Slashdot Mirror
White House: No Kerry Supporters at IATC Meeting
An anonymous reader writes "Time Magazine is reporting that the Bush Administration is removing U.S. delegates from the Inter-American Telephone Commission because they gave money to John Kerry in last year's election. A Bush spokesman admits it's true: 'We wanted people who would represent the Administration positively, and--call us nutty--it seemed like those who wanted to kick this Administration out of town last November would have some difficulty doing that,' says White House spokesman Trent Duffy. Employees of Qualcomm and Nokia are among those who have been removed from the commission."
He wouldn't have done the same thing. Period.
I have a good imagination.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Valdrax wrote:
"There is a difference between politics and policy, and it is one that this administration has forgotten. Policy is a bottum-up decision making process based on unbiased facts. Politics is a top-down decision making process based on domga and belief."
In democracies, political outcomes determine policy. You have failed to understand the central concept of democracy: We the people decide the policy by our choice of leaders through the political process of elections. In democracy policy and politics are not independent but are interdependent.
Valdrax wrote:
" Policy is a bottum-up decision making process based on unbiased facts. "
Facts alone do not suffice to determine policy. Facts can not determine outcome in the absence of values.
Valdrax wrote:
"This President cares nothing for policy, only politics"
Having expounded on your own make-believe division between the politics and policy, you then employ it to impugn the President.
Valdrax wrote:
"which is evident in his inability to ever, EVER admit a mistake unless he can pin it on a subordinate."
If you want to evaluate presidents according to the number of mistakes to which they have admitted while in office, go for it. You can post the list of presidents and their admissions in followup. But you are not serious. Until the crackpot left brandished that accusation against Bush it was never heard, and it is not used outside of those attacks. Nobody seriously believes that presidents are required to furnish the opponents with arguments against themselves. Your accusation is unpersuasive.
Candiate A admits two mistakes. Candidate B admits three mistakes! Therefore candidate B is the better candidate. Riiiighhht. No wonder you guys lost.
Valdrax wrote:
"This is dirty politics at its worst. This is intended to make it hard for the opposition party to have any power by cutting off all of the richest funding through belligerent threats."
The only evidence you supplied of "belligerent threats" is accusations by Democrats that Republicans make threats. You are supporting left-wing propaganda by linking to... more left wing propaganda. For someone who throws around the expression "unbiased facts" you seem remarkably short of them yourself. Are Democratic congressmen a good source of "unbiased facts" on Republicans?" If not, then why are you basing your argument on biased facts? Is it because you are being top-down and political and basing your argument and dogma and belief? Maybe you should try admitting to some mistakes.
Valdrax wrote:
"This is not just. People who truly respect freedom try to compromise with their opponents and not bury them without giving them a voice."
Liberals have been in power for so long that they can't come to terms with their own defeat. They have lost the election, yet they still feel entitled to set the agenda. When a winning candidate seeks to enact the policies on which he campaigned, you refer to that as "burying the opposition without giving them a voice." You have a voice. What you don't have is a sitting president and control of congress.
Valdrax wrote:
"The Republicans' naked greed for power is just disgusting."
Well by "naked greed for power" you seem to mean the exercise of governmental authority to which they are entitled as elected officials. That you find that disgusting is convincing.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.