 New link in the top of page "IRC Chat". |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Last Posts
| IRC Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | XPW | Stats | Color Chart | Photo album |
|
| | ||
New link in the top of page "IRC Chat". |
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Last Posts
| IRC Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | XPW | Stats | Color Chart | Photo album |
|
| | ||
| 0 users currently in Debate Shrine. |
| User | Post |
| avatar of law Posts: 234/486 |
Originally posted by geeogree i'm sorry, but that's just stupid. America is already being hated upon by the entire world. you dont go and send some dumbass that they already hate to represent us. and yeah, i know you were being sarcastic =P |
| geeogree Posts: 57/246 |
maybe the fact that no one at the UN likes Bolton is the reason he's going there....
an attempt to stir things up a bit? I think we all know the UN isn't really capable of doing much of anything... why not send someone who is going to piss people off |
| avatar of law Posts: 232/486 |
Originally posted by geeogree that's not what the real issue is about... the real issue is that no one at the UN likes bolton, and he's not really qualified to do the job right. bush really thought he outsmarted everyone in this, but in the end, it'll blow in his face. he's been doing a lot of things to piss ppl off nowadays... i wonder why he thought doing this was okay -.-' |
| X Marks the Spot Posts: 384/693 |
Originally posted by drizzt do'urden You actually think he knew what he was doing? A. He probably just did what his advisors told him to... B. And he probably wanted to resolve that as quickly as possible, so that he could get back to his ranch. C. Inresponse to Geeogree, waiting for an okay from the senate is probably something he should have cared about. Blatantly overriding the senate like that, he basically just gave the entire senate the middle finger... Yeah, he probably abused his power, but I don't really care about politics. |
| Spartan Posts: 552/1569 |
You do know that there are still Checks and balances...
You see he did this with his advisors... I am sure a bunch of what ifs came up and he wanted to be certain nothing bad would happen and not have a UN rep. What if there was a debait about trade and all of the sudden the US is cut of from trade because we didnt have a representative to negotiate. |
| Elara Posts: 1615/9736 |
I think he abused his power in doing it that way because it throws off the series of checks and balances we have put into place for the three branches of government. It is the job of the Senate to choose a new representative, not the president. I don't care if it is Bush or not, no president should overstep his duties like that. |
| geeogree Posts: 56/246 |
I think people question what the president does a little too much.
Sure, you shouldn't just bend over backwards when he decides to do something, but there is a lot of stuff he deals with. Waiting for an okay from the Senate is probably something he didn't care about. |
| BBQMissile Posts: 465/1198 |
Originally posted by geeogree The President also has every right to declare war on every single country in the world and to veto every single bill that comes his way. He's allowed to do it...but is it abuse? Definitely. Granted, even if he does veto every bill, the Senate could still pass the bill if the proper procedures are taken. But this still doesn't take away from the fact that the President was still abusing his powers. THe president was supposed to wait for an OK from the Senate. He didn't and overrode them. This is where the poll comes in. Is he abusing his powers or was he just using them wisely? |
| Savedox Posts: 223/1567 |
Sometimes you need to act and not wait. If Bush would have waited for the senate's decision then something major could have happend. Im sure that Bush know's full well the reprocutions of his actions. |
| geeogree Posts: 54/246 |
is it really an abuse if he is allowed to do this in the first place? |
| BBQMissile Posts: 447/1198 |
Personally, I cannot decide who is at a fault here, the Democrats or the President. Now as far as I'm concerned, I am neither Republican or Democrat. But it still bugs me how President Bush made John Bolton the UN Ambassador without the approval of the Senate. The Senate will not be able to get rid of Bolton until January. However, in a way, the Democrats are also at a fault here because they had been lagging behind on their vote. Whether they were doing this intentionally or not, I do not know.
What I do know now is that this has sparked a whole controversy. Has Bush abused his powers? Was this a wise move especially during times in which the UN is going under some changes? What are your opinions? |
