WTF ... IS WTF!?
We are a collective of people who believe in freedom of speech, the rights of individuals, and free pancakes! We share our lives, struggles, frustrations, successes, joys, and prescribe to our own special brand of humor and insanity. If you are looking for a great place to hang out, make new friends, find new nemeses, and just be yourself, WTF.com is your new home.

Headlines John Bolton gets the job!

RetArt

A Rampant Vagitarian
1,025
0
0
#1
So. George W Bush has once again stepped over the senate and made John Bolton the UN ambassador. A man well known for his critisicm towards the United Nations. He is known as "undersecretary of chads" or the "anti-diplomat".
He is a man well known from his quotes: "If [the UN Secretariat building] lost 10 stories,” Bolton once quipped, “it wouldn't make a bit of difference."
or
"There is no such thing as the United Nations".

The democratic senate opposed to it.
The UN opposed to it.
The rest of the world opposed to it.

And there you go, another hawk gets a high position.
 

voiceofreason

Seeker of Truth
1,329
0
0
#2
RetArt said:
So. George W Bush has once again stepped over the senate and made John Bolton the UN ambassador. A man well known for his critisicm towards the United Nations. He is known as "undersecretary of chads" or the "anti-diplomat".
He is a man well known from his quotes: "If [the UN Secretariat building] lost 10 stories,” Bolton once quipped, “it wouldn't make a bit of difference."
or
"There is no such thing as the United Nations".

The democratic senate opposed to it.
The UN opposed to it.
The rest of the world opposed to it.

And there you go, another hawk gets a high position.
Bush thinks he's so smart making this recess appointment. Wait till he sees what it gets him.


The best part will be to see what that bull in a china shop does once he gets there...
 

UberSkippy

a.k.a. FuckTheBullShit
7,529
28
142
#3
This won't hurt G W Bush one little bit. He can't be re-elected and how many former presidents have gone on to run for other offices? He'll still get his $200,000 an hour speaking fee once he's out of office.

The problem here is that George Bush is further dividing the United States. Already, if you don't agree with him you don't matter. He's used his religious agenda to make two classes of people in the United States: Christians and the "Other people"

It's quite obvious that Bush could care less about people that don't agree with him. Look at his cabinet. It's nothing but yes men. I doubt one man in the bunch has the balls to stand up and say "Mr. President, I think that's a bad idea." What other explanation could there be for a president who still thinks that the majority of the country believes in the Iraq War?
 
685
0
0
#4
voiceofreason said:
Bush thinks he's so smart making this recess appointment. Wait till he sees what it gets him.
Umm...exactly what will it get him?
 

voiceofreason

Seeker of Truth
1,329
0
0
#5
FlipTheState said:
Umm...exactly what will it get him?
When you play dirty, you get dirt. He's not going to get Democratic cooperation on any level. Hope it was worth it.
 

JLXC

WTF's Official Conspiracy Fanatic
Premium
7,550
262
302
#6
I'll worry when Bush breaks the two-term rule, or another Bush runs right after him. Then I'll join the fucking Resistance. Seriously.
 

Icarus

(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
6,775
248
118
#7
So... I mean...

How long until somebody assassinates him? It's not a question of when his term will end, because he'll legislate out that silly "4 year" rule and just keep running the country like a redneck boozing joint. And he won't die naturally, he'll pass a bill that rules out aging. It's just a matter of time at this point.
 
685
0
0
#8
voiceofreason said:
When you play dirty, you get dirt. He's not going to get Democratic cooperation on any level. Hope it was worth it.
You say this as if bipartisanhip weren't the order of the day...as if riding the party lines weren't more important than doing what makes sense. Has he gotten Democratic cooperation on any issue worth discussing to date?
For that matter, has any president, Democratic or Republican? Your point smacks of unfocused frustration.

icarus said:
So... I mean...

How long until somebody assassinates him? It's not a question of when his term will end, because he'll legislate out that silly "4 year" rule and just keep running the country like a redneck boozing joint. And he won't die naturally, he'll pass a bill that rules out aging. It's just a matter of time at this point.
Ok, and you....you repeat after me: "PATRIOT ACT"...
 

voiceofreason

Seeker of Truth
1,329
0
0
#9
FlipTheState said:
You say this as if bipartisanhip weren't the order of the day...as if riding the party lines weren't more important than doing what makes sense. Has he gotten Democratic cooperation on any issue worth discussing to date?
For that matter, has any president, Democratic or Republican? Your point smacks of unfocused frustration.
Bush and his team have no clue how to build consensus to get things done. They are a bunch of Hillbilly bullies.

The point is he's sticking it to the Democrats, and it will not foster ay good will.
 
685
0
0
#10
voiceofreason said:
Bush and his team have no clue how to build consensus to get things done. They are a bunch of Hillbilly bullies.

The point is he's sticking it to the Democrats, and it will not foster ay good will.
Uh huh. So what you're saying is 'business as usual' up on the Hill. Oh, and that you think Bush is a Hillbilly.
To argue that Bush's lack of ability or desire to build consensus is why the government can't get anything done....well...just seems more of an emotional statement than a rational one.
Government has been run this way since long before our time...it's why NO President or administration can really get anything done in a timely or effective manner. No matter what party sits in the White House, the opposing party digs in and fights to the death. Stupidity abounds in both parties, (EDIT: removed double comment) and Bush isn't the only one who makes full use of his innate abilities to piss people off and side-step the process to further a personal agenda.

