It is not about the UN, it is about Bolton

Current Events » in reply to re: Bolton is a really bad choice

It is not about the UN, it is about Bolton

alcaray — 5/26/2005 4:34:21 PM (archived)

The whole thread (81 posts)

Support John Bolton - gbaikie - 5/26/2005 8:10:58 AM
- It's about Bush, continued... - Tom Brosz - 5/28/2005 11:24:01 PM
- Bolton is a really bad choice - alcaray - 5/26/2005 4:05:55 PM
  - A list of former U.N. ambassadors - Tom Brosz - 5/26/2005 6:26:17 PM
  - re: Bolton is a really bad choice - p - 5/26/2005 4:15:55 PM
    - It is not about the UN, it is about Bolton (n/t) - alcaray - 5/26/2005 4:34:21 PM
      - Actually, no, it's about Bush. - Tom Brosz - 5/26/2005 6:10:12 PM
        
        Someone who would manufacture a bioweapons case against Cuba... - alcaray - 5/26/2005 8:45:50 PM
        
        re: Actually, no, it's about Bolton. - Mary Anne - 5/26/2005 6:52:40 PM
        
        Not according to the Democrats - Sam F. - 5/28/2005 10:52:34 PM
        
        First, your source is the "Washington Times", where Democrats are an endangered species. - Mary Anne - 5/29/2005 4:49:08 PM
        
        Oh no, you can't really meant that. You just can't have. - Sam F. - 5/29/2005 6:10:06 PM
        
        Curses. I really didn't mean (to do) that! - Sam F. - 5/29/2005 6:14:27 PM
        
        A technical hint - Mary Anne - 5/29/2005 7:14:45 PM
        
        Yeah, the UN members have been real diplomatic with Bush! (n/t) - SDAI-Tech1 - 5/27/2005 2:30:34 AM
        
        And your point is...? - Mary Anne - 5/27/2005 3:10:40 AM
        
        It isn't about bending over and taking it from people whose bills we are paying, either. (n/t) - Tom Brosz - 5/27/2005 6:43:43 AM
        
        You mean we aren't in arrears anymore? (n/t) - Mary Anne - 5/27/2005 3:21:15 PM
        
        You want to tally it up since the organization was founded? (n/t) - Tom Brosz - 5/27/2005 6:51:10 PM
        
        Are we that badly in debt to them? (n/t) - alcaray - 5/27/2005 7:04:45 PM
        
        Who else does that work with? - Mary Anne - 5/27/2005 7:01:59 PM
        
        Australia - Tom Brosz - 5/28/2005 3:22:05 AM
        
        Diplomats are not diplomatic. - SDAI-Tech1 - 5/27/2005 4:39:19 AM
        
        So naturally, we should allow the least of us to set the agenda. Nice. (n/t) - Mary Anne - 5/27/2005 3:03:02 PM
        
        No. Let the dogs lie with the dogs. - SDAI-Tech1 - 5/29/2005 11:00:26 PM
        
        Just as it was just about Condi Rice, the judges who have been waiting 4+ years for the "advise and consent" up/down vote thing... - Scott Evil - 5/26/2005 8:38:06 PM
        
        "Advise and consent" does not mean "rubber stamp". - Mary Anne - 5/26/2005 11:06:39 PM
        
        Of course it doesn't mean rubber stamp. - Scott Evil - 5/27/2005 2:44:36 PM
        
        You really have swallowed the whole line, haven't you? - Mary Anne - 5/27/2005 3:01:01 PM
        
        I disagree with Joan Lefkow 100% - Scott Evil - 5/27/2005 4:41:42 PM
        
        Of course you do. Don't work with the public much, do you? - Mary Anne - 5/27/2005 5:17:20 PM
        
        I feel sorry for Judge Lefcow. But she is completely wrong. - Scott Evil - 5/27/2005 5:34:33 PM
        
        As gently as I can, for fear of stirring up SamF again... - alcaray - 5/27/2005 5:58:39 PM
        
        I'm shaken, not stirred. ;-) (n/t) - Sam F. - 5/27/2005 7:17:56 PM
        
        Yes. Apparently you took something differently from it than I did. - Scott Evil - 5/27/2005 6:12:30 PM
        
        Sorry, just seemed to me that you made no mention of... - alcaray - 5/27/2005 6:54:48 PM
        
        PS: The judge's name is Lefkow, with a K. - Mary Anne - 5/27/2005 6:44:40 PM
        
        You give me more credit for being sophmoric than I deserve! - Scott Evil - 5/27/2005 6:48:33 PM
        
        Discussion of professional errors is not the same as vilification. - Mary Anne - 5/27/2005 6:24:16 PM
        
