Senator Ted Kennedy has called the recess appointment of John Bolton as U.N. ambassador a "devious maneuver that evades the constitutional requirement of Senate consent." But nearly six years ago — when Republicans were blocking President Clinton's nominees to various posts, and warning against recess appointments — Kennedy said, "I have long urged recess appointments to break this logjam — this irresponsible, unconstitutional Republican leadership position which fails to give people their due and fails to meet the constitutional standard."
Speaking of Bolton's recess appointment, the AP calls it an "in-your-face" and "confrontational" move. And, in what's billed as a news analysis piece, the AP says Bolton has "built-in handicaps," insisting, "He lacks the stature that comes with Senate approval. And he starts out as a lame duck." The article relies heavily on quotes from Robert Boorstin, who was a National Security Council aide in the Clinton White House. It also quotes Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid.
Virginia Republican Senator George Allen is quoted only in passing, as an example of Republicans who "weren't happy" with the president's decision. But, in fact, Allen was not unhappy with President Bush, he was unhappy with the Senate — which, he said, left the president no choice.
This Bolton appointment is just Washington inside-baseball. The Bush supporters are praising it as some brilliant way to outmaneuver the Democrats. Where's the brilliance? You read nothing on the merits of this guy.
There's alrealy legislation rolling through Congress that clearly points to another boycott of dues by the United States, by stacking up who knows how many conditions to receive it. Jesse Helms would be pleased.
Coleman has lost it. Then again being married to Laura Billings might just push a guy over the edge. Gotta give hip props one one count, Laura is pretty cute, how the hell that bald nutball landed her is anyone's guess.
Reader William Fields wrote Coleman: Had it been me I would have given you and your ilk the international high sign. G. W. has too much class for the likes of you. I would bet you still think it was only about private sex with Bill & Monica. Perjury had nothing to do with it.
Rat: Peculiar juxtaposition of issues and news event, there.
"Gotta give hip props one one count, Laura is pretty cute, how the hell that bald nutball landed her is anyone's guess."
When you're a liberal, women don't leave you alone.
Perhaps Coleman should have done a bit more research before he went to print. Oh well, why bother when you've got an agenda to push. It's not like the media has been batting 500 lately anyway, at least he didn't threaten to kill himself if Kelly is elected mayor again.
"Drop by a military reserve center to highlight increased benefits, the talking points suggest. Visit a bridge or highway that will receive additional funding, or talk up the new prescription drug benefit for seniors."
and....
"Having skirted budget restraints and approved nearly $300 billion in new spending and tax breaks before leaving town, Republican lawmakers are now determined to claim full credit for the congressional spending. Far from shying away from their accomplishments, lawmakers are embracing the pork, including graffiti eradication in the Bronx, $277 million in road projects for Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), and a $200,000 deer-avoidance system in New York."
When ever you purchase a business, you get the assets as well as the liabilities. You take this all into account when deciding what the business is worth. They are on the hook for the money scammed from Gloria Wise. That is why they say they will repay the loans. It would be interesting to see what the terms of the loan were. What collateral was put up, etc.
It was a bad business deal but on-air talent, particlarly Al Franken isn't the blame for it.
I was pretty ambivalent about Air America, and it's probably still going to eventually fail. There's not enough audience for that format, and liberasl don't do well in it, but you can't fault them trying to break the stanglehold that conservatives have in talk radio.
"The headline on Mark Kennedy's U.S. Senate campaign website, over excerpts from an Associated Press article, said he is "A Common-Sense Get Things Done Guy," and the AP material under the headline made the case that the Republican congressman voted with Democrats on 10 key issues this year.
"Missing from the story were 13 sentences in which Democrats and political analysts accused Kennedy of disguising a career of extreme conservative voting by only recently casting a few votes with Democrats as he prepares for a U.S. Senate race. "
If arch-conservatism is the direction of the country, now. Why would Kennedy need to do that?
Problem is, everyone says Congress is corrupt, but they all support their own Congresscritter.
