Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
itsjustme
Posts: 2742
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2004 6:58 pm

RE: W Outflanks The Dems (again) W/recess Appointm

Sun Apr 08, 2007 11:46 am

Quoting MaidensGator (Reply 99):
From an independent perspective, I was hopeful that with the Democratic control of Congress, they would actually work on relevant issues.

You mean like seeking an end to the war in Iraq and stopping Bush from politicizing the judicial branch? Are those the relevant issues you're speaking of?
 
JetBlueGuy2006
Posts: 1482
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 5:38 am

RE: W Outflanks The Dems (again) W/recess Appointment

Sun Apr 08, 2007 11:50 am

Quoting MaidensGator (Reply 93):
Her term runs out before GWB's

How? She will be up for reelection in 2008 when a new pres is voted for and if reelected will be sworn in at about the same time. Both Terms end in 2008.
Home Airport: Capital Region International Airport (KLAN)
 
MaidensGator
Posts: 848
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2007 12:02 pm

RE: W Outflanks The Dems (again) W/recess Appointm

Sun Apr 08, 2007 11:51 am

Quoting Itsjustme (Reply 100):
Quoting MaidensGator (Reply 99):
From an independent perspective, I was hopeful that with the Democratic control of Congress, they would actually work on relevant issues.

You mean like seeking an end to the war in Iraq and stopping Bush from politicizing the judicial branch? Are those the relevant issues you're speaking of?

The war, yes. I don't pretend to know the answer, but it's somewhere in between where the Democrats in Congress and Bush have staked out their respective positions. The US Attorneys are not part of the judicial branch and that investigation is another waste of time. The Democrats (at least most of them) promised to work on the health care fiasco. But instead of hearing about that, they're sniping at Bush over stuff that's legal, and they know it's legal. That's what drives me crazy; there's not even a question that it's legal, but they insist on wasting time on it...

[Edited 2007-04-08 04:58:59]
The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: W Outflanks The Dems (again) W/recess Appointment

Sun Apr 08, 2007 11:51 am

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 91):
The fine diamonds come from South Africa and Russia

Better ones come from Canada and Arkansas

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 96):
And people like Pope doesn't realize that the Constitution was meant to protect the people of this country from leaders like President Bush

 redflag  The only problem is that Bush isn't a threat to anybody, and certainly to the Constitution of the US. I think it is shameful that left wingers accuse him of that.

If anybody are NAZI's in this country, it is the Democrats.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: W Outflanks The Dems (again) W/recess Appointment

Sun Apr 08, 2007 11:55 am

Quoting MaidensGator (Reply 99):
If the Democrats expect to maintain control, they'd better start getting serious. I've had enough of Bush myself, but it's already looking like the Democrats controlling Congress don't have any better ideas than the Republicans they replaced.

Couldn't agree more.

Quoting Itsjustme (Reply 100):
Quoting MaidensGator (Reply 99):From an independent perspective, I was hopeful that with the Democratic control of Congress, they would actually work on relevant issues.
You mean like seeking an end to the war in Iraq and stopping Bush from politicizing the judicial branch? Are those the relevant issues you're speaking of?

 rotfl  I work in the Department of Justice. While the the AG and his cronies completely botched the USA removal, the accusation that they are "politicizing the judicial branch" is overwrought and inaccurate hysteria. If the democrats really wanted the truth, they would let the AG come to the Hill before April 17th. The fact that they are putting it off makes it supremely obvious they are more interested in playing this situation for partisan political advantage.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: W Outflanks The Dems (again) W/recess Appointment

Sun Apr 08, 2007 12:03 pm

Quoting Itsjustme (Reply 100):
Bush from politicizing the judicial branch?

Ha, look at all the left wingers that Clinton put in, Ginsberg being probably one of the bust examples of somebody who lets her political views set her decisions rather then by consitutional law.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
MaidensGator
Posts: 848
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2007 12:02 pm

RE: W Outflanks The Dems (again) W/recess Appointment

Sun Apr 08, 2007 12:04 pm

Quoting JetBlueGuy2006 (Reply 101):
Quoting MaidensGator (Reply 93):
Her term runs out before GWB's

How? She will be up for reelection in 2008 when a new pres is voted for and if reelected will be sworn in at about the same time. Both Terms end in 2008.

Election day is the same for both. The new President will be sworn in on January 20, 2009. The new Congress will go into Session approximately two weeks earlier. Admittedly, not a big difference.
The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.
 
itsjustme
Posts: 2742
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2004 6:58 pm

RE: W Outflanks The Dems (again) W/recess Appointment

Sun Apr 08, 2007 12:26 pm

Quoting L-188 (Reply 105):

Ha, look at all the left wingers that Clinton put in, Ginsberg being probably one of the bust examples of somebody who lets her political views set her decisions rather then by consitutional law.

I'm not disputing the fact that it's been done by members of both parties. What I am saying is, it needs to come to a stop.

That being said, I have to ask: Is it possible for Bush fans here to keep a debate about the current administration specific TO the current administration? Clinton left office over 6 years yet all the loyal "Bushies" here constantly make lame attempts at supporting this embarrassment we call our President by saying, "But, but look what Clinton did". Clinton left office 6 years and 3 months ago, get over it.
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: W Outflanks The Dems (again) W/recess Appointment

Sun Apr 08, 2007 12:39 pm

Quoting Itsjustme (Reply 107):
I'm not disputing the fact that it's been done by members of both parties. What I am saying is, it needs to come to a stop.

That being said, I have to ask: Is it possible for Bush fans here to keep a debate about the current administration specific TO the current administration?

The problem is that many debates on Anet revolve around the idea that Bush is the only person to have abused the power of the executive office. He isn't the only one who has, and his successors will do the same, perhaps not to the same degree, but they will.

So when you make a statement like "stopping Bush from politicizing the judicial branch" - a largely inaccurate accusation, you invite others to naturally bring up the alleged misdeeds of his predecessors.

You want to discuss whether the current AG should be removed? Fine. You can make an excellent argument for that proposition without resorting to wild accusations about the so-called politicization of the Department.

Is the current administration flawed? Yes. So is Congress. We currently have the spectacle of the democrats trying to bring down the AG because it suits their partisan political advantage, instead of devoting their efforts to something worthwhile, like overhauling the mess that is the Department of Homeland Insecurity.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: W Outflanks The Dems (again) W/recess Appointment

Sun Apr 08, 2007 12:42 pm

Quoting L-188 (Reply 103):
If anybody are NAZI's in this country, it is the Democrats.

Ah, so the Dems are BOTH Nazi's and Communists, eh, L-188.

Actually, if you look at it politically, liberals are closer to communism, and conservatives closer to Nazism.

