Originally posted by BookerT:I didn't realize that you & Allen were Indian. What tribe is Allen? Is he Chickasaw or Sioux?
even though it means going against a member of the tribe. allen really is the worst.
Did you vote?
Originally posted by Surly Bonds:Californian.
Originally posted by BookerT:I didn't realize that you & Allen were Indian. What tribe is Allen? Is he Chickasaw or Sioux?
even though it means going against a member of the tribe. allen really is the worst.
It would be a bold move on the part of Democratic controlled House to vote for the impeachment of Bush, however probably not the correct course of action given how already divided the country is. The Democrats had better be working non stop at producing a credible Presidential candidate. The country doesn't need to run any longer by the likes Karl Roves and his band of thugs.
Originally posted by kosmo vinyl:the democrats in the house will not vote for the impeachment of bush. they will keep towards the center so as to not offend the conservatives that voted against the war and ties to abramoff going into 2008.
It would be a bold move on the part of Democratic controlled House to vote for the impeachment of Bush, however probably not the correct course of action given how already divided the country is. The Democrats had better be working non stop at producing a credible Presidential candidate. The country doesn't need to run any longer by the likes Karl Roves and his band of thugs.
RUMSFELD IS OUT!!!
this is turning out to be one fuck of a week :)
this is turning out to be one fuck of a week :)
Oh snap, just like clockwork…CNN is reporting that Donald Rumsfeld is stepping down.
Wow.
The candidates with the dumbest names were both in DC:
Tommy Thomas
Robert Bobb
Tommy Thomas
Robert Bobb
Originally posted by Sir HC:
I got to vote with the candidate with the greatest name:
http://www.calvinballteam.com/
If you are not for calvinball you must be against fun.
what about that guy Dick Woodcock? i forget where he was from , but oh man, thats a bad one!
Originally posted by Weird Little Self Loathing Man:robert bobb was city manager in richmond back in the 1980s.
Robert Bobb
Voted:
Senate - Webb (George Allen is the biggest sleaze ball I have ever met)…
House - Cantor (Because of my own lack of effort to obtain any knowledge of the race I knew nothing about the opposition. While Canton is not one of my favorite politicians, I couldnâ??t vote for an unknown quantity over him.)
Marriage Amendment - No (This was a poorly written amendment, it actually contained two issues. While I would have voted Yes had it been solely M/F marriage only, because it contained wording to prohibit any chance of granting any of the rights now associated with marriage to non-married couple, I voted No. IMHO this whole thing isnâ??t really about marriage, itâ??s about those rights. The problem is that while many of the 'rights of marriage' should be such, a large number of them really should not be attached to marriage. I could go on but you get the idea.)
Church Incorporation - Yes (Really a moot point since the wording that is being dropped has been ruled unconstitutional.)
Tax Break - No (Sorry but the folks who spend their money on that sort of thing already have enough tax breaks.)
Having said all that, I really hope that at least one party gives us candidates that are worth a crap in the 2008 presidential election. I am not concerned what the label is next to a candidates name or the colors they are on a map. The choices we have had recently were pretty damn useless. Maybe by just dumb luck we will get some decent choices for a change!
Senate - Webb (George Allen is the biggest sleaze ball I have ever met)…
House - Cantor (Because of my own lack of effort to obtain any knowledge of the race I knew nothing about the opposition. While Canton is not one of my favorite politicians, I couldnâ??t vote for an unknown quantity over him.)
Marriage Amendment - No (This was a poorly written amendment, it actually contained two issues. While I would have voted Yes had it been solely M/F marriage only, because it contained wording to prohibit any chance of granting any of the rights now associated with marriage to non-married couple, I voted No. IMHO this whole thing isnâ??t really about marriage, itâ??s about those rights. The problem is that while many of the 'rights of marriage' should be such, a large number of them really should not be attached to marriage. I could go on but you get the idea.)
Church Incorporation - Yes (Really a moot point since the wording that is being dropped has been ruled unconstitutional.)
Tax Break - No (Sorry but the folks who spend their money on that sort of thing already have enough tax breaks.)
Having said all that, I really hope that at least one party gives us candidates that are worth a crap in the 2008 presidential election. I am not concerned what the label is next to a candidates name or the colors they are on a map. The choices we have had recently were pretty damn useless. Maybe by just dumb luck we will get some decent choices for a change!
Originally posted by Weird Little Self Loathing Man:Erhlich Cox. Say if fast 10 times.
The candidates with the dumbest names were both in DC:
Tommy Thomas
Robert Bobb
Originally posted by Sir HC:
I got to vote with the candidate with the greatest name:
http://www.calvinballteam.com/
If you are not for calvinball you must be against fun.
Originally posted by Alex:Before you get too excited, few things have changed:
Oh snap, just like clockwork…CNN is reporting that Donald Rumsfeld is stepping down.
The President tries to reappoint Bolton to the UN before the Democrats take over the Senate
Originally posted by vansmack:<img src="http://www.songwritershalloffame.org/asset/award_recipient/58_img_large.jpg" alt=" - " />
Before you get too excited, few things have changed:
The President tries to reappoint Michael Bolton to the UN before the Democrats take over the Senate
Excellent.
Originally posted by vansmack:not happening…
Originally posted by Alex:Before you get too excited, few things have changed:
Oh snap, just like clockwork…CNN is reporting that Donald Rumsfeld is stepping down.
The President tries to reappoint Bolton to the UN before the Democrats take over the Senate
A big Thank You for voting.
<img src="http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y25/team_dupek/195fdc04.jpg" alt=" - " />
HUMUNGUS FOR GOVERNOR
HUMUNGUS FOR GOVERNOR
Originally posted by HoyaSaxa08:It wasn't about him getting the appointment, it was the fact that while Bush had Pelosi in his office to talk about working together and being bipartisan, he asks the lame duck Senate to approve Bolton, which they couldn't get done with a Republican controlled Senate, and there is no way it will happen in January.
not happening…
So before everyone starts thinking that the President got the message loud and clear from the voters and fired Rummy, let's take a step back and think about who we're talking about here. He only hear's one voice - Dick Cheney's.
From the Chicago Tribune-
Confirm John Bolton
Published November 14, 2006
Even as President Bush and Democrats cheerfully chatted about "working together" after last week's power-shifting election, an old fight was resuming over Senate confirmation of United Nations Ambassador John Bolton.
Bolton has been in the job for 15 months, but he has been working under a recess appointment made by President Bush while Congress was out of session. Bush took that path after Democrats blocked a floor vote on Bolton's confirmation. A majority of the Senate appeared ready to support Bolton, but there weren't quite 60 votes to end a Democratic filibuster.
In the interim, Bolton has proved he doesn't have horns. In fact, he has answered any questions about whether he has the right temperament and diplomatic skills for the job. He has worked to build consensus on the world's response to North Korea's nuclear test, Iran's nuclear program, the Middle East conflict and genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan.
He also has won over a key critic. Sen. George Voinovich, an Ohio Republican who voted against Bolton in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, announced in July that he would support the nomination now.
But Bolton looks like he will be a casualty of the coming Democratic takeover of the Senate. His recess appointment expires when the next Congress convenes in January. President Bush has resubmitted Bolton's nomination, hoping for a vote this week. But Democrats won't budge. "I think we should go to the things that we can work together on," Sen. Harry Reid said (D-Nev.) on Sunday.
In other words, the "bipartisanship" rhetoric didn't even survive a week.
Bolton has played the role of a proper diplomat, but he has also been blunt about the tremendous need for UN reform in the wake of the oil-for-food scandal and the world body's continued coddling of police states on agencies such as the Commission on Human Rights.
Bolton should be blunt about UN reform, a message the body doesn't like to hear. Such distinguished past ambassadors as Democratic Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Republican Jeanne Kirkpatrick also were criticized for tough talk on occasion, even when their passion proved to be right on point.
It is a bad time to have uncertainty about U.S. leadership at the UN, with matters such as Iran and North Korea before the body. If Democrats want to put some heft behind their post-election rhetoric about working with the White House, they will recognize that Bolton has proved himself in the job. And they will allow the Senate to vote on his confirmation.
Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune
Confirm John Bolton
Published November 14, 2006
Even as President Bush and Democrats cheerfully chatted about "working together" after last week's power-shifting election, an old fight was resuming over Senate confirmation of United Nations Ambassador John Bolton.
Bolton has been in the job for 15 months, but he has been working under a recess appointment made by President Bush while Congress was out of session. Bush took that path after Democrats blocked a floor vote on Bolton's confirmation. A majority of the Senate appeared ready to support Bolton, but there weren't quite 60 votes to end a Democratic filibuster.
In the interim, Bolton has proved he doesn't have horns. In fact, he has answered any questions about whether he has the right temperament and diplomatic skills for the job. He has worked to build consensus on the world's response to North Korea's nuclear test, Iran's nuclear program, the Middle East conflict and genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan.
He also has won over a key critic. Sen. George Voinovich, an Ohio Republican who voted against Bolton in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, announced in July that he would support the nomination now.
But Bolton looks like he will be a casualty of the coming Democratic takeover of the Senate. His recess appointment expires when the next Congress convenes in January. President Bush has resubmitted Bolton's nomination, hoping for a vote this week. But Democrats won't budge. "I think we should go to the things that we can work together on," Sen. Harry Reid said (D-Nev.) on Sunday.
In other words, the "bipartisanship" rhetoric didn't even survive a week.
Bolton has played the role of a proper diplomat, but he has also been blunt about the tremendous need for UN reform in the wake of the oil-for-food scandal and the world body's continued coddling of police states on agencies such as the Commission on Human Rights.
Bolton should be blunt about UN reform, a message the body doesn't like to hear. Such distinguished past ambassadors as Democratic Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Republican Jeanne Kirkpatrick also were criticized for tough talk on occasion, even when their passion proved to be right on point.
It is a bad time to have uncertainty about U.S. leadership at the UN, with matters such as Iran and North Korea before the body. If Democrats want to put some heft behind their post-election rhetoric about working with the White House, they will recognize that Bolton has proved himself in the job. And they will allow the Senate to vote on his confirmation.
Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune
Are we just going to move our email conversation to the board? Fine.
Not one mention of his opposition to the U.N. doctrine of humanitarian intervention (Kofiâ??s "responsibility to protect" doctrine) ensuring the Security Council authorizes military action and forces U.N. members to accept greater responsibility when they â??interveneâ? in countries where atrocities are taking place.
Some folks call it the â??so Iraq doesnâ??t happen againâ? doctrine.
Not one mention of his opposition to the U.N. doctrine of humanitarian intervention (Kofiâ??s "responsibility to protect" doctrine) ensuring the Security Council authorizes military action and forces U.N. members to accept greater responsibility when they â??interveneâ? in countries where atrocities are taking place.
Some folks call it the â??so Iraq doesnâ??t happen againâ? doctrine.