The Founders never intended Congressional representation to be a full-time, life-long career. Our reps were supposed to be regular citizens, serving in a position that wouldn't take up all their time.
I don't like the concept of term limits because I think people should be able to elect anyone they choose to represent them. Does anyone have any other ideas on how to get rid of career politicians?
"The problem is, or as it certainly seems to be, that the people who have the brains and leadership qualities that we need the most right now, don't run for office, as they once did...OR, they are attacked and humiliated for the stupidest and most-dishonest of reasons, most of which are outright lies, perpetrated in sport, by the "other side".
It's nothing compared to the way it used to be. Find the dirt on your opponent and figure out a way to use it. It's been going on since ancient Greece.
Moderation's out the window. I think we're seeing the beginning of right-wing power taking hold in this country. Little things will swing it one way or another week by week. But that's small time. Republicans are raising more money and they're in the midst of stacking the courts. After they get the courts, they're running out of power that they can take.
Hell, there's a bill that's been brought befrore state legislatures that would allow college students to legally challege their grades on the assumption that the "liberal professors" are screwing them somehow. They want legislative fiat to help conservative students get better grades!
I don't like the concept of term limits because I think people should be able to elect anyone they choose to represent them.
I'll be damned -- we can agree on something. Term limits were sold in California as a way of getting Willie Brown out of his position as the most powerful man in Sacramento, which was due to both political savvy and longevity; I don't think it was a coincidence that Wille is black. The voters passed term limits by almost a 3:1 margin, but 93% of the incumbents running were re-elected.
Does anyone have any other ideas on how to get rid of career politicians?
If God had meant us to vote, he'd have given us candidates.
The term "activist" is now being used by everyone to describe judges whose decisions they don't like. It's a bad word and one we should stop using.
A judge should make rulings based on the law as written. But now we're getting decisons that are considering foreign laws and international opinion, "evolving standards" and "nuance" and a "living Constitution."
We have a method for changing laws and the Constitution, and it involves the voice of the people. Legislatures are for making and changing laws. Judges are for interpreting those laws and declaring them as constitutional or not.
There is no constitutional right to abortion or gay marriage or disrupting classrooms or taking private homes for shopping malls or admission to universities. Congress and state legislatures can make laws, and the will of the people will be made clear by elections and by people writing and phoning their representatives. The will of the people is limited by the written constitutions of states and the country.
The decisions of judges must be based on the written law, not their individual preferences.
So I ask; What Judge(s) are "Activist", and what causes you to say that? In other words, exactly what did these judges decide that makes them "Activist"...?
Bush is on the left in that picture, Bill. He's conventionally clad. I really think the man knows what kind of clothes he wears.
"If ya know what HE means... Because obviously, he doesn't."
You're over the top with the Bush bashing. It's everything wtih you. You can't resist an opportunity even with something as innocuous and silly as a bike ride photo op with Lance Armstrong.
You can't resist an opportunity even with something as innocuous and silly as a bike ride photo op with Lance Armstrong.
Thank you Rat. Honestlydisagreeing with policy is one thing, but to try to pick on a president over things like this is just sickening and getting quite old.
One example is that they decided there was a right to privacy in the Constitution. Look for it. It isn't there.
Anyway, where does it say privacy is a right. Not one time is it mentioned. Not anywhere. Not just the 14th amendment, but anywhere.
How many times do you folks have to be reminded that the Constitution does not grant rights to the people, it merely gives the power to the government to limit some of the rights that the people have by virtue of being human? That concept was so radical at the time that even more than two centuries later, the majority of the people in this country still don't comprehend it. The government of the USA does not give rights to the people, the people possess "unalienable rights," life, liberty and the 'purfuit of happinefs' among them.
Amendment IX - Construction of Constitution
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
When you say "there is no right to privacy in the Constitution," you are denying and disparaging a right retained by the people, because it wasn't enumerated. Madison knew that people like you would do that, which is why the Ninth was added to the Bill of Rights.
It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.
Jethro continues
When they made up this "law" they threw out the laws of many states. That is not what this country is about.