Amazing you try to put BOTH on the Democrats. As if the GOP is pure as the driven snow. Riiight.  Yeah sure
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
RJdxer
Posts: 3523
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:14 am

RE: W Outflanks The Dems (again) W/recess Appointment

Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 pm

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 96):
they don't realize that a republic exists so that ordinary people like us actually have some control in who our leaders would be and that we have a say in our government

Did you vote in the last election? Then you excercised your control over who your leaders would be. If they didn't get elected then the other side excercised a little more control than your side did and thats the way the cookie crumbles. You have a say in the government through your elected represenatives. Don't like how they are representing you? Get to work and exercise some control in getting some one who does elected next time round.

Quoting Itsjustme (Reply 100):
You mean like seeking an end to the war in Iraq and stopping Bush from politicizing the judicial branch?

The only way the democrats can put an end to the war is to deny funding and have enough votes to override the certain veto of the appropriations bill. The Senate can, and has, stopped a number of nominees from becoming Judges on all levels. The DOJ, specifically the U.S. attorneys serve at the Presidents leisure. You can be sure that if a democrat is elected President next time that virtually all of the atttorneys will be replaced. As the old Roman adage goes, to the victor go the spoils.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, and a road that goes forever. I'm going to Texas!
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: W Outflanks The Dems (again) W/recess Appointment

Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:27 pm

Quoting Itsjustme (Reply 107):
What I am saying is, it needs to come to a stop.

 checkmark   checkmark   checkmark  Agree completely.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 109):
As if the GOP is pure as the driven snow.

I didn't say that. Actually I have a real problem with conservatives who don't practive conservitisim.


Quoting RJdxer (Reply 110):
You can be sure that if a democrat is elected President next time that virtually all of the atttorneys will be replaced.



Quoting RJdxer (Reply 110):
You can be sure that if a democrat is elected President next time that virtually all of the atttorneys will be replaced. As the old Roman adage goes, to the victor go the spoils.

You know the funny part is that the democrates where virtually silent almost 15 years ago when a nameless democrat president canned the lot of them.

The only one that didn't loose his job had it saved by the personal lobbing of Bill Bradley.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
itsjustme
Posts: 2742
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2004 6:58 pm

RE: W Outflanks The Dems (again) W/recess Appointment

Sun Apr 08, 2007 4:23 pm

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 110):
You can be sure that if a democrat is elected President next time that virtually all of the atttorneys will be replaced.

Will they be fired mid term? After receiving excellent performance reviews? While investigating Democrats for possible political corruption? If so, then I'll be just as vocal because it will be wrong then, just as it's wrong now.

Why can't you understand that it's not the fact that some US attorneys were fired, but rather the timing of their firings that stinks to high Heaven? Not to mention the fact that there's a very good possibility that the Attorney General lied to Congress about the firings as well.
 
AirportSeven
Posts: 309
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 1:08 am

RE: W Outflanks The Dems (again) W/recess Appointment

Sun Apr 08, 2007 9:05 pm

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 97):
And you think that Presidents before Bush didn't use executive privilege to advance their agendas? That presidents after Bush won't do the same?


We all know that other Presidents have claimed executive privilege and that future presidents will as well. My argument is that Bush has gone to that well so many times that the bottom is about to fall out of the bucket. It is one thing to invoke executive privilege occasionally to resolve an impasse, but it is another thing entirely to intentionally provoke a constitutional showdown over the issue when there are much more pressing issues that need to be addressed.

I'll concede to MaidensGator and RJdxer that I should have qualified my statement about the letter sent to the GAO. The claim that I made is the same that was made by the Senators who wrote the letter and represents one side of the issue. I'm no unfrozen caveman lawyer, so I can't argue as to whether the GAO will see it the same way.

Again, the President is within his rights to make recess appointments. But before the 1940's, intrasession appointments were very rare and recess appointments of regulatory officials are still seen as a questionable practice. My own opinion is that recess appointments should be used in emergency situations when Congress is in full recess, and never used to install an official who cannot or will not pass Congressional scrutiny. Congressional approval of political appointments is an integral part of the system of checks and balances, and checks and balances makes the federal government work as effectively as it can. It makes sure that one branch of the government cannot usurp all of the power in Washington. Neither the President, nor Congress, nor the Court system runs the government alone. Unfortunately, it seems like the Executive has been trying to act as the only branch of government, free from any oversight or transparency, and don't get me started on the new fourth branch, the Office of the Vice President.
 
RJdxer
Posts: 3523
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:14 am

RE: W Outflanks The Dems (again) W/recess Appointment

Mon Apr 09, 2007 12:41 am

Quoting Itsjustme (Reply 112):
If so, then I'll be just as vocal because it will be wrong then, just as it's wrong now.

I still don't understand what you see as wrong. The U.S. attorney serve. and have always served, at the Presidents leisure. It's as simple as that. They are not union members under contract.

Quoting Itsjustme (Reply 112):
Why can't you understand that it's not the fact that some US attorneys were fired, but rather the timing of their firings that stinks to high Heaven?

This is your real problem. You just don't like the fact that the President can fire them. Since you don't like this President to begin with, virtually anything he does is not going to measure up in your eyes. The firings were legal. They were also political but that in no way shape or form makes them any less legal.

Quoting Itsjustme (Reply 112):
Not to mention the fact that there's a very good possibility that the Attorney General lied to Congress about the firings as well.

Been down this road. When goofball Senator from California brought the matter up it was in a briefing. Left unanswered so far was whether this topic was supposed to be part of briefing or whether she brought it up out of the blue. If she brought it up out of the blue, then given that the firings had happened over a year previous and that the subject was something else, "lying" is a pretty strong word to use. Considering that the AG then contacted the Senator later in the evening to clarify some of his answers shows that he was trying to forthright and honest but of course in the lefts eyes he was just trying to cover up.

Quoting AirportSeven (Reply 113):
But before the 1940's, intrasession appointments were very rare and recess appointments of regulatory officials are still seen as a questionable practice.

Before the 1940's a lot more people got where they were going on horseback. The President was not sworn in until March, and Congress was gone virtually all summer. Things change.

Quoting AirportSeven (Reply 113):
and never used to install an official who cannot or will not pass Congressional scrutiny.

We'll probably never know if Mr. Fox would have passed Senatorial scrutiny since Sen. Kerry was determined not to let the full Senate vote.

Quoting AirportSeven (Reply 113):
Congressional approval of political appointments is an integral part of the system of checks and balances, and checks and balances makes the federal government work as effectively as it can

Senatorial approval of political appointments is a necessary part of the process because the Constitution demands it. Denying the President an appointment because the potential appointee gave money to an organization that you don't like is not only being petty but smacks of fascism.