        Do those percentage numbers again for appellate court judges. (n/t) - Tom Brosz - 5/28/2005 3:35:55 AM
        
        Link: - Mary Anne - 5/28/2005 2:09:07 PM
        
        53 percent - Tom Brosz - 5/28/2005 11:09:34 PM
        
        Supreme Court justices don't have to be appointed from the appellate courts. - Mary Anne - 5/29/2005 2:04:55 AM
        
        re: Supreme Court justices - Tom Brosz - 5/29/2005 2:19:30 AM
        
        Not just "an" exception. - Mary Anne - 5/29/2005 2:49:35 AM
        
        I agree that both sides are to blame here. - Scott Evil - 5/27/2005 6:45:05 PM
        
        Wait and see if Bush nominates a hack - alcaray - 5/27/2005 6:57:27 PM
        
        re: Wait and see if Bush nominates a hack - Scott Evil - 5/27/2005 7:00:20 PM
        
        On a related note: It shows how poor the Congress is that no congressmen were willing to challenge her. - Scott Evil - 5/27/2005 5:39:07 PM
        
        Bolton - Tom Brosz - 5/27/2005 1:38:53 AM
        
        Let him put up a nominee who has the background and the temperament for the work. - Mary Anne - 5/27/2005 1:49:02 AM
        
        You're not the President - Sam F. - 5/27/2005 12:54:27 PM
        
        No, I'm not. I'm one of his employers. - Mary Anne - 5/27/2005 2:48:12 PM
        
        So you hired him November 2? - Sam F. - 5/27/2005 10:38:17 PM
        
        He is the President. He is a public servant. I am part of the public. Next! - Mary Anne - 5/27/2005 11:57:06 PM
        
        OK, and it Certainly does not mean FILIBUSTER (n/t) - p - 5/27/2005 12:31:38 AM
        
        No? Or only when Democrats do it? - Mary Anne - 5/27/2005 1:47:03 AM
        
        Until 2001, not once in over 200 years was a judicial nominee denied appointment to the court by Senate filibuster (n/t) - p - 5/27/2005 12:48:12 PM
        
        Mostly irrelevant - Tony - 5/27/2005 2:32:11 PM
        
        I accept that there are Republican hypocrites in the Senate - Scott Evil - 5/27/2005 2:57:07 PM
        
        The Dems are not "filibustering everything". - alcaray - 5/27/2005 3:47:34 PM
        
        Predictable. (n/t) - Mary Anne - 5/27/2005 3:04:08 PM
- No way - Jack Herer - 5/26/2005 12:37:58 PM
  - The CURRENT governments want us to stay. - David F Mayer - 5/29/2005 5:42:33 AM
  - re: To bad so sad. Bush won't leave the White House until 2009 - Scott Evil - 5/26/2005 2:09:50 PM
    - Too bad Bush doesn't know the difference between a tough diplomat and a tough. - Mary Anne - 5/26/2005 2:42:44 PM
      - It has nothing to do with dominance. - Scott Evil - 5/26/2005 3:15:03 PM
        
        How condescending. - Mary Anne - 5/26/2005 6:07:52 PM
        
        I recall most of the post 9/11 sympathy being tempered with a lot of: "You greedy Americans deserved it" - Scott Evil - 5/26/2005 8:30:55 PM
        
        Oh, go look up what people wrote and did back then. - Mary Anne - 5/26/2005 11:17:16 PM
        
        Faulty memory. (n/t) - alcaray - 5/26/2005 10:22:21 PM
        
        More than likely: "selective memory". (n/t) - Fox - 5/27/2005 1:59:45 AM
      - re: Too bad Bush doesn't know the difference between a tough diplomat and a tough. - p - 5/26/2005 2:48:48 PM
        
        And have we paid the bill? No. - Mary Anne - 5/26/2005 3:06:24 PM
        
        What do you mean that we haven't paid our bill? (n/t) - Scott Evil - 5/26/2005 3:15:58 PM
        
        re: What do you mean that we haven't paid our bill? - Mary Anne - 5/26/2005 6:31:18 PM
        
        I think you are right, I was under the impression that we were current. - Scott Evil - 5/27/2005 6:04:23 PM
        
        If nothing will change, why is it so vital to put Bolton's keister in a UN chair? - Mary Anne - 5/27/2005 6:53:24 PM
        
        Yep. It's about Bolton. (n/t) - Tom Brosz - 5/28/2005 4:00:11 AM
        
        It is. He's not qualified. - Mary Anne - 5/28/2005 1:09:28 PM
        
        re: Good point - Scott Evil - 5/27/2005 7:02:23 PM

Recent posts

On this day in Current Events

The whole thread (81 posts)