NationStates Jolt Archive

...by none other than ex-Klansman Robert Byrd. Even after a 16-2 vote from the Senate Foreign Affairs Comittee (the "nay" votes cast by sore loser John Kerry and Barbara Boxer), Byrd claimed that the Democrats needed more time to study Rice's testimony. I'm not saying this is a racist move, but can you imagine the media fallout that would occur if an ex-Klansman Republican had done this to a black Democrat? You guys would be all over this, taking more opportunities to criticize Republicans.

As usual, the Dems are doing everything they can to impede the Bush administration from running smoothly. And they'll get a free pass from most major media outlets.

Source: " The mainstream media merely continues to be an embarrassment to itself." (http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/editorial/38623.htm)

or how about shes doing a bad job? arent you the guys who keep on harping on affirmitive action because it only lets people succeed because theyre black? i doubt this wont be news. i seriously doubt its because shes black. she is inept, a clear yes-woman, she threw wrenches in the 9-11 investigation and missed the memo. and the dems are doing everything to stop the administration from running smoothly? from the party that brought you monicagate? maybe theyre doing their jonb instead of just letting every crazy through. wow, i promise ill be more coherent later

Hasn't she already gone after Belarus?

Any delay is welcome in my opinion.

As usual, the Dems are doing everything they can to impede the Bush administration from running smoothly.
Isn't that the reason an opposition exists?

I have to shake my head at the Democratic Party!

So much for being the party of racial acceptence. :D

Anyway!

I find this to be very stupid. This will only come back and haunt them later. She'll make an excellent SecState but then again, I guess the democrats just don't care about the paperwork backup that'll take place because of this blockage.

Meh!

Demos impeding the shrub?!?!?!?! :eek:

You trying to say the Repubs always work with a Demo President?

Why bring up racism? Byrds argument sounds reasonable.

its not evil, its just ironic

and its still racist to give a person a pass just because of their race.

. . .ir maybe there is something to question about Condi Rice. She's been very oily ever since the admisitration started. Oh, and also, the administration has kicked up enough of its own road bumps, I don't think the democrats are actually hurting it in any way.

She'll make an excellent Sec of State, just like Ashcroft. What other violations of the consititution can she throw in and make it look like our freedom is being protected? How else can she screw over the US? How much can she ruin relations with the rest of the world?

I find this to be very stupid. This will only come back and haunt them later. She'll make an excellent SecState but then again, I guess the democrats just don't care about the paperwork backup that'll take place because of this blockage.

Remains to be seen. I know people at Stanford and they don't have kind things to say about her. They are major Shrub supporters so you can't play the liberal demo commie card! ;)

The fact she got rattled on the first outing? A person with integrity usually doesn't talk about it.....

As usual, the Dems are doing everything they can to impede the Bush administration from running smoothly.

*shrug* ... the Reps did it to Clinton. People always show their truest colors when the shoe is on the other foot.

I have to shake my head at the Democratic Party!

So much for being the party of racial acceptence. :D

Anyway!

I find this to be very stupid. This will only come back and haunt them later. She'll make an excellent SecState but then again, I guess the democrats just don't care about the paperwork backup that'll take place because of this blockage.
First of all-white noise. Provide more than tangential evidence that this is about race and not about Rice.

Second of all-you know what hurt democrats more than anything in this last election? Being republican lapdogs. Kerry was burned more for having gone along with Bush than he was for going against him. If anything continued complacency would be infinantly more harmful than actually standing up for themselves for a change.

I have to shake my head at the Democratic Party!

So much for being the party of racial acceptence. :D

Anyway!

I find this to be very stupid. This will only come back and haunt them later. She'll make an excellent SecState but then again, I guess the democrats just don't care about the paperwork backup that'll take place because of this blockage.
an excellent secretary of state my ass. all we need is another half wit in on of the more important positions in the country

comitte: "What was the title of the memo?"
Rice: "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the US"

an excellent secretary of state my ass. all we need is another half wit in on of the more important positions in the country

comitte: "What was the title of the memo?"
Rice: "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the US"

So who do you nominate?

First of all-white noise. Provide more than tangential evidence that this is about race and not about Rice.

I guess you missed the :D next to that post! It means I was joking!

Second of all-you know what hurt democrats more than anything in this last election? Being republican lapdogs. Kerry was burned more for having gone along with Bush than he was for going against him. If anything continued complacency would be infinantly more harmful than actually standing up for themselves for a change.

You know what hurt them most? Running on the Anti-Bush ticket with a candidate that couldn't stay consistent on any issue. But that is beside the point and not worth argueing here.

an excellent secretary of state my ass. all we need is another half wit in on of the more important positions in the country

comitte: "What was the title of the memo?"
Rice: "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the US"

And your point of one question?

So who do you nominate?
i vote we have some one other than bush nominate someone, he is purposefully playing against the democrats to put into office people who have no business being there

I forgot to add this:

the author seems just a bit bitter. Just a bit. Calling Senator Kerry sore-loser Kerry doesn't seem to be the greatest way to establish credibility among journalists. Also calling Boxer a 'left-wing nut'. Byrd has presented a reasonable request, he wants to look at Condi's record for a bit more, then the vote can go again.

Oh, Byrd also has resigned from the KKK long before becoming a senator, and has, and continues to, denounce the organization. Looks like the author was a bit too focused on one thing. Why don't we bring up W's crack fiasco? Or his drunk driving?

The author also failed to mention that Byrd did not block Powell from being elected, Powell, if you haven't noticed, is Black.



just because I can: funny nicknames for the Bush cabinet (http://www.whitehouse.org/administration/index.asp)

*shrug* ... the Reps did it to Clinton. People always show their truest colors when the shoe is on the other foot.

But did the Republican party block any of Clinton's Cabinet Nominations? The answer as far as I know is no they didn't.

i vote we have some one other than bush nominate someone, he is purposefully playing against the democrats to put into office people who have no business being there

Sadly, the American system doesn't work like that.

i vote we have some one other than bush nominate someone, he is purposefully playing against the democrats to put into office people who have no business being there

Then propose a Constitutional Amendment. That is all it'll take and I wish you luck in getting it to pass Congress!

A lot of good points have been brought up here.

First of all, it is rather strange that the one guy who blocked the vote was an ex-klansman.

Second, the Democrats do seem to do anything possible to impede the Bush administration. They voted for the war in Iraq, but then not to fund it. Then, there was the Bush energy plan, which would have let oil companies drill in the Federal Reserve in Alaska instead of Buttcrackistan and thusly bring down gas prices and send less money to terrorists, but Tom Daschle locked that right up nice and good.

Third, Republicans don't exactly work well with Democratic presidents, but they certainly don't try to stop the Democratic National Convention, either.


But also, a lot of stupid things have been said. Like about Ashcroft restricting people's rights. Oh no, he's trying to catch terrorists! Please say it ain't so! The only way you can get someone under the Patriot act is if you bring good solid evidence to the courts (which may I remind you are the biggest stronghold of left-wing politics in the country) and then they review it and choose to either issue or decline an arrest warrant. That, my friend, is not against the Constitution in any way.

the ppoint remainds: rice is not some one who should be in the position of secretary of state

I'm a conservative who wants Rice confirmed, but this isn't a racist thing. This is about allowing Rice's critics a chance to voice their problems with her on the congressional record. I listened to about three hours of testimony during the confirmation hearings and thought a few of her answers lacking--especially as concerned the torture and the US's position on geneva and these terrorists. She fumbled that answer terribly, and I think needs to own up to it. She wouldn't even disclose whether she herself believed that waterboarding was torture.

Rice has to be braver than she has been in this new job. Powell has been willing to criticize the Bush administration openly about some of their positions. I don't know whether Rice has the balls to do this. She should, though, in my opinion.

This is the process, like it or not. The dems will get to take on the administration via open debate, and then Rice will get the nod.

the ppoint remainds: rice is not some one who should be in the position of secretary of state

Why not?

the ppoint remainds: rice is not some one who should be in the position of secretary of state

I think she should be!

and if i change my major to political science i have a thesis: why the american government doesnt give a fuck about its people

I think she should be!
you would, fanboy

you would, fanboy

HAHAHAHA!!!!

This has to be a funny statement. I think she'll make a good one. They way she handled Barbara Boxer is proof of that. She had full right to attack Ms. Boxer but she didn't. She was very dipolmatic in responding to her.

and if i change my major to political science i have a thesis: why the american government doesnt give a fuck about its people

Good luck in proving it!

BTW: I am a Political Science Major with a secondary major in History

HAHAHAHA!!!!

This has to be a funny statement. I think she'll make a good one. They way she handled Barbara Boxer is proof of that. She had full right to attack Ms. Boxer but she didn't. She was very dipolmatic in responding to her.
which makes her a good secretary of state how? applying ad hominem attacks in response to another ad hominem attack during a conference does not make her a good secretary of state, hell if employing logical fallacies at pertinent points in a conversation is a prerequisite for secretary of state, sign me up

and if i change my major to political science i have a thesis: why the american government doesnt give a fuck about its people


You obviously haven't spent any time on comparitive politics, have you?

But also, a lot of stupid things have been said. Like about Ashcroft restricting people's rights. Oh no, he's trying to catch terrorists! Please say it ain't so! The only way you can get someone under the Patriot act is if you bring good solid evidence to the courts (which may I remind you are the biggest stronghold of left-wing politics in the country) and then they review it and choose to either issue or decline an arrest warrant. That, my friend, is not against the Constitution in any way.

Have you actually read the text of that thing? If you did, you would see that the patriot act allows for seach and seizure without a warrant (violation of amendment IV), allows for people to be held without charge (V), and allows for government to 'spy' on what you are doing (again, IV).

I don't care about the government hunting terrorists, they can do that all they want. But violating the constituiton to do so? I don't think so.

Second, the Democrats do seem to do anything possible to impede the Bush administration. They voted for the war in Iraq, but then not to fund it. Then, there was the Bush energy plan, which would have let oil companies drill in the Federal Reserve in Alaska instead of Buttcrackistan and thusly bring down gas prices and send less money to terrorists, but Tom Daschle locked that right up nice and good.

Third, Republicans don't exactly work well with Democratic presidents, but they certainly don't try to stop the Democratic National Convention, either.


But also, a lot of stupid things have been said. Like about Ashcroft restricting people's rights. Oh no, he's trying to catch terrorists! Please say it ain't so! The only way you can get someone under the Patriot act is if you bring good solid evidence to the courts (which may I remind you are the biggest stronghold of left-wing politics in the country) and then they review it and choose to either issue or decline an arrest warrant. That, my friend, is not against the Constitution in any way.
First of all they voted for a war based on flawed intelligence provided by the bush administration. They voted against war time spending with blank checks. They voted against the war time spending after the bill was changed to make America have the full bill.

Secondly look up some information about the Alaskan oil reserves, the are relatively small and would not have lowered gas prices.

Wanna guess how many terrorists have been affected by the Patriot Act? None. They are allowed to detain people without legal counsel indefinately. You also have no idea how far reaching the act is, it affected my 92 year great aunt's bank account while she was laying in a nursing home. Its not just to "catch terrorists"

Also none of that has anything to do with Condeleeza Rice.

But did the Republican party block any of Clinton's Cabinet Nominations? The answer as far as I know is no they didn't.

Not directly, but Zoe Baird, Anthony Lake, and Hershel Gober were pressured to withdraw themselves from nomination.

However, Clinton worked very, very hard to ensure his cabinet was bipartisan. Bush is appointing nothing but his own yes-men and cronies ... people who wouldn't disagree with him if they were paid or tortured.

You obviously haven't spent any time on comparitive politics, have you?
its a thesis, ie MY opinion, which im sure i can back up if i sit down and write stream of cosciousness rant liek i did for why religion is fucknig insane and im right

1) You call Condi a "yes-man"? So Bush puts people in his cabinet that agree with him, as every other president has done, and you call them "yes-men"? Good logic.

2) Name one reason why Condi can't do as good of a job as anyone else.

3) I never said this was about race-- I don't agree with the article on this regard. However, can you imagine the field day the media would be having with this if an ex-KKK Republican had blocked a black woman from being voted on by the Senate? The Democrats and the NAACP would instantly play the race card, regardless of the intentions.

4) Also, the Democrats don't have to make it so hard for Bush to put a cabinet in place. If they want to disagree with political issues, fine, but it is wrong to intentionally block qualified candidates just because they are Republican. If Bush had nominated a Democrat SoS, you can bet money that the Democrats would have done everything they could to expedite his/her nomination process.

its a thesis, ie MY opinion, which im sure i can back up if i sit down and write stream of cosciousness rant liek i did for why religion is fucknig insane and im right
Have fun failing.

*Hint: backing up usually involves providing evidence.

1) You call Condi a "yes-man"? So Bush puts people in his cabinet that agree with him, as every other president has done, and you call them "yes-men"? Good logic.

Clinton appointing Republican senator William Cohen as Secretary of Defense is a pretty good example of a President not appointing "yes-men", but rather appointing someone who is qualified to do the job. Need more? Let's talk about Colin Powell ...

2) Name one reason why Condi can't do as good of a job as anyone else.

She has no global trust. The very essence of the job she's been appointed to do requires other national leaders to have some faith in the integrety of the office of Secretary of State. Rice, as NSA, did more to harm her trust globally than she will ever be able to recoup in the next four years.

Have fun failing.

*Hint: backing up usually involves providing evidence.
duh

its a thesis, ie MY opinion, which im sure i can back up if i sit down and write stream of cosciousness rant liek i did for why religion is fucknig insane and im right

But to prove a thesis correct, you must support it with factual evidence.

A president should never want yes men. He needs an intelligent cabinet that will give him a full range of advice, opinions, and facts. Not simply the ones he wants to hear. Politics is about compromise, all the time with everything. This "Stay the course" crap is a direct consequnce. When you have a country growing more destabilized by the day, perhaps its time you change plans.

duh
Stream of conciousness is not evidence.

The More You Know

which makes her a good secretary of state how? applying ad hominem attacks in response to another ad hominem attack during a conference does not make her a good secretary of state, hell if employing logical fallacies at pertinent points in a conversation is a prerequisite for secretary of state, sign me up

And how did Rice do an Ad Hominem attack?

Not directly, but Zoe Baird, Anthony Lake, and Hershel Gober were pressured to withdraw themselves from nomination.

However, Clinton worked very, very hard to ensure his cabinet was bipartisan. Bush is appointing nothing but his own yes-men and cronies ... people who wouldn't disagree with him if they were paid or tortured.

And yet, they just approved of his Commerce Secretary!

As for the rest of your statement, proof please?

1) You call Condi a "yes-man"? So Bush puts people in his cabinet that agree with him, as every other president has done, and you call them "yes-men"? Good logic.

The purpose of a cabinet is to *advise* the president. In other words, he has to admit that he isn't a perfect being who knows everything. If a president only hires those who will tell him what he wants to hear (as Bush has done in many areas), regardless of their expertise in that area (as Bush has done in many areas, said president will not be receiving proper advice.

If I want to jump off a bridge, and I choose someone to advise me that I know will say "Sure, jump of the bridge!" that is not choosing a good advisor.

I can't really see any racial motivation behind this. The fact that she's black is just a card to play. So she's black. Doesn't mean every person of a minority is equally suited for the task, there are black people who are much better suited to the role, I'm positive of it. She seems only to have demonstrated her ability to stone wall and her lack of anything but the role of a yes-man on nearly every issue. His cabinent is already remarkably secrative and unhelpful. It's about as far from transparent government as possible. This black and white stay the course thing is dangerous, and it's people like Rice who make it worse. Issues of government and politics are rarely so simple as to be one thing or the other alone.

its a thesis, ie MY opinion, which im sure i can back up if i sit down and write stream of cosciousness rant liek i did for why religion is fucknig insane and im right

How are you right? There is no right or wrong when your talking about politics or religion. What you may think is right could be considered wrong by others and what they consider right could be considered right by you.

There is no yes or no answer to any question when your dealing with International Affairs. If you have ever taken a Political Science Course, you would quickly understand that.

I'm in two Poli Sci course and one of them is Intro to Global Politics. Everytime the teacher asks a question and calls on me, I give two answers, a yes and a no and I explain both of them as best as I can.

Stream of conciousness is not evidence.

The More You Know
and some one with out a clue gets ignored, yet again

The purpose of a cabinet is to *advise* the president. In other words, he has to admit that he isn't a perfect being who knows everything. If a president only hires those who will tell him what he wants to hear (as Bush has done in many areas), regardless of their expertise in that area (as Bush has done in many areas, said president will not be receiving proper advice.

If I want to jump off a bridge, and I choose someone to advise me that I know will say "Sure, jump of the bridge!" that is not choosing a good advisor.

He's the goddamn president. He does what he wants, regardless of what his advisors say to him. If I had a cabinet, their purpose would not be to tell me whether to do what I want or not, but to tell me how to go about doing it.

He's the goddamn president. He does what he wants, regardless of what his advisors say to him. If I had a cabinet, their purpose would not be to tell me whether to do what I want or not, but to tell me how to go about doing it.

I seriously hope that you are never president then.

I seriously hope that you are never president then.

That makes 2 of us!

So...what is the practical effect of Byrd blocking the vote? Can Republicans overrule him? Is there other congressional procedures and loopholes? What happens now?

He's the goddamn president. He does what he wants, regardless of what his advisors say to him.

No ... that would make him a King. We frown upon those in the US. If there was clear and concise evidence that any President did what he wanted, without regard for his staff of learned advisors or without regard for the popular elected Congress, then you can bet yer sweet bippy that he'd be thrown out of office without hesitation.

Otherwise .... Revolution II.

and some one with out a clue gets ignored, yet again
Yeah you're right, I'm an idiot. Write your entire college thesis in stream of conciousness style about how the government doesn't care and how right you are about this. I'm sure you'll get an A for that. Then come back and wave your grade in my face. I'll sit here patiently until then.

He's the goddamn president. He does what he wants, regardless of what his advisors say to him. If I had a cabinet, their purpose would not be to tell me whether to do what I want or not, but to tell me how to go about doing it.
Apparently the president in a democracy is supposed to follow the will of the people and work in their best interests. Who would have thought, huh?

Ignorant stupid people who have no fucking idea what they are talking about think everything is a race issue when the subject involves colored people. It's not, and I'm glad to see even some conservs understand this. This is about Rice and whether she'll be able to perform as Sec of State (or defense?).. one of those.

As far as democrats just trying to be jerks, that's also nonsense and deserves no territory in this discussion, it's about how qualified Rice is, and challeging her qualification is a perfectly valid action. It is questionable. Matin Sheiff put it best:


Rice had neither academic background nor serious policy experience in dealing with the Middle East, terror groups or extreme Islam. She was the top national security official on watch for eight months before 9/11. As Clarke has made clear, that should have been ample time for her to ratchet up the national government's level of alert and efficiency against the well-documented threat about which she had been exhaustively and presciently warned. She did no such thing. Instead, she has used her first-rate forensic and diplomatic skills only to obfuscate, excuse and sidestep to protect Bush and maintain her own perfect record. In the year and a half since 9/11 Rice has compliantly served the personal obsession of the president and the neocon clique running the Pentagon to rush to war in Iraq.

I don't care about the government hunting terrorists, they can do that all they want. But violating the constituiton to do so? I don't think so.

Amen! But you can't blame Bush for the patriot act. Put the blame where is goes. This terrible act was passed nearly unanimously. Only a handful of congressmen and senators voted no. Many of these were right leaners too.

Amen! But you can't blame Bush for the patriot act. Put the blame where is goes. This terrible act was passed nearly unanimously. Only a handful of congressmen and senators voted no. Many of these were right leaners too.
You can't blame him soley, no you are right. He does share a bit of the blame as it was his adminsitration that supported the bill. It was snuck in overnight into a congress scared out of its mind (like the rest of the country) by 9/11. Ashcroft deserves most of the blame for this one, but he's gone now.

He's the goddamn president. He does what he wants, regardless of what his advisors say to him. If I had a cabinet, their purpose would not be to tell me whether to do what I want or not, but to tell me how to go about doing it.
You know, a long time ago, in England, there was something signed called the Magna Carta. And its point was that nobody- not even the king, is above the law.

Right now, you are saying the president is above the law- which is inherently wrong.

\\ colored people

That's not terribly offensive, is it? :rolleyes:

As usual, the Dems are doing everything they can to impede the Bush administration from running smoothly. And they'll get a free pass from most major media outlets.
Source: " The mainstream media merely continues to be an embarrassment to itself." (http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/editorial/38623.htm)

Yup. By having absolutly no power to oppose Republicans, the Democrats are in the perfect position to cause the Bush administration to screw everything up. And I absolutly agree that the liberal media has not once had a story out there saying "Democrats conspire to make Bush look foolish by letting him do whatever he wants." Ugh, once the conservatives in this country get real po... ultimate power... once they get GODLIKE power THEN everything will be set right in this country.

I can't really see any racial motivation behind this. The fact that she's black is just a card to play. So she's black. Doesn't mean every person of a minority is equally suited for the task, there are black people who are much better suited to the role, I'm positive of it. She seems only to have demonstrated her ability to stone wall and her lack of anything but the role of a yes-man on nearly every issue. His cabinent is already remarkably secrative and unhelpful. It's about as far from transparent government as possible. This black and white stay the course thing is dangerous, and it's people like Rice who make it worse. Issues of government and politics are rarely so simple as to be one thing or the other alone.

I don't know about that. The primary role of the Secretary of State is to make the US look good. With Bush in charge the only way to do that is to be a bald faced liar. Condi excels in this area. Only problem she has is that she lies in accordance with the PT Barnum principle of "no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public. The Secretary of State has to represent us to other countries who realize that when someone is quoted as having said two mutually contradictory things as facts and quoted as claiming that both were the only postition that she ever maintained, well, that's not slanderously impuning her integrity. That is simply proving that she's a bald faced liar.

The problem with Condi is not that she's a filthy liar, but that she's also and incompotent liar.

According to Mike Moore and the congressman he interviewed, yes. But many of our leaders knew exactly what it meant. Note:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00313

Also the record from the congressional vote:http://clerk.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.asp?year=2001&rollnumber=398


All told this bill passed the house and senate 456-67 (total count of all senators and congressment. I don't buy the whole "The evil republicans snuck this in on us." That's spin control to save face. At least 67 House and Senate members read it.

Voting against something is not evidence you read it.

And voting for something provides no evidence that you didn't read it. Actually many of the 67 were outspoken about why they chose against it. There are plenty of records on that subject, including Rep. Ron Paul's immediate calling for the repeal of the act.

If you buy into the overnight sneaky theory, you're as blind as Moore wants you to be.

the Dems are doing everything they can to impede the Bush administration from running smoothly.Well, I'm sure that plenty of people spoke ill of those who inhibited the Nazis. Bush is no Hitler, but it's also true that Jerry Falwell is no Fred Phelps.