Quoting AirportSeven (Reply 113):
Unfortunately, it seems like the Executive has been trying to act as the only branch of government, free from any oversight or transparency,

Congress is made up of 535 would be Presidents. Given the option Congress would legislate the Executive branch into geld-ism. Look at the latest Congress. They are going to stop the war even though they only have one way to do it and refuse that method because they know it would be their death knell. The current Speaker goes to a nation recognized as a state sponsor of terrorism and then delivers an inaccurate message from a third nation that she does not have any elected power in. A single Senator sets up a Constitutional showdown over something as simple a political appointment to a country that poses no problems for the U.S., all because he is miffed that the potential Ambassador gave money to a group that opposed his Presidential aspirations. And you wonder why Presidents, all of them, so virulently defend the power of the Executive?
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, and a road that goes forever. I'm going to Texas!
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: W Outflanks The Dems (again) W/recess Appointment

Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:54 am

Quoting AirportSeven (Reply 113):
My own opinion is that recess appointments should be used in emergency situations when Congress is in full recess, and never used to install an official who cannot or will not pass Congressional scrutiny.

I recognize that the concept of recess appointments are grounded in the days when Congress took long recesses, and the idea of a recess appointment was to ensure that important positions didn't remain unfilled for long periods of time. However, up until recently, the Senate didn't engage in partisan political games with regard to most all nominations.

Bush appointing Fox to avoid democrats blocking the nomination is no different than Clinton giving Hormel a recess appointment to avoid republicans blocking that nomination.

Whether the the chicken or the egg came first in this debate is not the issue. Fact is, presidential appointments are now fair game for partisan battles, and unless the Senate stops playing politics with presidential nominations, it will continue - regardless of who is in the White House.

Quoting AirportSeven (Reply 113):
It makes sure that one branch of the government cannot usurp all of the power in Washington.

A single ambassadorship is part of an usurpation of power?
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
itsjustme
Posts: 2742
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2004 6:58 pm

RE: W Outflanks The Dems (again) W/recess Appointm

Mon Apr 09, 2007 10:40 am

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 114):
I still don't understand what you see as wrong. The U.S. attorney serve. and have always served, at the Presidents leisure. It's as simple as that. They are not union members under contract.

I fully understand this.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 114):

This is your real problem. You just don't like the fact that the President can fire them. Since you don't like this President to begin with, virtually anything he does is not going to measure up in your eyes. The firings were legal. They were also political but that in no way shape or form makes them any less legal.

Not true. I have no problem with PotUS having the ability to fire and hire US Attorneys. What I do have a problem with is his ability to do it after they're already in place. As is the current case, it's obvious that the 8 attorneys who were fired, weren't playing by Bush rules and that is why they were fired. It had nothing to do with competency or their ability to do their jobs as US Attorneys. It's not my problem that Bush and his administration didn't properly vett the attorneys before hiring them. Maybe they forgot to ask, "Are you going to investigate any Republicans for political corruption?" prior to giving them the nod. Again, not my problem. But when 8 competent US attorneys are fired, mid term, for simply doing their job, regardless of who is sitting in the oval when it's done, it s simply wrong.

As for not liking Bush, that's an understatement. I despise the man. He's nothing but an arrogant, power-tripping, bully who has gotten this country so deep in shit, it will take decades to clean up his mess. And, given his approval ratings being consistently in the crapper, it appears that my feelings are shared by a significant number of Americans.
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: W Outflanks The Dems (again) W/recess Appointment

Mon Apr 09, 2007 10:55 am

Quoting Itsjustme (Reply 116):
What I do have a problem with is his ability to do it after they're already in place.

Sorry, but all presidential appointees serve at the pleasure of the president. They aren't entitled to a four - or eight - year "no cut" contract.

Quoting Itsjustme (Reply 116):
As is the current case, it's obvious that the 8 attorneys who were fired, weren't playing by Bush rules and that is why they were fired. It had nothing to do with competency or their ability to do their jobs as US Attorneys.

Mostly correct. See below.

Quoting Itsjustme (Reply 116):
It's not my problem that Bush and his administration didn't properly vett the attorneys before hiring them.

Even if they didn't properly screen them, they still aren't entitled to a 4/8 year appointment. It just doesn't work that way.

Quoting Itsjustme (Reply 116):
But when 8 competent US attorneys are fired, mid term, for simply doing their job, regardless of who is sitting in the oval when it's done, it s simply wrong.

Seven. One of the eight actually deserved to be fired for performance reasons.

And if they had just been asked to leave, without the ludicrous "performance" allegation, no one would be discussing this now.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
DrDeke
Posts: 807
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 7:13 am

RE: W Outflanks The Dems (again) W/recess Appointment

Mon Apr 09, 2007 11:00 am

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 114):
Denying the President an appointment because the potential appointee gave money to an organization that you don't like is not only being petty but smacks of fascism.

How, exactly, does an act that attempts to diminish the power of the executive "smack of fascism"?

DrDeke
If you don't want it known, don't say it on a phone.
 
itsjustme
Posts: 2742
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2004 6:58 pm

RE: W Outflanks The Dems (again) W/recess Appointm

Mon Apr 09, 2007 11:15 am

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 117):
Seven. One of the eight actually deserved to be fired for performance reasons.

You're right, I stand corrected.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 117):
And if they had just been asked to leave, without the ludicrous "performance" allegation, no one would be discussing this now.

I don't think you're giving the Dems enough credit. You don't think they would've smelled something regardless of not necessarily how, but when the attorneys were terminated? They have Bush in their gun sites and I doubt he can sneeze without someone questioning whether or not he covered his mouth.
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: W Outflanks The Dems (again) W/recess Appointment

Mon Apr 09, 2007 11:24 am

Quoting Itsjustme (Reply 119):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 117):And if they had just been asked to leave, without the ludicrous "performance" allegation, no one would be discussing this now.
I don't think you're giving the Dems enough credit. You don't think they would've smelled something regardless of not necessarily how, but when the attorneys were terminated? They have Bush in their gun sites and I doubt he can sneeze without someone questioning whether or not he covered his mouth.

Sure, the democrats would have raised a ruckus. But where the current fourth floor crowd went wrong is by trying to dress up the dismissals as performance related. That guaranteed that the eight wouldn't "go gentle into that good night." By essentially saying they were "f**k-ups," the masterminds of this operation guaranteed people like John McKay - who is an outstanding individual - would be more than happy to come forward and contest the reason for the terminations.

Without the fuel provided by the outgoing eight, the democrat outrage would have soon died. Because when you get down to it, when the AG calls on behalf of the president and asks for your resignation, he doesn't have to say why the president wants to make the change.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
Blackbird
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: W Outflanks The Dems (again) W/recess Appointment

Mon Apr 09, 2007 11:50 am

Quote:
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

RJdxer and MaidensGator,

Yes: To the letter of the law (but certainly not the spirit) Dubya Bush is not technically violating the law.