Just to play devil's advocate, do you really think that his administration doesn't have a clue as to how to build consensus...or maybe they're just realists who know that the Dems will fight everything that comes across the table no matter what.

If you're going to argue, argue intelligently.
 

DanGeo23

Resident Conservative
1,218
0
0
#12
its funny how the left wants to decide the appointments when they win elections and when they lose elections... surely you don't think that this is the first recess appointment.... its funny how Dems support recess appointments when they make them but are so staunchly against them when Reps make them...
 
685
0
0
#13
DanGeo23 said:
its funny how the left wants to decide the appointments when they win elections and when they lose elections... surely you don't think that this is the first recess appointment.... its funny how Dems support recess appointments when they make them but are so staunchly against them when Reps make them...
Goes both ways. Not as if either side has the monopoly on being asinine or hypocritical.
 

UberSkippy

a.k.a. FuckTheBullShit
7,529
28
142
#14
FlipTheState said:
Goes both ways. Not as if either side has the monopoly on being asinine or hypocritical.
Oh lets just call it like it is: they're all shitheads.

Granted Bush seems to revel in being a bigger shithead. It wasn't just the Dems that opposed Bolton. At least one Republican and pretty much the rest of the world. Bush just has this tendancy to not think outside of the US. That or he just doesn't care...
 

voiceofreason

Seeker of Truth
1,329
0
0
#15
DanGeo23 said:
its funny how the left wants to decide the appointments when they win elections and when they lose elections... surely you don't think that this is the first recess appointment.... its funny how Dems support recess appointments when they make them but are so staunchly against them when Reps make them...
This is another one of your unsubstaniated generalization against people who don't think like you. Not only is it a bore, it's pointless.
 

UberSkippy

a.k.a. FuckTheBullShit
7,529
28
142
#16
voiceofreason said:
This is another one of your unsubstaniated generalization against people who don't think like you. Not only is it a bore, it's pointless.
Not trying to start shit but your post is a bit of the pot and the kettle again. You disagree with his POV so you make a disparaging remark about him.

While I might not think like him he is right. This type of behavior isn't exactly a "Republican" thing you know.
 

voiceofreason

Seeker of Truth
1,329
0
0
#17
UberSkippy said:
Not trying to start shit but your post is a bit of the pot and the kettle again. You disagree with his POV so you make a disparaging remark about him.

While I might not think like him he is right. This type of behavior isn't exactly a "Republican" thing you know.
Uber,
We have a hate-hate relationship, don't sweat it...
 

gurlgonewild

Was machen Sie?
1,086
0
0
#18
i heard the most disconcerting statement today, someone told me they loved GWB.
FUCK ME HARDER.
 
137
0
76
#19
About John Bolton's appointment:

This individual's history should have ruled him out to begin with recess appointment or no. The objection that atleast I have to this recess appointment was that popular opinion really seemed against Bolton and don't give me "Its the media's liberal bias." crap. Republicans have near complete control of talk radio and Fox.

The objection to the recess appointment is that recess appointments were built into the Constitution when the U.N. did not exist. George Bush appointing Bolton this way just further shows his(or actually its probably Cheney's) powermongering, considering there is no evidence the writers of the Constitution would have supported that OR the U.N.

Regarding the lack of bipartisanship:

The US Constitution itself is intended to cause a degree of government instability. This is so that it is much harder for a party to take complete control over the government, George Bush has shown that it is possible, though. Some might say the same is true of Bill Clinton.
 
685
0
0
#20
Runningflame570 said:
About John Bolton's appointment:

This individual's history should have ruled him out to begin with recess appointment or no. The objection that atleast I have to this recess appointment was that popular opinion really seemed against Bolton and don't give me "Its the media's liberal bias." crap. Republicans have near complete control of talk radio and Fox.
Popular opinion was against him? What poll was that in? America had about 45 minutes to decide whether or not they liked him before he was placed in office. Besides, popular opinion is all about the demographics of the sample group, in terms of the opinion polls that are published, anyways. Any opinions regarding Bolton's appointment would have been conducted after the fact. I don't have much faith in statistical reporting unless it's conducted by a non-partisan or other reliable agency.
Runningflame570 said:
The objection to the recess appointment is that recess appointments were built into the Constitution when the U.N. did not exist. George Bush appointing Bolton this way just further shows his(or actually its probably Cheney's) powermongering, considering there is no evidence the writers of the Constitution would have supported that OR the U.N.
Not sure what you're getting at here. I don't think the existence of the U.N. and the timing of the Constitution are the core issues, nor do I think the correlation adds any inherent value to the argument. There are many things that are in place in this country that people - even the Supreme Court - aren't completely sure that the founding fathers would agree with.

Runningflame570 said:
Regarding the lack of bipartisanship:

The US Constitution itself is intended to cause a degree of government instability. This is so that it is much harder for a party to take complete control over the government, George Bush has shown that it is possible, though. Some might say the same is true of Bill Clinton.
To some extent it is possible with any president, although I wouldn't term it as "complete control". This example does not fit in that category, though. This is more about a president taking advantage of loopholes in order to accomplish his personal agenda rather than his taking control of the government. Unfortunately for those who wish to use this argument, it's not something that he and he alone are guilty of...every president of this century has used that power at one time or another.