John Bolton UN Ambassador!!!

[26 X World Champs]

That said a lot of the disapproval of the congress is with the democrats because of their obstruction tactics on every issue without offering any alternative solutions..........The American people are fed up with those tactics.............

Is this your opinion or are you claiming this as fact? If it's fact I would be very interested to see those actual facts from non-partisan source?

Which is it? Fact or Fiction?

 

[cnredd]

Your post implies that the governments of France & Russia were directly involved, can you please prove this allegation with real facts, not supposition?

Will you continue to tell everyone else to prove thmselves while your AirAmerica claims gather dust without YOUR SOURCES?

You walk around, high & mighty, telling everyone else how to debate, meanwhile, you STILL haven't shown YOUR sources to your claim that there are some people ON THIS SITE that have called for AirAmerica to be thrown off of the air...I asked you to back it up with four sources...and you have yet to show one...

Why accuse others when you can't live up to your own words?
Is it because you might be forced to admit you've lied?
Unless you can show this forum otherwise.....

 

[cnredd]

You do remember Food for Oil don't you? Remember how it has been the profit center for the likes of France and Russia?

Your post implies that the governments of France & Russia were directly involved, can you please prove this allegation with real facts, not supposition?

Hey gordontravels,

Use supposition all you want....When someone legitimate asks for real facts, then you should supply then...Not when it's from a liar who can't even do it himself.

 

[debate_junkie]

Re: John Bolton Un Ambassador!!!

"cnredd & debate_junkie...Pennsylvanians fighting for truth."
piadforbythecommiteetoelectcnredd&debatejunkiethedevilhimselftreasurer

Too funny... I needed a good laugh. Now having said that... I'm not gonna have to sit around a campfire and sing "kumbayah" in these ads, will I?

 

[cnredd]

Re: John Bolton Un Ambassador!!!

Too funny... I needed a good laugh. Now having said that... I'm not gonna have to sit around a campfire and sing "kumbayah" in these ads, will I?

How about kissing babies who throw up on your jacket?

BTW - I made you laugh three times now...(If Champs was here he'd ask me for the sources)

Do I get a prize?

 

[ncallaway]

The Goldren Hatrick of Comedy Award is in order, I do believe.

 

[Kelzie]

There really are no sources, you know. I've looked. The investigation is still ongoing, and there is very little connection to the French government. One of the guys accused is a former French ambassador. That's about it.

 

[cnredd]

The Goldren Hatrick of Comedy Award is in order, I do believe.

ahhh....another piece for my mantle.....

I don't need the trophys, though...

I've had an impact on this website, and it took less than 1000 posts...good enough for me.:2razz:

Don't tell Billo or Champs...They'll just claim I'm an ass...and I won't debate them on it.

 

[Stinger]

Re: John Bolton Un Ambassador!!!

The president can't even say "Nuclear Option".

Neither could Jimmy Carter and I heard Kerry bungle it to, so what?

If you think the dems will get it hard for trying to filibuster, I can't tell you how bad it will be for republicans if they go with the nuclear option, especially with approval ratings so low.

Actually that depends on how the major media reports it. If they keep reporting it wrongly as if the DEMOCRATS have the right to Advise and Consent instead of accurately reporting it as the SENATE has the right to Advise and Consent. The fact is people are getting tired of the petty antic's of the Democrats and if they continue with thier obstuctionist policies they well continue to lose at the ballot box.

 

[Stinger]

I saw this quote from Senator Edward M. Kennedy,

“It’s a devious maneuver that evades the constitutional requirement of Senate consent and only further darkens the cloud over Mr. Bolton’s credibility at the U.N.,” Kennedy said.”

Am I the only one to see such massive irony, and incorrect assertions in this quote?

Nope Mr. Kennedy seems to confuse DEMOCRATS with SENATE. The DEMOCRATS were the ones preventing the Senate from it's constitutional requirement to advise and consent. They and the mainstream media goes along with the misrepresentation that the DEMOCRATS have a RIGHT to advise and consent. They do not. They have the right to try and convince enough Senators to vote on thier side and make the majority. They failed and now they are running around stomping thier feet like little children. No wonder they keep losing.

 

[gordontravels]

Your post implies that the governments of France & Russia were directly involved, can you please prove this allegation with real facts, not supposition?

Yes. You will find that Paul Volker (source) in preliminary reports has cited two avenues of huge profits. The brother-in-law of Chirac and the son of Kofe Annan. Both of these men worked out of France trading oil for arms and profiting in the millions. You will find articles reporting this in both the New York Times who report these things as the fact you want. I don't think the New York Times is using supposition and if they are, it is Paul Volker's, not mine.

I'm not implying anything; I'm saying it has been reported.

As for Russia. It has also been reported by the same source that they, as did France, continue to supply arms to Iraq during the period of sanctions both under President Clinton and President Bush.

You will find archived information with a search of the New York Times and the Washington Post. You should sign up for these publications on line. I do and then I keep up with what interests me which leads me to post on or start particular threads such as this one. :duel

 

[debate_junkie]

Re: John Bolton Un Ambassador!!!

How about kissing babies who throw up on your jacket?

BTW - I made you laugh three times now...(If Champs was here he'd ask me for the sources)

Do I get a prize?

My baby kissing days are over. My daughters are 9 and 12... and there won't be another one!


Well here's a prize for ya.... Flyers Stanley Cup!!!!!!!! Forsberg baby. The time is NOW.. well if ya like hockey, anyway.

 

[cnredd]

Re: John Bolton Un Ambassador!!!

My baby kissing days are over. My daughters are 9 and 12... and there won't be another one!

Well here's a prize for ya.... Flyers Stanley Cup!!!!!!!! Forsberg baby. The time is NOW.. well if ya like hockey, anyway.

All about it....Saw it up on the screen at the bar last night; had the bartender turn down the jukebox so I could get the report.

I just want to point out that when your daughters are 18 & 21, I'll be 44.

That's all I'm sayin':twisted:

 

[cnredd]

Re: John Bolton Un Ambassador!!!

Dude, you are 15 years older than me! That's a little creepy.
BLACKHAWKS!!!!!!

Yeah, but I got the body of a 70 year old...4 years of Pro Wresling & a life threatening car accident will do that to ya...

 

[cnredd]

Re: John Bolton Un Ambassador!!!

really, you were a pro wrestler? Did you make it to the majors?

I wrote about it in "Off Topic Discussion - What is your most valued physical possession?"...Post #17, 20, & 21

 

[gordontravels]

Hey gordontravels,

Use supposition all you want....When someone legitimate asks for real facts, then you should supply then...Not when it's from a liar who can't even do it himself.

I know cnredd. The sources for these facts are there every day for one to read, see or listen to. Sometimes I am actually surprised when someone says "prove it". There is nothing to prove unless I am the one making it up. Again, I have the New York Times, Washington Post, NewsMax and the Media Research Center on line. I have MSNBC on right now and have for quite a few hours. Sometimes things said here should at least have a source but some of it has been reported so often that it is truely a shock when someone wants to know if it is "real facts". Otherwise I don't go along with calling anyone a liar here. We all have our moments.

I note that the media had an informal chance to question John Bolton while he was on his way to catch a plane today and he didn't yell at any of them. Of course, you would have had to be watching MSNBC or another news source that had it on the air at that time but otherwise, I can't prove it. :duel

 

[cnredd]

I know cnredd. The sources for these facts are there every day for one to read, see or listen to. Sometimes I am actually surprised when someone says "prove it". There is nothing to prove unless I am the one making it up. Again, I have the New York Times, Washington Post, NewsMax and the Media Research Center on line. I have MSNBC on right now and have for quite a few hours. Sometimes things said here should at least have a source but some of it has been reported so often that it is truely a shock when someone wants to know if it is "real facts". Otherwise I don't go along with calling anyone a liar here. We all have our moments.

I note that the media had an informal chance to question John Bolton while he was on his way to catch a plane today and he didn't yell at any of them. Of course, you would have had to be watching MSNBC or another news source that had it on the air at that time but otherwise, I can't prove it. :duel

I usually try to find legitimate sources, too...Pew Research, Wikipedia, plus the major netorks and news outlets. I get quite annoyed when someone uses sources like truthout.org, thirdworldtraveler.com, or mediaresearch.com, which are agenda-driven.

Someone wanted to know about about the Downing Street memo earlier, so I typed "http://www.downingstreetmemo.com" thinking I would get a legitimate source. Nope...Totally left wing...This is one of the sentences in the section "Reality Check"...

For those of us who saw through the Bush administration’s house of cards before the invasion, the DSM doesn’t really offer anything we “didn’t already know.” However, its provenance and its comprehensive yet straightforward representation of the administration’s Iraq policy present the facts in a much more compelling light. It also represents hard evidence of the administration’s willful misrepresentation of its own policies.

I was hoping for a report...I got an Op-Ed...

 

[gordontravels]

I usually try to find legitimate sources, too...Pew Research, Wikipedia, plus the major netorks and news outlets. I get quite annoyed when someone uses sources like truthout.org, thirdworldtraveler.com, or mediaresearch.com, which are agenda-driven.

Someone wanted to know about about the Downing Street memo earlier, so I typed "http://www.downingstreetmemo.com" thinking I would get a legitimate source. Nope...Totally left wing...This is one of the sentences in the section "Reality Check"...

For those of us who saw through the Bush administration’s house of cards before the invasion, the DSM doesn’t really offer anything we “didn’t already know.” However, its provenance and its comprehensive yet straightforward representation of the administration’s Iraq policy present the facts in a much more compelling light. It also represents hard evidence of the administration’s willful misrepresentation of its own policies.

I was hoping for a report...I got an Op-Ed...

I list NewsMax and Media Research Center and some here say they don't trust them. They are conservative reporting agencies and that is precisely why I use them. They use quotes from news reports I have actually watched. I also list the New York Times and Washington Post who are quite liberal in their reporting. I think there are both sides to hear. For those who don't like NewsMax or Media Research Center or Rush or Hannity, what conservative source do you trust?

I think if you want to be informed you need to hear both sides. John Bolton ran into it and I tried to get both sides. They were both there. :duel

 

[cnredd]

I list NewsMax and Media Research Center and some here say they don't trust them. They are conservative reporting agencies and that is precisely why I use them. They use quotes from news reports I have actually watched. I also list the New York Times and Washington Post who are quite liberal in their reporting. I think there are both sides to hear. For those who don't like NewsMax or Media Research Center or Rush or Hannity, what conservative source do you trust?

I think if you want to be informed you need to hear both sides. John Bolton ran into it and I tried to get both sides. They were both there. :duel

I don't have a favorite...MAYBE wikipedia....

I just try to read articles that don't stray too far into editorializing...if they do, I won't use that article as a resource.

If someone says something to the effect of..."Here is my source", and the first line of the source is, "The evil Bush Administration lied to the world...."
I just stop right there...I know I'm getting an agenda, not news.

Here is a good way to tell...If, at the end of the article, you still don't know if a Conservative or a Liberal wrote it...It's probably a good source...

 

[debate_junkie]

Re: John Bolton Un Ambassador!!!

All about it....Saw it up on the screen at the bar last night; had the bartender turn down the jukebox so I could get the report.

I just want to point out that when your daughters are 18 & 21, I'll be 44.

That's all I'm sayin':twisted:

When my youngest is 20, I'll be 44. Hell, I'll just be starting to live life

 

[gordontravels]

You're all kids compared to me. I've seen the best times I think our world and the USA have ever had. Yes, I fought in an unpopular war but, in my life, I wouldn't change anything. About a year and a half ago I put one of those things to work we all sometimes think about. A story came to me and I started writing a novel. Researched and then began writing last Christmas Day. Now page 427 (double spaced 12 pt) and 107,532 words. Yes, I'm a serious writer.

I see writing here and I participate in it. People take a stand based on personal preference, bias or their information source. I've seen some give up on others and some threads end in recriminations. I've been accused of making things up but I know what I do and let it roll off. I think the important thing is the debate and if that gets lost then it is the ability to post our opinions or positions on issues. I try not to get called too many names but it doesn't bother me when it happens.

I have said it before; I think our media bends and twists. The election in Ohio is a good example. ABC and CBS both did stories the Sunday night before. One said it would be a referendum on President Bush and the war. Another said it would show the color of states changing color. The day after the election these two bastions of news didn't even have a story about the election; not a mention of it. They were the sore losers and we depend on them to inform? I wonder what the people who supported or voted for the victor thought when they tuned in to their regular newscast and heard nothing.

John Bolton. I just scanned the headlines and leaders in today's New York Times and there isn't a single article even mentioning his name. The big story is that John Roberts:

By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
and DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
Judge John G. Roberts Jr. helped advocates for gay rights win a landmark 1996 ruling protecting homosexuals from discrimination.

He didn't write briefs or argue the case. It was a pro-bono session of advice at a time that he was an appellate lawyer for a law firm. Some say it is wrong to equate legal work product with one's opinion. I believe that. I also believe that if one is Gay they are entitled to legal help and civil rights just like the rest of us. We are being told that the right may turn on Roberts. If they do they aren't worth the powder it would take to.... oops, can't talk like that these days. Let me just say that tiny liberal and conservative minds will twist the words to fit. They remind me of the kid that sits down with the picture puzzle, spreads out the pieces and pulls out the scissors.

No news about Bolton. Not even someone complaining. Guess they've moved on. Wasn't Roberts supposed to be the distraction so the media wouldn't talk about Bolton? I know I heard that in many different news outlets. News outlets? Did I call them that? :duel

 

[epr64]

President Bush made a recess appointment to the U.N. Ambassador post with his first choice of John Bolton.

Our media is already at work. MSNBC is reporting on the appointment immediately after the act this morning. MSNBC gives you Andrea Mitchell (Mrs. Alan Greenspan) who has shown in reporting that she is no fan of the Bush Administration. That is typically what she is talking about this morning; how the Democrats have all these reservations about Bolton and are "surprised" that President Bush would do something so ill advised as to appoint him outside the province of their "advise and consent".

John Bolton has been called mean and difficult by the Democrats. Isn't that two of the many attributes we need to deal with an organization like the U.N. that definitely needs reform? We need someone that will oppose as well as work with the other representatives in that body. I think the President should be able to appoint someone that will carry his message the way he wants it presented.

President Bush has made 106 recess appointments with this one being added to the tally. President G.H.W. Bush made 77. President Clinton made 140. A President is allowed by our Constitution to do this and it now gives us an ambassador to the U.N. and will put John Bolton in that office until January of 2007. I think it was the right decision. :duel

Well, I guess Koffi Annan will give him an office in the ten top floors of the UN building.. ROFL.

Y