However, the intent of this law was so that in the event of a senatorial recess, the President could appoint somebody in an emergency. The law was not written so a power hungry President could circumvent the Senate and appoint people who the President knows the Senate openly disapproved of.

Quote:
Did you vote in the last election? Then you excercised your control over who your leaders would be. If they didn't get elected then the other side excercised a little more control than your side did and thats the way the cookie crumbles. You have a say in the government through your elected represenatives. Don't like how they are representing you? Get to work and exercise some control in getting some one who does elected next time round.

As a matter of fact, I did. I have excercized my right to vote every single time I've been legally entitled to do so.

Andrea Kent
 
RJdxer
Posts: 3523
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:14 am

RE: W Outflanks The Dems (again) W/recess Appointment

Mon Apr 09, 2007 2:21 pm

Quoting Itsjustme (Reply 116):
What I do have a problem with is his ability to do it after they're already in place.

Every President has that power. It comes with the job.

Quoting Itsjustme (Reply 116):
As is the current case, it's obvious that the 8 attorneys who were fired, weren't playing by Bush rules and that is why they were fired.

It doesn't make any difference if they were or weren't. If the President didn't think they were, or the AG didn't think they were and got the Presidents approval, then they get fired, it's just that simple.

Quoting Itsjustme (Reply 116):
Again, not my problem. But when 8 competent US attorneys are fired, mid term, for simply doing their job, regardless of who is sitting in the oval when it's done, it s simply wrong.

How is it any more wrong that thousands being let loose by an auto manufacturer that decides to cut back? It's not wrong and it's not illegal. It's called life.

Quoting Itsjustme (Reply 116):
As for not liking Bush, that's an understatement. I despise the man.

Which explains why you cannot see that firing the attorneys is not only legal, but not wrong either. They serve at the Presidents leisure. If he doesn't like how they are serving then out they go.

Quoting DrDeke (Reply 118):
How, exactly, does an act that attempts to diminish the power of the executive "smack of fascism"?

The only reason given for not approving him immediately was because he financially supported a political group that Kerry did not like. So the message is put out that if you support someone other than who we think you should support, namely someone who supports us, you don't get the job. That is almost a textbook definition of fascism. One government policy, one government view. Do not equate it with Nazism.

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 121):
Yes: To the letter of the law (but certainly not the spirit) Dubya Bush is not technically violating the law.

Ok, lets look at the Constitution again:

Quoting MaidensGator (Reply 99):
Article 2, Section 2, Paragraph 3 reads:

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate. Doesn't say how long the recess has to be just that a recess has to occur and it locks in a time frame by saying when those comissions will expire. Sounds pretty straight forward to me.

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 121):
However, the intent of this law was so that in the event of a senatorial recess, the President could appoint somebody in an emergency.

Really? You were there when they debated and passed this section of Constitution? Tell me, who was in favor and who was against it?

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 121):
The law was not written so a power hungry President could circumvent the Senate and appoint people who the President knows the Senate openly disapproved of.

One Senator. We will probably never know how the full Senate would have voted. The recess appointment of a seemingly intelligent and deserving person to the Ambassadorship of Belgium constitutes "power hungry"?

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 121):
As a matter of fact, I did. I have excercized my right to vote every single time I've been legally entitled to do so.

Then there you go, that is the extent of your "control".
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, and a road that goes forever. I'm going to Texas!
 
itsjustme
Posts: 2742
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2004 6:58 pm

RE: W Outflanks The Dems (again) W/recess Appointm

Mon Apr 09, 2007 4:09 pm

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 122):
How is it any more wrong that thousands being let loose by an auto manufacturer that decides to cut back? It's not wrong and it's not illegal. It's called life.

Apples and oranges. How about if it was learned after their firings that those let go were in the process of building a case to divulge illegal activities going on at the auto manufacturer? Would that be "life" as you so simply explain it away?

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 122):

Every President has that power. It comes with the job.

And how many have exercised this power midterm? And how many attorneys who were investigating corruption within the President's party have been fired midterm?

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 122):
Which explains why you cannot see that firing the attorneys is not only legal, but not wrong either.

Not wrong? Are you that naive or are you just looking for an argument? Or perhaps both? Bush hires a US Attorney and all is well for a substantial amount of time until said attorney begins looking into corruption in Bush's camp. Suddenly, said attorney is fired by Bush. Legal or not, you don't see anything wrong with that? Please. Your credibility is becoming laughable.

[Edited 2007-04-09 09:10:35]
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: W Outflanks The Dems (again) W/recess Appointment

Mon Apr 09, 2007 8:55 pm

Quoting Itsjustme (Reply 123):
Bush hires a US Attorney and all is well for a substantial amount of time until said attorney begins looking into corruption in Bush's camp. Suddenly, said attorney is fired by Bush.

I don't believe anyone was fired because they were looking at republican corruption. In at least one case, the USA was fired because he allegedly wasn't investigating democratic corruption with enough vigor.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
UALPHLCS
Posts: 3232
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2001 5:50 am

RE: W Outflanks The Dems (again) W/recess Appointment

Mon Apr 09, 2007 9:23 pm

Quoting AirportSeven (Reply 94):
Yeah Pope, it's funny whenever the Bush administration avoids congressional oversight in its quest for a unitary and unchecked Executive branch. And that happens quite a bit. I just laugh and laugh whenever I think about how Rove and Cheney have been systematically dismantling the system of checks and balances to cover up the egregious incompetence and malevolence of the current administration.

Oh please.

Who won in November again?

Oh that's right the Democrats. And what are they doing now? Endless investigations of every piece of naval lint they find.

Spare me this crap about removal of checks and balances, and go back and crack open your 7th grade civics textbook.

The only difference between this kind of thinking from AirportSeven and a conspiracy theorist, is that Airport seven get's respected by Falcon84 for drivel like that.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 109):
Actually, if you look at it politically, liberals are closer to communism, and conservatives closer to Nazism

Once again Falcon84 exaggerates instead of being accurate. To be accurate the totalitarian version of liberalism (the left) is Communism , while the Totalitarian version of the right is Nazism.

However, all you have to do is look at the thread on religion in the Texas public schools to see how true American Conservatives are not rightists in the European sense.

Conservatives in the US are conservative about the Constitution, which means they want to protect those freedoms unlike the Far Right in Europe.
A little less Hooah, and a little more Dooah.
 
