Posted on 05/12/2005 7:03:13 AM PDT by OXENinFLA
ON CAPITOL HILL Bolton Vote in Committee The Senate Foreign Relations Committee conducts a debate and vote on the nomination of John Bolton as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. Chair Richard Lugar (R-IN) and Ranking Member Joseph Biden (D-DE) continue a review of the nominee, based on issues raised at the committee's April 19 business meeting. 10AM-3:30PM ET ON C-SPAN3
Take your Republican out of your purse.. loan your Republican if need be?
I'm afraid I don't understand.
LOl, well, alright then I will have fun. I thought that was what this was all about, having fun? Instead you get your panties in a wad. AS for your calling me childish, well that's the 4th name you've called me and all Ive done is call you a troll supporter. Looks like by a 4-1 margin you lose.
Let's forget this. You keep the atlanta guy under your wing and I'll get on with trying to save our Republic. In that way we'll each be doing what we are best suited for.
he must do more.
if he wants conservative judges and people like Bolton at the UN - he has to fight for it. The last time this committee broke up, when Voinovich shafted us - Bush should have went to a microphone in the press room right after that happened and laid down the law. The Dems and the RINOs are demonizing Bolton - we need to demonize the UN and tie the Dems to it.
Bush is simply too nice a guy. The Dems are vermin, on matter of national security and international affairs, they hate this country and want to see us fail. Bush needs to get angry too in opposing that agenda.
>>You're not getting what I am saying. You used a term, neocon, that is universally viewed as a liberal one. If I started using the slogan "power to the people" how far do you suppose my credibility would carry on this forum? I have no problem with you or anyone else disagreeing with the policy of this administration. <<
That's your slant on it and you're entitled to your slant. If I use the term neocon negatively it's because it's not my brand of conservatism... That wing of the party lost me when they covered up the statue of justice and launched an invasion without good grounding. I'm also not real thrilled with the resulting budget deficit.
>>Compared to other U.S. conservatives, neoconservatives are characterized by an aggressive moralist stance on foreign policy, a lesser social conservatism, weaker dedication to a policy of minimal government, and a greater acceptance of the welfare state.<<
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_%28United_States%29
I believe that they are all terrified if Bolton gets in, he will blow the lid off the OFF. If Bolton gets in...Kofi leaves. They are fighting for Kofi's survival. Bastards all.
Whatever. Personally me thinks you protest to much (paraphrased.
Move along. I'll be watching you closely.
Cajones...from my liberal days. We women would carry our cajones in our purses and take them out and be forceful when necessary. I't a chick thing.
Yes.
Read slower or soemthing. You are putting words in my mouth. FGS, I don't know why. It doesn't advance the inquiry any. Oh, wait. I get it!! You are pulling a thread filibuster!
But seriously, I asked "How do you make them talk." I didn't say they never have. I know Strom Thurmond holds the record. I'm not even arguing over a definition fo the term "real filibuster," which I noted was having a Senator hold the floor and talk.
My question has always been HOW does one make a Senator hold the floor in speech? You said "Make the Senate filibuster." I asked "How?"
I am hoping we get a good house cleaning at the UN, and all the apologist are put in their proper places.
And you've been told REPEATEDLY how.
>>
Move along. I'll be watching you closely.<<
You're a credit to the board.
So how come we have 12 stalled judicial nominees? IOW, I think your construction of the rules is incorrect.
Not necessarily. If an objection occurs to the vote that is scheduled for which no debate intends to be provided, or for which debate has been exhausted (Senators can only speak twice on the same subject), requires unanimous consent. So if one Senator at that point objects to the motion, vote goes down.
The "nuclear option" is a different thing altogether. It's a way to frame the terms of debate before it starts.
Because the Minority has refused to agree to a UC on debate, thus threatening unlimited debate, and the Majority has decided to move on to other business.
I suppose it is Machiavellian...(sp?) ....but put up a nominee or bill that they are deeply opposed to ...and that they would likely filibuster against....
First cloture rule was in 1917. Before 1806, a simple majority awas adequate to move to the vote.
Read this -> http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Gold_Gupta_JLPP_article.pdf
Good article. Not comprehensive, but illuminative. Not an easy read either, but worth the effort.
No. Did you not read my post?
True, but I kind of like "nuclear option"; has a certain ring to it. Sound like...
...Victory.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.