So I assume you've got a problem with Brown v. Board of Education and Loving v. Virginia as well, jethro? That's an apt name you picked, then.
"How many times do you folks have to be reminded that the Constitution does not grant rights to the people, it merely gives the power to the government to limit some of the rights that the people have by virtue of being human? That concept was so radical at the time that even more than two centuries later, the majority of the people in this country still don't comprehend it. The government of the USA does not give rights to the people, the people possess "unalienable rights," life, liberty and the 'purfuit of happinefs' among them. "
By your logic, I have a right to have right to beat the crap out of you and steal your wallet because it is not specifically listed as a power of the government in the constitution and therefore is an implied right. We all know that this is not true. Besides, if there is a right to privacy, then why are there laws for indecent exposure? If I choose to walk around my house naked, you must look away because I have a right to privacy. What a about the privacy act of 1974? It must be unconstitutional because I already have a right to privacy that the government cannot infringe upon.Â
Obviously you're not IN the Taliban, jethro or you'd be telling us to convert to Islam or die. .
Taliban members also need to have a beard of a certain length or they get in trouble. Don't know where you're at there.
That cartoon is about Iraq's Constitution.
Maybe I read it wrong, but since they're talking about womens rights in Iraq, and they have "Choice" marked out....
Taliban members also need to have a beard of a certain length or they get in trouble. Don't know where you're at there.
I'd be in deep trouble.
Senator Ted Kennedy has called the recess appointment of John Bolton as U.N. ambassador a "devious maneuver that evades the constitutional requirement of Senate consent." But nearly six years ago — when Republicans were blocking President Clinton's nominees to various posts, and warning against recess appointments — Kennedy said, "I have long urged recess appointments to break this logjam — this irresponsible, unconstitutional Republican leadership position which fails to give people their due and fails to meet the constitutional standard."
Speaking of Bolton's recess appointment, the AP calls it an "in-your-face" and "confrontational" move. And, in what's billed as a news analysis piece, the AP says Bolton has "built-in handicaps," insisting, "He lacks the stature that comes with Senate approval. And he starts out as a lame duck." The article relies heavily on quotes from Robert Boorstin, who was a National Security Council aide in the Clinton White House. It also quotes Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid.
Virginia Republican Senator George Allen is quoted only in passing, as an example of Republicans who "weren't happy" with the president's decision. But, in fact, Allen was not unhappy with President Bush, he was unhappy with the Senate — which, he said, left the president no choice.
This Bolton appointment is just Washington inside-baseball. The Bush supporters are praising it as some brilliant way to outmaneuver the Democrats. Where's the brilliance? You read nothing on the merits of this guy.
There's alrealy legislation rolling through Congress that clearly points to another boycott of dues by the United States, by stacking up who knows how many conditions to receive it. Jesse Helms would be pleased.
http://www.startribune.com/stories/357/5540054.html
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/011245.php
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/011246.php
Coleman has lost it. Then again being married to Laura Billings might just push a guy over the edge. Gotta give hip props one one count, Laura is pretty cute, how the hell that bald nutball landed her is anyone's guess.
Thoughtful conservatives take umbridge with Nick Coleman
Reader William Fields wrote Coleman:
Had it been me I would have given you and your ilk the international high sign. G. W. has too much class for the likes of you. I would bet you still think it was only about private sex with Bill & Monica. Perjury had nothing to do with it.
Rat: Peculiar juxtaposition of issues and news event, there.
"Gotta give hip props one one count, Laura is pretty cute, how the hell that bald nutball landed her is anyone's guess."
When you're a liberal, women don't leave you alone.
When you're a liberal, women don't leave you alone.
LOL
That should be your tagline, Rick.
Hey whatever melts her butter. I guess old liberal nutbars are her thing. Good for her.
Perhaps Coleman should have done a bit more research before he went to print. Oh well, why bother when you've got an agenda to push. It's not like the media has been batting 500 lately anyway, at least he didn't threaten to kill himself if Kelly is elected mayor again.
"Why can't Al Gore get over it?"
A teenage kid sticks out her tongue oh no, call Nick Coleman.
GOP lawmakers told to 'embrace the pork."
"Drop by a military reserve center to highlight increased benefits, the talking points suggest. Visit a bridge or highway that will receive additional funding, or talk up the new prescription drug benefit for seniors."
and....
"Having skirted budget restraints and approved nearly $300 billion in new spending and tax breaks before leaving town, Republican lawmakers are now determined to claim full credit for the congressional spending. Far from shying away from their accomplishments, lawmakers are embracing the pork, including graffiti eradication in the Bronx, $277 million in road projects for Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), and a $200,000 deer-avoidance system in New York."
If the allegations of mismanagement and corruption at Gloria Wise Boys and Girls Club are true, it is absolutely disgraceful.
Air American Clears the air as much as it can.
There's no list of advertisers I can find on the station web site. Listen and support if you wish.
I think balance in talk radio is important.
When ever you purchase a business, you get the assets as well as the liabilities. You take this all into account when deciding what the business is worth. They are on the hook for the money scammed from Gloria Wise. That is why they say they will repay the loans. It would be interesting to see what the terms of the loan were. What collateral was put up, etc.
Why don't you ask THEM? Will that happen?...nope.
And Bill Fold says he never gives people shit about serving unless they give him shit first.
It was a bad business deal but on-air talent, particlarly Al Franken isn't the blame for it.
I was pretty ambivalent about Air America, and it's probably still going to eventually fail. There's not enough audience for that format, and liberasl don't do well in it, but you can't fault them trying to break the stanglehold that conservatives have in talk radio.
Later Bill Fold.
...I know you are, but what am I?.....
Just trying to inject a little humor into the playground brawl.
Kennedy told to quit twisting news articles
"The headline on Mark Kennedy's U.S. Senate campaign website, over excerpts from an Associated Press article, said he is "A Common-Sense Get Things Done Guy," and the AP material under the headline made the case that the Republican congressman voted with Democrats on 10 key issues this year.
"Missing from the story were 13 sentences in which Democrats and political analysts accused Kennedy of disguising a career of extreme conservative voting by only recently casting a few votes with Democrats as he prepares for a U.S. Senate race. "
If arch-conservatism is the direction of the country, now. Why would Kennedy need to do that?
maybe because minnesota still has a sigificant population still living in the past.
Or afraid of what they see is the future.
Or afraid of what they see is the future.
Gee, who does THAT remind me of?
On second thought, who DOESN'T that apply to?
Problem is, everyone says Congress is corrupt, but they all support their own Congresscritter.
The Founders never intended Congressional representation to be a full-time, life-long career. Our reps were supposed to be regular citizens, serving in a position that wouldn't take up all their time.
I don't like the concept of term limits because I think people should be able to elect anyone they choose to represent them. Does anyone have any other ideas on how to get rid of career politicians?
"The Founders never intended Congressional representation to be a full-time, life-long career."
Then why did so many of them make it a full-time, long term career?
"Does anyone have any other ideas on how to get rid of career politicians?"
Field a better group of amateur politicians. The problem is, they tend to look amateur.
"The problem is, or as it certainly seems to be, that the people who have the brains and leadership qualities that we need the most right now, don't run for office, as they once did...OR, they are attacked and humiliated for the stupidest and most-dishonest of reasons, most of which are outright lies, perpetrated in sport, by the "other side".
It's nothing compared to the way it used to be. Find the dirt on your opponent and figure out a way to use it. It's been going on since ancient Greece.
Moderation's out the window. I think we're seeing the beginning of right-wing power taking hold in this country. Little things will swing it one way or another week by week. But that's small time. Republicans are raising more money and they're in the midst of stacking the courts. After they get the courts, they're running out of power that they can take.
Hell, there's a bill that's been brought befrore state legislatures that would allow college students to legally challege their grades on the assumption that the "liberal professors" are screwing them somehow. They want legislative fiat to help conservative students get better grades!
And on and on....
http://www.walken2008.com/politics.html
Â
Yikes...
Right?
I'll be damned -- we can agree on something. Term limits were sold in California as a way of getting Willie Brown out of his position as the most powerful man in Sacramento, which was due to both political savvy and longevity; I don't think it was a coincidence that Wille is black. The voters passed term limits by almost a 3:1 margin, but 93% of the incumbents running were re-elected.
If God had meant us to vote, he'd have given us candidates.
I don't think its a joke
they're in the midst of stacking the courts
No, they're trying to put judges in place who will interpret the law, not make it.
"No, they're trying to put judges in place who will interpret the law, not make it."
I hope they don't interpret us back to the 1950s.
So lets have more rulings like seizing private property for private use. 1950's values?...yes.
The term "activist" is now being used by everyone to describe judges whose decisions they don't like. It's a bad word and one we should stop using.
A judge should make rulings based on the law as written. But now we're getting decisons that are considering foreign laws and international opinion, "evolving standards" and "nuance" and a "living Constitution."
We have a method for changing laws and the Constitution, and it involves the voice of the people. Legislatures are for making and changing laws. Judges are for interpreting those laws and declaring them as constitutional or not.
There is no constitutional right to abortion or gay marriage or disrupting classrooms or taking private homes for shopping malls or admission to universities. Congress and state legislatures can make laws, and the will of the people will be made clear by elections and by people writing and phoning their representatives. The will of the people is limited by the written constitutions of states and the country.
The decisions of judges must be based on the written law, not their individual preferences.
Amen!
So I ask; What Judge(s) are "Activist", and what causes you to say that? In other words, exactly what did these judges decide that makes them "Activist"...?
actually, he's just wearing a polo shirt and regular (not Spandex) shorts.
Armstrong is wearing both a shirt and shorts made of Spandex.
Bush is on the left in that picture, Bill. He's conventionally clad. I really think the man knows what kind of clothes he wears.
"If ya know what HE means... Because obviously, he doesn't."
You're over the top with the Bush bashing. It's everything wtih you. You can't resist an opportunity even with something as innocuous and silly as a bike ride photo op with Lance Armstrong.
It's your typical, sad bill fold.
You can't resist an opportunity even with something as innocuous and silly as a bike ride photo op with Lance Armstrong.
Thank you Rat. Honestlydisagreeing with policy is one thing, but to try to pick on a president over things like this is just sickening and getting quite old.
This part was pretty funny however...
uh... do ya think?
Anyway, where does it say privacy is a right.
Not one time is it mentioned. Not anywhere. Not just the 14th amendment, but anywhere.
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am14
How many times do you folks have to be reminded that the Constitution does not grant rights to the people, it merely gives the power to the government to limit some of the rights that the people have by virtue of being human? That concept was so radical at the time that even more than two centuries later, the majority of the people in this country still don't comprehend it. The government of the USA does not give rights to the people, the people possess "unalienable rights," life, liberty and the 'purfuit of happinefs' among them.
Amendment IX - Construction of Constitution
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
When you say "there is no right to privacy in the Constitution," you are denying and disparaging a right retained by the people, because it wasn't enumerated. Madison knew that people like you would do that, which is why the Ninth was added to the Bill of Rights.
Jethro continues
So I assume you've got a problem with Brown v. Board of Education and Loving v. Virginia as well, jethro? That's an apt name you picked, then.
"How many times do you folks have to be reminded that the Constitution does not grant rights to the people, it merely gives the power to the government to limit some of the rights that the people have by virtue of being human? That concept was so radical at the time that even more than two centuries later, the majority of the people in this country still don't comprehend it. The government of the USA does not give rights to the people, the people possess "unalienable rights," life, liberty and the 'purfuit of happinefs' among them. "
By your logic, I have a right to have right to beat the crap out of you and steal your wallet because it is not specifically listed as a power of the government in the constitution and therefore is an implied right. We all know that this is not true. Besides, if there is a right to privacy, then why are there laws for indecent exposure? If I choose to walk around my house naked, you must look away because I have a right to privacy. What a about the privacy act of 1974? It must be unconstitutional because I already have a right to privacy that the government cannot infringe upon.Â