RJdxer
Posts: 3523
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:14 am

RE: W Outflanks The Dems (again) W/recess Appointment

Mon Apr 09, 2007 11:01 pm

Quoting Itsjustme (Reply 123):
How about if it was learned after their firings that those let go were in the process of building a case to divulge illegal activities going on at the auto manufacturer? Would that be "life" as you so simply explain it away?

Still legal, still not wrong. According to this article the attorney in question was investigating the democrats.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,264507,00.html

Iglesias says he was fired for resisting pressure from Domenici and Rep. Heather Wilson (news, bio, voting record), R-N.M., to rush indictments in an investigation of an alleged kickback scheme involving Democrats. Domenici and Wilson acknowledge calling Iglesias in October before the 2006 election, but they say they did not pressure him.

Quoting Itsjustme (Reply 123):
And how many have exercised this power midterm?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-...lusive-alberto-gonzal_b_45237.html


Now let me explain the reasons for the firings. As you know, U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president, so every president has the right to appoint and replace them whenever he chooses. Neither he nor the Justice Department is required to explain why any U.S. attorney may be asked to resign. From the simple fact that they were asked to resign you can see that they no longer pleased the president, which should be reason enough.

Quoting Itsjustme (Reply 123):
And how many attorneys who were investigating corruption within the President's party have been fired midterm?

It doesn't make any difference, what part of " they serve at the Presidents leisure" are you not comprehending? And I think Halls120 clarified at least one of the cases, in another it was strictly performance related. No matter, if the Presidents staff felt that any of the U.S. attorneys was not pursuing policy that the President wanted pursued, they could be fired at any time and there is nothing wrong with that. It's part of what comes with the job.

Quoting Itsjustme (Reply 123):
Suddenly, said attorney is fired by Bush. Legal or not, you don't see anything wrong with that?

No and my credibility is completely intact.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, and a road that goes forever. I'm going to Texas!
 
DrDeke
Posts: 807
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 7:13 am

RE: W Outflanks The Dems (again) W/recess Appointm

Tue Apr 10, 2007 7:10 am

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 122):


Quoting DrDeke,reply=118:

How, exactly, does an act that attempts to diminish the power of the executive "smack of fascism"?

The only reason given for not approving him immediately was because he financially supported a political group that Kerry did not like. So the message is put out that if you support someone other than who we think you should support, namely someone who supports us, you don't get the job. That is almost a textbook definition of fascism. One government policy, one government view. Do not equate it with Nazism.

No, that does not have anything at all to do with the definition of fascism. And I am not confusing it with Nazism; I don't know what made you think that.

From the American Heritage Dictionary (unedited by me):

Quote:
fas·cism (făsh'ĭz'əm) pronunciation
n.

1. often Fascism
----a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
----b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.

2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.

According to this definition, the key points of fascism that seem to apply here are a system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator as well as "oppressive, dictatorial control". I will post the definition of a dictator if there is any dispute, but a dictator is defined as a single person who rules absolutely and/or in a tyrannical manner.

Despite what you may think about John Kerry or his motivations for opposing Mr. Fox's nomination as ambassador to Belgium, the Senate is not an individual, nor did it use terror or censorship to suppress its opposition, so it therefore cannot be a dictator nor exercise dictatorial control. Hence, there is no way that the Senate's act of not confirming Mr. Fox can be fascist or smack of fascism.

DrDeke
If you don't want it known, don't say it on a phone.
 
RJdxer
Posts: 3523
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:14 am

RE: W Outflanks The Dems (again) W/recess Appointment

Tue Apr 10, 2007 7:33 am

Quoting DrDeke (Reply 127):
suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship



Quoting DrDeke (Reply 127):
Oppressive, dictatorial control.

Did or did not Sen Kerry oppose Mr. Fox for ambassodor because he financially supported the swift boat 527 group?

Did Sen. Kerry name any other reason for planning to vote against Mr. Fox, such as his level of education, his work experiences, or any other items that might have conflicted with Mr. Fox performing the job?

If not then Sen. Kerry was suppressing Mr. Fox based on censorshiop of his financial support of a 527 political group and using his position on the foriegn affairs comittee in an oppressive and dictatorial manner. His fellow democrats on the comittee were not going to go against him on this matter no matter how they might have felt about Mr. Fox and we will never know now how the full Senate would have voted. I stand by my statement that Sen. Kerry's actions smack of fascism. Mussolini was a facist long before he was a dictator.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, and a road that goes forever. I'm going to Texas!
 
DrDeke
Posts: 807
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 7:13 am

RE: W Outflanks The Dems (again) W/recess Appointm

Tue Apr 10, 2007 7:36 am

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 125):
Once again Falcon84 exaggerates instead of being accurate. To be accurate the totalitarian version of liberalism (the left) is Communism , while the Totalitarian version of the right is Nazism.

Be that as it may, Falcon was not the person who accused a major American political party of being either Nazis or Communists in the first place. Nobody had used any of the words {nazi, communist, communism} in this thread until L-188 did in reply 103, when he said that:

Quoting L-188 (Reply 103):
If anybody are NAZI's in this country, it is the Democrats.

So, your point was?



Quoting RJdxer (Reply 126):
Quoting Itsjustme (Reply 123):
Suddenly, said attorney is fired by Bush. Legal or not, you don't see anything wrong with that?

No and my credibility is completely intact.

That's your opinion and everyone is entitled to one, but many of us see something very much wrong with that. Inasmuch as you are (as far as I know) not a politician, your credibility to strangers on the Internet doesn't matter much, at least not to me. However, any politician of any party who doesn't see something wrong with this scenario certainly loses a great deal of credibility with me!


DrDeke
If you don't want it known, don't say it on a phone.
 
DrDeke
Posts: 807
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 7:13 am

RE: W Outflanks The Dems (again) W/recess Appointm

Tue Apr 10, 2007 7:52 am

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 128):

Did or did not Sen Kerry oppose Mr. Fox for ambassodor because he financially supported the swift boat 527 group?

Did Sen. Kerry name any other reason for planning to vote against Mr. Fox, such as his level of education, his work experiences, or any other items that might have conflicted with Mr. Fox performing the job?

If not then Sen. Kerry was suppressing Mr. Fox based on censorshiop of his financial support of a 527 political group and using his position on the foriegn affairs comittee in an oppressive and dictatorial manner. His fellow democrats on the comittee were not going to go against him on this matter no matter how they might have felt about Mr. Fox and we will never know now how the full Senate would have voted. I stand by my statement that Sen. Kerry's actions smack of fascism. Mussolini was a facist long before he was a dictator.

You continue to dodge (or miss, but I doubt that) the point. Senator Kerry has no power to censor Mr. Fox in any way, nor, to my knowledge, has he attempted to do so. The Senate has the power to confirm or not confirm Mr. Fox as ambassador to Belgium, but neither of these actions are or are even tantamount to censorship.

Are you claiming that every political appointee who is not confirmed by the Senate has been "censored"? I don't understand how you could possibly support such a claim given the definition of the words censor and censorship.

Do I need to quote a dictionary definition of censorship, too? Let me know if you dispute my working definition, and I will post an unedited one from a dictionary. Censorship is generally defined as suppressing the creation or dissemination of books, films, speeches, and other such materials on the grounds that they are politically, morally, or otherwise objectionable.

Has John Kerry suppressed or attempted to suppress books, films, speeches, or other materials written, made, or otherwise created by Mr. Fox? Has the Senate done or attempted to do this? The answer to both of these questions is quite obviously no. Mr. Fox is and remains free to express his views and ideas on any subject in any medium. Even had Mr. Fox not become the ambassador to Belgium, he would have remained free to conduct these activities. There is no constitutional right to be appointed as an ambassador to a foreign country, nor does failure to obtain such an appointment constitute censorship.

You can say that it is your opinion that Mr. Kerry or "The Senate" are "fascists" or "dictators", but your opinion appears to run directly counter to the published and accepted definitions of the words "fascist," "dictator," "censor," and "censorship," and therefore seem quite ridiculous to me!

If you dispute the actual meanings of these words or the actual actions of Mr. Kerry, the Senate as a whole, or anyone else, I would be happy to discuss such disputes with you. But I find it rather pointless to discuss anything with you if you are going to say, as you did in your last post, that John Kerry is a fascist no matter what the word fascist means and no matter what actions John Kerry has or has not undertaken that would or would not, in actual fact, make him a fascist.


DrDeke
If you don't want it known, don't say it on a phone.
 
UALPHLCS
Posts: 3232
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2001 5:50 am

RE: W Outflanks The Dems (again) W/recess Appointment

Tue Apr 10, 2007 8:06 am

Quoting DrDeke (Reply 129):
Quoting L-188 (Reply 103):
If anybody are NAZI's in this country, it is the Democrats.

So, your point was?

Hey, if you want me to accurate and correct L-188 I'll call the Democrats Stalinist...

I have no problem with that.
L-188 the term you were searching for is Stalinist.

Quoting DrDeke (Reply 130):
Senator Kerry has no power to censor Mr. Fox in any way, nor, to my knowledge, has he attempted to do so. The Senate has the power to confirm or not confirm Mr. Fox as ambassador to Belgium, but neither of these actions are or are even tantamount to censorship.

Civics lesson.

A single Senator can hold up the confirmation of any nominee with a filibuster. Today even the threat of a filibuster is all that's needed. Sen. Kerry being on the majority can probably find a few allies to help him as well.

The free speech issue (which you are side stepping) comes into play in that a Senator is now politically hurting someone else over something they SAID. or at least paid for the messages dissemination. It isn't censorship of Fox's message but it does send a signal to future donors, cross a politician and he will take it out on you. Which could have a dampening effect on political speech.

In that way Kerry is using fear to keep people in line. A Stalinist tactic. Big grin
A little less Hooah, and a little more Dooah.
 
DrDeke
Posts: 807
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 7:13 am

RE: W Outflanks The Dems (again) W/recess Appointm

Tue Apr 10, 2007 10:04 am

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 131):

Civics lesson.

A single Senator can hold up the confirmation of any nominee with a filibuster. Today even the threat of a filibuster is all that's needed. Sen. Kerry being on the majority can probably find a few allies to help him as well.

I am aware of that. I don't see a need to be condescending ("civics lesson"), although I suppose it would be a civics lesson for many people, so, ok. (*shrug*)



Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 131):
The free speech issue (which you are side stepping) comes into play in that a Senator is now politically hurting someone else over something they SAID. or at least paid for the messages dissemination. It isn't censorship of Fox's message but it does send a signal to future donors, cross a politician and he will take it out on you. Which could have a dampening effect on political speech.

I don't think I'm attempting to sidestep anything. I don't think that there is any free speech issue here. Making a contribution to a political special interest group, including 527 groups like Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, is an overt political act. Mr. Fox was a political appointee to represent the United States of America to Belgium, which strikes me as a substantially political job. Even if the situation were reversed and a Democratic president appointed a liberal ambassador to some country and a Republican senator filibustered his nomination over the appointed ambassador's political views or actions, I might not like it, and I might not agree with the Republican senator, but I can't see any way in which it would be a matter of censorship or infringing upon someone's right to free speech.



Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 131):
In that way Kerry is using fear to keep people in line. A Stalinist tactic.

Right, and George W. Bush was using fear of not being appointed to the Supreme Court to keep lawyers and judges in line who might have otherwise expressed the view that abortion is a constitutionally-protected right. I mean, in a really, really vague and abstract sense, that is maybe sort of true. But in reality, it's obviously not. Either way, it's not a Stalinist tactic, even if one personally thinks that abortion either should be legal or is a constitutionally protected right. Bush has the right to take these views into account when appointing people to various positions (Supreme Court Justice, Ambassador to Belgium, whatever). By the same token, I think that the Senate, including John Kerry, has the right to take appointees' political views and actions into account when deciding on what course of action to take (vote yes, vote no, filibuster) the appointees' confirmations. Again by the same token, this is no more of a Stalinist tactic than Bush's refusal to appoint a pro-abortion Supreme Court Justice.


DrDeke


(Edit: Grammar: Left out an apostrophe.)

[Edited 2007-04-10 03:05:29]
If you don't want it known, don't say it on a phone.
 
DrDeke
Posts: 807
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 7:13 am

RE: W Outflanks The Dems (again) W/recess Appointment

Tue Apr 10, 2007 10:07 am

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 131):
Hey, if you want me to accurate and correct L-188 I'll call the Democrats Stalinist...

I have no problem with that.

My problem was with you accusing Falcon of "exaggerating," when it was L-188 who exaggerated, and Falcon was calling him out on it.

DrDeke
If you don't want it known, don't say it on a phone.
 
RJdxer
Posts: 3523
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:14 am

RE: W Outflanks The Dems (again) W/recess Appointment

Tue Apr 10, 2007 11:50 am

Quoting DrDeke (Reply 130):
Senator Kerry has no power to censor Mr. Fox in any way, nor, to my knowledge, has he attempted to do so.

Evidently he has since it took a recess appointment to have Mr. Fox be the Ambassador to Belgium, all because Sen. Kerry objected to whom Ambassador Fox gave money too.

Quoting DrDeke (Reply 130):
Are you claiming that every political appointee who is not confirmed by the Senate has been "censored"? I

Not at all. There are some who probably don't have the educational background or life experience to be an Ambassador. But denying someone an appointment simply because of who they supported politically in a Presidential campaign is petty, smacks of facisim, and says that Sen Kerry believes that censoring someones politcal views is ok when it comes to denying them an appointment.

Quoting DrDeke (Reply 130):
Do I need to quote a dictionary definition of censorship, too?

Oh please, let me....

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/censorship

censorship
One entry found for censorship.


Main Entry: cen·sor·ship
Pronunciation: 'sen(t)-s&r-"ship
Function: noun
1 a : the institution, system, or practice of censoring b : the actions or practices of censors; especially : censorial control exercised repressively
2 : the office, power, or term of a Roman censor
3 : exclusion from consciousness by the psychic censor

Quoting DrDeke (Reply 130):
The answer to both of these questions is quite obviously no. Mr. Fox is and remains free to express his views and ideas on any subject in any medium.

But not if he wants to be an Ambassador to Beligium that was duley confirmed by the Senate. Once again thanks to Sen. Kerry.

Quoting DrDeke (Reply 130):
Even had Mr. Fox not become the ambassador to Belgium, he would have remained free to conduct these activities.

Correct but his freedom of speech via past political contributions would have still been censored by Sen. Kerry as the sole means for denying him the job.

Quoting DrDeke (Reply 130):
There is no constitutional right to be appointed as an ambassador to a foreign country, nor does failure to obtain such an appointment constitute censorship.

I never said that there was but if a single Senator can fillibuster a comittee thereby denying an individual a fair up or down vote by the whole Senate based on what ever political contributions that individual made in the past, that is a defacto censorship by of that nominees free speech not to mention any future nominee as the precedent has been set that if you donate money to a political orginization that they don't like, you won't get the job.

Quoting DrDeke (Reply 130):
You can say that it is your opinion that Mr. Kerry or "The Senate" are "fascists" or "dictators", but your opinion appears to run directly counter to the published and accepted definitions of the words "fascist," "dictator," "censor," and "censorship," and therefore seem quite ridiculous to me!

I never said the Senate are fascists, nor did I say that Senator Kerry is a dictator. I said what Senator Kerry did smacks of fascism since he is effectively using his post to exact revenge on those that might have contributed to political organs he does not agree with.

Quoting DrDeke (Reply 130):
But I find it rather pointless to discuss anything with you if you are going to say, as you did in your last post, that John Kerry is a fascist no matter what the word fascist means and no matter what actions John Kerry has or has not undertaken that would or would not, in actual fact, make him a fascist.

Then you spent a long time working your way up to this.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 131):
A single Senator can hold up the confirmation of any nominee with a filibuster.

Correct, thank you.

Quoting DrDeke (Reply 132):
I don't think I'm attempting to sidestep anything. I don't think that there is any free speech issue here.

Then name a single other issue that Senator Kerry disagreed with Mr. Fox about other than his use of his money to help the swift boat veterans spread their free speech. If you can't then this whole episode remains as I described it, namely Senator Kerry using his position on the SFC to exact a little revenge against someone who dared to contribute to a group that the Senator disagrees with. In other words, since Mr. Fox excersised his free speech, Senator Kerry was going to make him pay for that. So Senator Kerry used his position to exact some personal revenge which is also pretty sorry for someone entrusted to a high office such as U.S. Senator.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, and a road that goes forever. I'm going to Texas!
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: W Outflanks The Dems (again) W/recess Appointment

Tue Apr 10, 2007 11:53 am

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 125):
Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 109):
Actually, if you look at it politically, liberals are closer to communism, and conservatives closer to Nazism

Once again Falcon84 exaggerates instead of being accurate. To be accurate the totalitarian version of liberalism (the left) is Communism , while the Totalitarian version of the right is Nazism.

Gee, that's what I said. Way to make something out of nothing.  Yeah sure
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
itsjustme
Posts: 2742
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2004 6:58 pm

RE: W Outflanks The Dems (again) W/recess Appointment

Tue Apr 10, 2007 12:04 pm

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 134):
But denying someone an appointment simply because of who they supported politically in a Presidential campaign is petty, smacks of facisim, and says that Sen Kerry believes that censoring someones politcal views is ok when it comes to denying them an appointment.

Regardless of what it 'smacks of', it is perfectly legal. So, by your own argument with regard to the firing of the US attorneys, if it's legal then there's nothing wrong with doing it. Right? I believe "that's part of life" were your exact words.
 
RJdxer
Posts: 3523
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:14 am

RE: W Outflanks The Dems (again) W/recess Appointment

Tue Apr 10, 2007 1:05 pm

Quoting Itsjustme (Reply 136):
Regardless of what it 'smacks of', it is perfectly legal. So, by your own argument with regard to the firing of the US attorneys, if it's legal then there's nothing wrong with doing it. Right? I believe "that's part of life" were your exact words.

Where I have said or intoned that I think it is illegal? What I said was that is just goes to show how petty Sen. Kerry is. If he had been confirmed through the Senate he wouldn't be representing Sen. Kerry's interests he would be representing the Presidents. Senatory Kerry was not going to be his boss expecting him to conform to his wishes. Again, Ambassadors, like U.S. attorneys serve, at the pleasure of the President. Senate confirmation is there just to keep out those that would not have the intelligence to do the job properly which is a catagory that Ambassador Fox does not fall into. Blocking an appointment with the sole reason that Sen. Kerry did made it personal against Ambassador Fox simply because of his political beliefs which is the wrong way to go about using his position.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, and a road that goes forever. I'm going to Texas!
 
AirportSeven
Posts: 309
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 1:08 am

RE: W Outflanks The Dems (again) W/recess Appointment

Tue Apr 10, 2007 1:20 pm

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 137):
Senate confirmation is there just to keep out those that would not have the intelligence to do the job properly which is a catagory that Ambassador Fox does not fall into.

I always kind of figured that Senate confirmation was another example of checks and balances in action, a way to ensure that elected officials other than the President would have a say in who is best qualified for important diplomatic positions.
 
itsjustme
Posts: 2742
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2004 6:58 pm

RE: W Outflanks The Dems (again) W/recess Appointment

Tue Apr 10, 2007 1:59 pm

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 137):
Where I have said or intoned that I think it is illegal?

You haven't. But you have intoned, however, that just because something is legal, automatically makes it right.

Quoting AirportSeven (Reply 138):
checks and balances



Quoting AirportSeven (Reply 138):
President

 rotfl   rotfl   rotfl   rotfl   rotfl   rotfl 
 
RJdxer
Posts: 3523
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:14 am

RE: W Outflanks The Dems (again) W/recess Appointment

Tue Apr 10, 2007 3:08 pm

Quoting AirportSeven (Reply 138):
I always kind of figured that Senate confirmation was another example of checks and balances in action, a way to ensure that elected officials other than the President would have a say in who is best qualified for important diplomatic positions.

1. The Ambassador to Belgium is an important diplomatic position?
2. In this case only one other elected official got to have his say in whether the gentleman was best qualified or not, the other 99 got locked out.

Quoting Itsjustme (Reply 139):
You haven't. But you have intoned, however, that just because something is legal, automatically makes it right.

Far from it. 70 mph on the freeway in Texas is legal, but I don't think it's right, in someplaces it ought to be a hell of a lot faster. In Texas it's legal for a woman to go topless on the beach but I don't think that's right, she should be able to go topless wherever she feels like it!  wink 
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, and a road that goes forever. I'm going to Texas!
 
itsjustme
Posts: 2742
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2004 6:58 pm

RE: W Outflanks The Dems (again) W/recess Appointment

Tue Apr 10, 2007 3:57 pm

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 140):
In Texas it's legal for a woman to go topless on the beach but I don't think that's right, she should be able to go topless wherever she feels like it!

Thanks. I was just getting over seeing a woman at the topless pool at Ceasars in Vegas who was 80 if she was day. Legal or not...THAT was just wrong.  covereyes 
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: W Outflanks The Dems (again) W/recess Appointment

Tue Apr 10, 2007 8:45 pm

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 140):
In this case only one other elected official got to have his say in whether the gentleman was best qualified or not, the other 99 got locked out.

And this is the problem with the Senate, and it just doesn't apply to ambassadorial nominations. There have been treaties the US has signed, but cannot become a party to, all because one Senator decides to hold up the ratification.

If the Senate adopted rules that were a bit more sane, perhaps Presidents wouldn't need to make so many recess appointments.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
AirportSeven
Posts: 309
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 1:08 am

RE: W Outflanks The Dems (again) W/recess Appointment

Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:08 pm

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 140):
The Ambassador to Belgium is an important diplomatic position?

Relatively speaking, probably not as important as Deputy Commissioner of the Social Security Administration or Director of Oversight at the Office of Management and Budget, but those two posts were filled by recess appointment along with the Ambassadorship to Belgium.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 140):
In this case only one other elected official got to have his say in whether the gentleman was best qualified or not, the other 99 got locked out

Since Mr. Fox never appeared before the Senate, I guess we'll never know how the other 99 would have felt about his qualifications.
 
UALPHLCS
Posts: 3232
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2001 5:50 am

RE: W Outflanks The Dems (again) W/recess Appointment

Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:17 pm

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 135):
Gee, that's what I said. Way to make something out of nothing.

Actually you put party labels on it, which I totally disagree with. Republican's are not closer to Nazism. Republican's are far from Nazism.

Democrats inch closer to Socialism all the time. But I'd be exaggerating if I claimed they were closer to Communism.

In the interest of fairness to you Falcon84 I will say that Democrats and Republicans are closer to Communism and Nazism than there opposite Party. But they are closer to each other than they are to either extreme.

In the end that was really my point. Taking all of the rhetorical exaggeration out, I think we can agree that Republican's are far from Nazis.
A little less Hooah, and a little more Dooah.
 
RJdxer
Posts: 3523
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:14 am

RE: W Outflanks The Dems (again) W/recess Appointment

Tue Apr 10, 2007 10:29 pm

Quoting AirportSeven (Reply 143):
Deputy Commissioner of the Social Security Administration or Director of Oversight at the Office of Management and Budget,

Neither one are high level cabinet posts. Those are the kind of important positions I speak of.

Quoting AirportSeven (Reply 143):
Since Mr. Fox never appeared before the Senate, I guess we'll never know how the other 99 would have felt about his qualifications.

But he did appear before the Senate foreign relations committee which is where Sen. Kerry got his little digs in at the swift boat veterans group via Mr. Fox.

http://www.miamiherald.com/509/story/61271.html

In a statement issued shortly after the White House decision to withdraw the nomination was announced, Kerry said, ''Sam Fox had every opportunity to disavow the politics of personal destruction and to embrace the truth. He chose not to.''

Embrace the truth? If that isn't the same kind of drivel you would have heard coming out of the mouth of some Soviet commissar right after sentencing some poor guy to the gulag? Thank God Kerry was defeated.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, and a road that goes forever. I'm going to Texas!
 
DrDeke
Posts: 807
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 7:13 am

RE: W Outflanks The Dems (again) W/recess Appointment

Thu Apr 12, 2007 1:47 am

RJdxer: It's quite clear to me that you simply dislike John Kerry and are angry that he

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 144):

In the interest of fairness to you Falcon84 I will say that Democrats and Republicans are closer to Communism and Nazism than there opposite Party. But they are closer to each other than they are to either extreme.

In the end that was really my point. Taking all of the rhetorical exaggeration out, I think we can agree that Republican's are far from Nazis.

Does that mean we also all agree that the Democrats are far from Communists?

DrDeke
If you don't want it known, don't say it on a phone.
 
UALPHLCS
Posts: 3232
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2001 5:50 am

RE: W Outflanks The Dems (again) W/recess Appointment

Thu Apr 12, 2007 4:38 am

Quoting DrDeke (Reply 146):
Does that mean we also all agree that the Democrats are far from Communists?

This isn't clear enough?

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 144):
Democrats inch closer to Socialism all the time. But I'd be exaggerating if I claimed they were closer to Communism.
A little less Hooah, and a little more Dooah.
 
DrDeke
Posts: 807
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 7:13 am

RE: W Outflanks The Dems (again) W/recess Appointment

Thu Apr 12, 2007 5:45 am

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 147):
This isn't clear enough?

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 144):
Democrats inch closer to Socialism all the time. But I'd be exaggerating if I claimed they were closer to Communism.

Well, it's not exactly as clear as your statement about the Republicans. Fair and balanced, fair and balanced...  Smile

Also, that bit about RJdxer was not supposed to be there. That's for more argument that I am still in the process of composing. My mistake.

DrDeke
If you don't want it known, don't say it on a phone.
 
UALPHLCS
Posts: 3232
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2001 5:50 am

RE: W Outflanks The Dems (again) W/recess Appointment

Thu Apr 12, 2007 7:10 am

Quoting DrDeke (Reply 148):
Well, it's not exactly as clear as your statement about the Republicans.

It's not meant to be.

Republicans especially this administration are accused of inching toward fascism. Typical rhetorical tactic but nothing could be further from the truth.

On the other hand it can be shown that Democrat policies are attempts to move toward Socialism. Have been since the New Deal.

So what I said was accurate.
A little less Hooah, and a little more Dooah.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: phatfarmlines, tommy1808, vhqpa and 57 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos