Are you serious? Assuming he did vote her in despite disagreeing with her ideals and policy ideas (which we can't be certain of in the first place)... That doesn't exactly inspire much confidence in his Change agenda, does it? "Eh, she's qualified - so what if it's more of the same?"
I know, it seems so screamingly obvious I didn't even feel the need to bother addressing it.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
See, it's posters like you(republican supporters, favored the war in 03) who I would expect to agree with his statements....
Because meeting with the leaders of Iran with no preconditions is what Obama wants to do and is getting reamed by McCain and Bush and SlightofJeff for wanting to do so.
Meeting without preconditions is a huge deal as it shows that we will pursue diplomacy first without Iran meeting any requirements. McCain and Bush won't acknowledge Ahmadinejad unless he agrees to everything they are asking first. How is that diplomacy in any way???
To me Obama is just being honest which I know we aren't used to in politics. I would love to hear Nader explain how he would have avoided War when the South seceded, when Pearl Harbor was attacked and Jews were being slaughtered, after 3000 Americans died on 9/11. At all of those points a certain amount of force was necessary like it or not. Iraq is what was never necessary and is why Bush is the worst President of all time.
My guess is that Nader would act aggressively if we were attacked or threatened. If not then he's as much of a failure as Bush because the number one job as president is to protect the people and the country. If we were attacked with no response then what would prevent us from being attacked again???
Obama has made it his intention in every single speech he has given that he wants to reverse the bad name Bush has given this country. How does that sound like a man who is not pursuing diplomacy?
10/31/2000 (****)
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
Are you serious? Assuming he did vote her in despite disagreeing with her ideals and policy ideas (which we can't be certain of in the first place)... That doesn't exactly inspire much confidence in his Change agenda, does it? "Eh, she's qualified - so what if it's more of the same?"
Because that's the fucking point of a Senate confirmation hearing.
You are NOT supposed to vote with whether or not you like the nominee, or agree with his or her beliefs. It is NOT supposed to be partisan.
You are ONLY supposed to vote whether or not she is qualified. That's it.
It isn't an election. It's a vetting process. Didn't you pay attention in civics class?
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
Meeting without preconditions is a huge deal as it shows that we will pursue diplomacy first without Iran meeting any requirements.
But that's the point. Iran needs to meet some requirements. Foremost would be to stop threatening to wipe its neighbors off the map. A cease and desist on supplying arms (and probably fighters) to kill U.S. soldiers in Iraq would probably be another.
Maybe you don't understand the symbolism of one head of state meeting with another.
Usually, when two "enemy" heads of state meet, they've got some sort of pact worked out in advance. These are the "preconditions" everyone has been talking about. If Ahmadinejad isn't willing to hammer those out beforehand, why on Earth would he do them at this great Obama summit?
It would be a meeting for no reason, other than to allow Ahmadinejad to grandstand on the national stage at America's expense. And the fact that Obama doesn't understand how international diplomacy works, and the significance of a U.S. president meeting with the head of another state, is a little frightening.
A sitting U.S. president meeting with Ahmadinejad would lend the perception of legitimacy to his regime. Doing so without preconditions would give him the ability, through his own state-run media, to spin the meeting however he wants.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
I know, it seems so screamingly obvious I didn't even feel the need to bother addressing it.
Actually My2Hands is right. Its not up to Congress to appoint the Secretary of State it's part of being President. She had both the experience and the knowledge to serve as that post whether we agree with her on the issues or not.
If Nader was to become president he could appoint whomever he wants to that post and as long as they are qualified they will be accepted whether the Republicans in congress agreed with the Person's policies or not.
I think the fact that Codi Rice received only 13 no votes which was the most since 1825 shows how little congress fights on appointments.
10/31/2000 (****)
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
I really want to know, who here supports McCain? Don't be afraid to speak up.
I support him only because Obama is worse.
I would probably count myself in the same boat.
I actually like many of his foreign policy points, but much of his domestic agenda makes me want to hold my nose. Then there's the simple fact that I don't think anyone really knows what McCain we're going to get. He's been all over the map, in order to prove he's a maverick, that it's hard to get a pinpoint on where he actually stands on many issues.
This will probably be one of those "better than the alternative" votes.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
I think that if you disagree with the things she has done throughout her time in the Bush admin then that should disqualify her for the position.
It doesn't matter what you think. Those aren't in the powers prescribed to Congress in the constitution. If you'd like to get to work on a Constitutional amendment, be my guest.
It's the president's job to appoint his cabinet, not Congress's. Blame the Founding Fathers.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
Because meeting with the leaders of Iran with no preconditions is what Obama wants to do and is getting reamed by McCain and Bush and SlightofJeff for wanting to do so.
Meeting without preconditions is a huge deal as it shows that we will pursue diplomacy first without Iran meeting any requirements. McCain and Bush won't acknowledge Ahmadinejad unless he agrees to everything they are asking first. How is that diplomacy in any way???
To me Obama is just being honest which I know we aren't used to in politics. I would love to hear Nader explain how he would have avoided War when the South seceded, when Pearl Harbor was attacked and Jews were being slaughtered, after 3000 Americans died on 9/11. At all of those points a certain amount of force was necessary like it or not. Iraq is what was never necessary and is why Bush is the worst President of all time.
My guess is that Nader would act aggressively if we were attacked or threatened. If not then he's as much of a failure as Bush because the number one job as president is to protect the people and the country. If we were attacked with no response then what would prevent us from being attacked again???
Obama has made it his intention in every single speech he has given that he wants to reverse the bad name Bush has given this country. How does that sound like a man who is not pursuing diplomacy?
Do you think Iran is going to ever attack us? Seriously?
And so what Obama says he wants to reverse the bad name Bush has given this country? His foreign policy plans say otherwise. And as I already stated, Bush ran on things like 'no nation building' during his campaign, too....so these pretty campaign promises don't mean too much...especially when your voting record can speak for you.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
It doesn't matter what you think. Those aren't in the powers prescribed to Congress in the constitution. If you'd like to get to work on a Constitutional amendment, be my guest.
It's the president's job to appoint his cabinet, not Congress's. Blame the Founding Fathers.
Then why have a vote? Why not have a list of requirements and if she meets them then she's good. How does it take all of Congress to decide this? That makes no sense.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Actually My2Hands is right. Its not up to Congress to appoint the Secretary of State it's part of being President. She had both the experience and the knowledge to serve as that post whether we agree with her on the issues or not.
If Nader was to become president he could appoint whomever he wants to that post and as long as they are qualified they will be accepted whether the Republicans in congress agreed with the Person's policies or not.
I think the fact that Codi Rice received only 13 no votes which was the most since 1825 shows how little congress fights on appointments.
Why even have a vote if there was only one clear way to go? I mean, if it's all about qualifications then one only needs to be able to read a resume and hire accordingly. What is the purpose of having a Congress be allowed to vote on these matters if their individual input was not needed?
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Because that's the fucking point of a Senate confirmation hearing.
You are NOT supposed to vote with whether or not you like the nominee, or agree with his or her beliefs. It is NOT supposed to be partisan.
You are ONLY supposed to vote whether or not she is qualified. That's it.
It isn't an election. It's a vetting process. Didn't you pay attention in civics class?
Sorry if Irish civics classes don't cover American non-elections. Come to think of it, they barely cover Irish politics.
But, yeah, I'd say if you don't agree with her ideals and policies, then you shouldn't really consider her qualified. And if your vote doesn't matter in the end anyway, why not make your opinion known?
Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
Sorry if Irish civics classes don't cover American non-elections. Come to think of it, they barely cover Irish politics.
But, yeah, I'd say if you don't agree with her ideals and policies, then you shouldn't really consider her qualified. And if your vote doesn't matter in the end anyway, why not make your opinion known?
I guess 13 people did.
Sorry for my brusqueness. I didn't realize you were Irish, and therefore probably too drunk to understand American politics anyway. (I kid, I kid).
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
Then why have a vote? Why not have a list of requirements and if she meets them then she's good. How does it take all of Congress to decide this? That makes no sense.
It's part of the checks and balances outlined in the Constitution. To prevent the president from nominating his best friend Joe from college, who is now working behind the counter at Starbucks, to be Secretary of the Treasury.
But tet's flip it around: If Congress could vote down any candidate they didn't agree with philosophically, why have the president bother to appoint anyone?
Whatever candidate the president appoints is obviously going to reflect his ideals, goals and values. So an opposition Congress would kick back every single nominee.
One of the perks of being elected president is you get to choose your cabinet. Congress just gets to make sure that person is qualified to hold public office.
Checks and balances, checks and balances.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
Do you think Iran is going to ever attack us? Seriously?
And so what Obama says he wants to reverse the bad name Bush has given this country? His foreign policy plans say otherwise. And as I already stated, Bush ran on things like 'no nation building' during his campaign, too....so these pretty campaign promises don't mean too much...especially when your voting record can speak for you.
I didn't say they will attack us. Which is why I don't think Obama will lead us to war with Iran. I think he will work to get diplomatically at gaining peace in the Middle East much like Clinton attempted to do. I don't know if it will be successful but that will be his attempt.
All I'm saying is that he has every right to leave war on the table if they develop nukes and threaten to use them on Israel or any other country. If they don't do that Obama won't go to war. Simple as that.
10/31/2000 (****)
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
No, they are going to attack Israel. Do you not care?
And that makes so much sense!!! If I were Iran that's exactly what I'd do, too! I'd attack a country with a stockpile of nukes and various other weapons that also has a history of completely destroying other countries when they felt like it and is always 100% backed by the world's only superpower who also happens to be armed to the teeth while me being Iran doesn't even have 1 nuke to my name!!!!!!
Perfect logic there!
Cut off Fox News sometime.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Even if one has absolutely no intention of going to war, it makes no sense to tell one's opponent as much. Governments usually take the "all options are on the table" stance. Why would one wish to go into negotiations having said "But don't worry, we'd never attack you!"?
No, they are going to attack Israel. Do you not care?
I don't see Iran attacking Israel anytime soon. Israel have enough firepower, nuclear and otherwise, to make that fairly unlikely, even if it's not completely unimaginable. But let's say Iran did attack - would you support the U.S. getting involved?
Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
I didn't say they will attack us. Which is why I don't think Obama will lead us to war with Iran. I think he will work to get diplomatically at gaining peace in the Middle East much like Clinton attempted to do. I don't know if it will be successful but that will be his attempt.
All I'm saying is that he has every right to leave war on the table if they develop nukes and threaten to use them on Israel or any other country. If they don't do that Obama won't go to war. Simple as that.
So Iran is less of a country than the US or Israel then? Because we are allowed to have nukes, our allies are allowed to have nukes but everyone else is open to be bombed to bits if they dare act like they can do what we do????
And yes, that is pre-emptive war...no different than McCain or Bush on the matter.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
And that makes so much sense!!! If I were Iran that's exactly what I'd do, too! I'd attack a country with a stockpile of nukes and various other weapons that also has a history of completely destroying other countries when they felt like it and is always 100% backed by the world's only superpower who also happens to be armed to the teeth while me being Iran doesn't even have 1 nuke to my name!!!!!!
Perfect logic there!
Cut off Fox News sometime.
I have to plead ignorance on this... What countries has Israel destroyed? I know they have had war with Palistine and the Arab nation since 1947 but I do not know of countries that have been destroyed.
10/31/2000 (****)
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
Even if one has absolutely no intention of going to war, it makes no sense to tell one's opponent as much. Governments usually take the "all options are on the table" stance. Why would one wish to go into negotiations having said "But don't worry, we'd never attack you!"?
A world full of animosity, fear and looking over one's shoulder constantly thinking someone is out to get us is what creates the problem we see in this world.
Threatening people doesn't not take away their contempt, it builds on it.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I have to plead ignorance on this... What countries has Israel destroyed? I know they have had war with Palistine and the Arab nation since 1947 but I do not know of countries that have been destroyed.
I think she meant "kicked their asses" rather than destroyed, but yeah, that is an important distinction.
I have to plead ignorance on this... What countries has Israel destroyed? I know they have had war with Palistine and the Arab nation since 1947 but I do not know of countries that have been destroyed.
Lebanon and Palestine.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
A world full of animosity, fear and looking over one's shoulder constantly thinking someone is out to get us is what creates the problem we see in this world.
Threatening people doesn't not take away their contempt, it builds on it.
There's a difference between direct threats (which I don't generally believe in) and showing all of one's cards, though.
Comments
I know, it seems so screamingly obvious I didn't even feel the need to bother addressing it.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I felt bad saying it. I usually need you to say things first, so that I can just agree with you.
Because meeting with the leaders of Iran with no preconditions is what Obama wants to do and is getting reamed by McCain and Bush and SlightofJeff for wanting to do so.
Meeting without preconditions is a huge deal as it shows that we will pursue diplomacy first without Iran meeting any requirements. McCain and Bush won't acknowledge Ahmadinejad unless he agrees to everything they are asking first. How is that diplomacy in any way???
To me Obama is just being honest which I know we aren't used to in politics. I would love to hear Nader explain how he would have avoided War when the South seceded, when Pearl Harbor was attacked and Jews were being slaughtered, after 3000 Americans died on 9/11. At all of those points a certain amount of force was necessary like it or not. Iraq is what was never necessary and is why Bush is the worst President of all time.
My guess is that Nader would act aggressively if we were attacked or threatened. If not then he's as much of a failure as Bush because the number one job as president is to protect the people and the country. If we were attacked with no response then what would prevent us from being attacked again???
Obama has made it his intention in every single speech he has given that he wants to reverse the bad name Bush has given this country. How does that sound like a man who is not pursuing diplomacy?
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
Because that's the fucking point of a Senate confirmation hearing.
You are NOT supposed to vote with whether or not you like the nominee, or agree with his or her beliefs. It is NOT supposed to be partisan.
You are ONLY supposed to vote whether or not she is qualified. That's it.
It isn't an election. It's a vetting process. Didn't you pay attention in civics class?
for the least they could possibly do
But that's the point. Iran needs to meet some requirements. Foremost would be to stop threatening to wipe its neighbors off the map. A cease and desist on supplying arms (and probably fighters) to kill U.S. soldiers in Iraq would probably be another.
Maybe you don't understand the symbolism of one head of state meeting with another.
Usually, when two "enemy" heads of state meet, they've got some sort of pact worked out in advance. These are the "preconditions" everyone has been talking about. If Ahmadinejad isn't willing to hammer those out beforehand, why on Earth would he do them at this great Obama summit?
It would be a meeting for no reason, other than to allow Ahmadinejad to grandstand on the national stage at America's expense. And the fact that Obama doesn't understand how international diplomacy works, and the significance of a U.S. president meeting with the head of another state, is a little frightening.
A sitting U.S. president meeting with Ahmadinejad would lend the perception of legitimacy to his regime. Doing so without preconditions would give him the ability, through his own state-run media, to spin the meeting however he wants.
for the least they could possibly do
I think that if you disagree with the things she has done throughout her time in the Bush admin then that should disqualify her for the position.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Actually My2Hands is right. Its not up to Congress to appoint the Secretary of State it's part of being President. She had both the experience and the knowledge to serve as that post whether we agree with her on the issues or not.
If Nader was to become president he could appoint whomever he wants to that post and as long as they are qualified they will be accepted whether the Republicans in congress agreed with the Person's policies or not.
I think the fact that Codi Rice received only 13 no votes which was the most since 1825 shows how little congress fights on appointments.
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
I would probably count myself in the same boat.
I actually like many of his foreign policy points, but much of his domestic agenda makes me want to hold my nose. Then there's the simple fact that I don't think anyone really knows what McCain we're going to get. He's been all over the map, in order to prove he's a maverick, that it's hard to get a pinpoint on where he actually stands on many issues.
This will probably be one of those "better than the alternative" votes.
for the least they could possibly do
It doesn't matter what you think. Those aren't in the powers prescribed to Congress in the constitution. If you'd like to get to work on a Constitutional amendment, be my guest.
It's the president's job to appoint his cabinet, not Congress's. Blame the Founding Fathers.
for the least they could possibly do
Do you think Iran is going to ever attack us? Seriously?
And so what Obama says he wants to reverse the bad name Bush has given this country? His foreign policy plans say otherwise. And as I already stated, Bush ran on things like 'no nation building' during his campaign, too....so these pretty campaign promises don't mean too much...especially when your voting record can speak for you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Then why have a vote? Why not have a list of requirements and if she meets them then she's good. How does it take all of Congress to decide this? That makes no sense.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
So how could those people vote no? http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_member.php?cs_id=V3447
Why even have a vote if there was only one clear way to go? I mean, if it's all about qualifications then one only needs to be able to read a resume and hire accordingly. What is the purpose of having a Congress be allowed to vote on these matters if their individual input was not needed?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Sorry if Irish civics classes don't cover American non-elections. Come to think of it, they barely cover Irish politics.
But, yeah, I'd say if you don't agree with her ideals and policies, then you shouldn't really consider her qualified. And if your vote doesn't matter in the end anyway, why not make your opinion known?
No, they are going to attack Israel. Do you not care?
for the least they could possibly do
I guess 13 people did.
Sorry for my brusqueness. I didn't realize you were Irish, and therefore probably too drunk to understand American politics anyway.
for the least they could possibly do
Sometimes I think being drunk is the only way to understand politics.
It's part of the checks and balances outlined in the Constitution. To prevent the president from nominating his best friend Joe from college, who is now working behind the counter at Starbucks, to be Secretary of the Treasury.
But tet's flip it around: If Congress could vote down any candidate they didn't agree with philosophically, why have the president bother to appoint anyone?
Whatever candidate the president appoints is obviously going to reflect his ideals, goals and values. So an opposition Congress would kick back every single nominee.
One of the perks of being elected president is you get to choose your cabinet. Congress just gets to make sure that person is qualified to hold public office.
Checks and balances, checks and balances.
for the least they could possibly do
Have you ever tried the John McCain "my friends" drinking game? Holeee shit.
for the least they could possibly do
I didn't say they will attack us. Which is why I don't think Obama will lead us to war with Iran. I think he will work to get diplomatically at gaining peace in the Middle East much like Clinton attempted to do. I don't know if it will be successful but that will be his attempt.
All I'm saying is that he has every right to leave war on the table if they develop nukes and threaten to use them on Israel or any other country. If they don't do that Obama won't go to war. Simple as that.
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
And that makes so much sense!!! If I were Iran that's exactly what I'd do, too! I'd attack a country with a stockpile of nukes and various other weapons that also has a history of completely destroying other countries when they felt like it and is always 100% backed by the world's only superpower who also happens to be armed to the teeth while me being Iran doesn't even have 1 nuke to my name!!!!!!
Perfect logic there!
Cut off Fox News sometime.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I'll add it to the list of drinking games, in between My Sharona and Roxanne.
Anyways: *thread integrity*.
I don't see Iran attacking Israel anytime soon. Israel have enough firepower, nuclear and otherwise, to make that fairly unlikely, even if it's not completely unimaginable. But let's say Iran did attack - would you support the U.S. getting involved?
So Iran is less of a country than the US or Israel then? Because we are allowed to have nukes, our allies are allowed to have nukes but everyone else is open to be bombed to bits if they dare act like they can do what we do????
And yes, that is pre-emptive war...no different than McCain or Bush on the matter.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
But truly, though ... In this case, he's right.
I have to plead ignorance on this... What countries has Israel destroyed? I know they have had war with Palistine and the Arab nation since 1947 but I do not know of countries that have been destroyed.
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
A world full of animosity, fear and looking over one's shoulder constantly thinking someone is out to get us is what creates the problem we see in this world.
Threatening people doesn't not take away their contempt, it builds on it.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I think she meant "kicked their asses" rather than destroyed, but yeah, that is an important distinction.
Lebanon and Palestine.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
There's a difference between direct threats (which I don't generally believe in) and showing all of one's cards, though.
I guess it's all relative.
I think the word destruction fits nicely.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde