The article goes on to give the position of each SC member on it. Only four countries on the SC (US, UK, Spain and Bulgaria). China, Russia and France were opposed, so Bush did not even have a majority of members with veto power. Many members supported continued inspections but did not take a position on military action, however the position of France that the resolution would not have received a majority seems plausible. There would certainly be a diplomatic advantage of majority support for the resolution on the SC, even if vetoed. I’m sure the Bush administration would have not trouble in claiming that the world supported the invasion, but approval was blocked by the French surrender monkeys. Polls at the time indicated that the American public supported an invasion with approval. Of course most fell into place once our soldiers were put at risk.
So, there appears to have been de facto disapproval by the SC, and the fact that the Bush Administration was not so clueless as to force a vote in no way refutes this.
If Representative X wants to introduce a bill in Congress legalizing marriage to horses, but finds that it would not get a majority, does that mean we cannot say Congress disapproves of horse marriage? Or would you insist on a vote specifically disapproving it. How about if Rep. X were chairman of Ways and Means?
Perhaps you will be honest enough to admit that if the resolution had been introduced it would fail, or will you continue to pretend that there was support?
CMC fnord!
*Not that it actually has even the slightest of killing the thread, despite the clip spelling out exactly what was up and just how slimy the Republicans were being. :rolleyes:
No. We (if we were honest) could say only that Congress has not approved horse marriage.
This is bizarre. A vote failing to approve it would be perfectly sufficient.
Assuming France was telling the truth… yes, if I had to guess, I’d say the resolution would likely have failed. Because, you see, I don’t make shit up.
Under your interpretation, I could say, “The Senate disapproves of President Obama’s handling of the gulf oil spill.”
“What? Why?” you ask.
“Because,” I confidently reply, “If Senator Reid introduced a resolution saying they approved of it, I know for a fact that resolution would fail. Therefore, they disapproved of it.”
Unbelievable. Eight years ago if a 9/11 first responder found two fortunes in his fortune cookie, it was proof enough for beatification. Now apparently they’re shit.
Your ignoring my earlier post where I addressed this directly. Again, why are the workers cleaning up the 9/11 site better or more deserving of special treatment than the ones cleaning up some building that’s been imploded to make way for a new one?
Why is a construction worker at the WTC site more deserving than one in, say, Toledo?
Yes. I get that. Being for or against giving away the government’s money doesn’t make one more or less compassionate since it is not their that they are talking about giving away.
Nope. My saying that one group is not special enough to deserve something cannot logically be construed to mean that therefore everybody deserves it.
In rebuttal, I’ll quote from the “We need conservatives” why? thread. It’s a great example of the sentiment I want to express; I hope that Una Persson won’t object to its application in a different context:
That sentiment, to me, is the difference between your Mr. Potter and Una Persson’s George Bailey. The people who responded to 9/11 did so not for a paycheck, nor for personal benefit, nor out of obligation. Rather, they did so out of a sense of community and, in fact, the compassion you reference in your point 1. This makes them “more deserving” – although not “better” – than those you mention in your points 2 and 3. Really, it’s that simple.
IMHO, it is right and proper to utilize the resources of the government in return for their actions. Clearly, it’s not the only way to do so, nor is it necessarily the best way. But, IMHO, it is a good way. In fact, I’d say that it’s what community is for; and yes, those who stepped up to contribute for the mutual benefit, health, and welfare of our community deserve to now have us step up for them, if only in this imperfect way.
I want to pose a question to the conservative and/or libertarian people…
If the government does not exist to preserve order and provide services, protections, and a framework, if every individual is solely responsible for their own “look out” and is left hanging,
Then what do we really need government for??
Obviously not for any “common welfare” or any “well being”.
So if government does not provide any benefit or protection (or anything), let’s just scrap it.
Really. Scylla, if it’s all on us to take care of and protect ourselves, we don’t need any police or fire department, or department of health or anything. So then we don’t need any government. In the end, the logical conclusion would be that only in anarchy, only in total chaos, when every individual is left entirely to their own devices, are we “free”. Right?
Again - this bill would have covered far more than the first responders. More importantly, the first responders (police, medical and fire) are already covered by their government health packages.