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
What've you got? He was a mean boss? I didn't know that disqualified someone from working in government.
And only accustaions that he was a mean boss at that. Hey Didnt Madame Hillary fire the entire whitehouse travel staff. Talk about mean bosses. ~DQuote:
What've you got? He was a mean boss? I didn't know that disqualified someone from working in government.
http://home.earthlink.net/~dare2b/hillary.jpg
Yes Ive posted it twice. Is it any wonder Bill cheated. ~;)
Reminds me of Arnold on Mars.