Now is the time to get behind John McCain
- Thread starter hedgehog
- Start date
I think so too. This guy HAS to be a spoof.
If i'm wrong, then I REALLY feel sorry for him.
Bush won't even go down as one of the best Presidents named Bush.
Now I think he would show some promise presiding over the people of Uranus...I think they would understand him.
heyes :bigear: :00x24 :00x9
Yes. And he's one of the freshest wits we've seen here in a long time. Welcome hedgehogOU812!
JC:
I thought by location he was defining a perfect woman:
about 5 foot high, with a flat head so you can set your beer on it.
Eddie
I thought by location he was defining a perfect woman:
about 5 foot high, with a flat head so you can set your beer on it.
Eddie
As always Doc I enjoy your posts--I am curious about your thoughts on high-lighted area above-and wondered if you would elaborate on which actions inparticular you feel fit description.
Not to hedge in here, but I'd say we've been down this road many times before in this forum. I would love to hear Doc expound on this, as I'm sure I will agree wholeheartedly.
:yup
maybe, maybe not.
Most of the time when I post something I am trying to stir the pot to get a reaction. I am so sick and tired of people thinking Bush is an idiot, I do not think he is a bad guy and I am damn sure glad Gore or Kerry is not our President.
What has Bush done that is so bad? He lowered my taxes, has kept me safe, we are fighting a war with the Taliban in a foreign land not here on our soil. The war in Iraq was necessary to get Saddam Hussein out of power before he funneled a weapon of mass destruction to the Taliban and hit us.
Me too Chad--have utmost respect for doc and truely curious to his perspective on issue also.
Thanks for the love boys!! I'm all warm-n-fuzzy:grouphug:
DTB.......here's a brief accounting for you so as not to trample back over some of the same grounds......please keep in mind I don't have a J.D.
State Secrets Privelege
Starting with the more obscure of his abuses b/c this one really freaks me out. This basically means the executive branch can can any case against the govt based on protecting sensitive info that may come to light in the judicial process. Makes sense, right? The janitor at Los Alamos trips over a box of U-235 and busts his ankle and the govt censors out what the box contains and the case goes forward w/o that info. Cold War anachronism, but not horrible. Precedent set in '53 (US v Reynolds) where a suit by some Air Force wives to get info on why and how their husbands died in a B-29 crash was tossed out based on this privelege. Can't let the Russkies know what put on those planes, after all. Then it turns out that its invokation was :bs: and just a cover-up of poor maintainance of the planes. Had been used only sparingly (55 times since, and all but 4 documented as missuse) until 9/11 when Cheney figured out you can just bludgeon everybody with it, and some 20+ times since then. Renditions, protecting telecom against suit for involvement in wiretaps.......shit, they even let Libby flap in the wind with this one. Whole suits are barred, instead of the pertinent "secret" info. Hillary absolutely adores this precedent, and I promise she'll stfu in a heartbeat if its brought up in conversation. It absolutely shatters the ability of the Congress and the jusiciary to provide oversight, checks, or balances imho.
Presidential Signing Statements
This covers just about every other time he has:mj12: :flush: right on the document. Hundreds of times!! De-facto vetoes not subject to interpretation! just ignore the law if it doesn't dovetail with your interpretation of the Constitution, George. :mj03: He's a lawyer or judge, right? He's emminently qualified to review something debated on and decided by the legislative branch, right? The Constitution is not particularly ambiguous on this one....."to faithfully excute the the laws...." is what it says, not "interpret" the laws, b/c that belongs to the other subjugated branch of govt (thats been well covered in the last year: see Gonzalez, A) Its like Baby Fawking Huey.....
.......duhhhh, gee George, can I play with dat pen, George??
Source: Boston Globe
March 9, 2006: Justice Department officials must give reports to Congress by certain dates on how the FBI is using the USA Patriot Act to search homes and secretly seize papers.
Bush's signing statement: The president can order Justice Department officials to withhold any information from Congress if he decides it could impair national security or executive branch operations.
Dec. 30, 2005: US interrogators cannot torture prisoners or otherwise subject them to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.
Bush's signing statement: The president, as commander in chief, can waive the torture ban if he decides that harsh interrogation techniques will assist in preventing terrorist attacks.
Dec. 30: When requested, scientific information ''prepared by government researchers and scientists shall be transmitted [to Congress] uncensored and without delay."
Bush's signing statement: The president can tell researchers to withhold any information from Congress if he decides its disclosure could impair foreign relations, national security, or the workings of the executive branch.
Aug. 8: The Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and its contractors may not fire or otherwise punish an employee whistle-blower who tells Congress about possible wrongdoing.
Bush's signing statement: The president or his appointees will determine whether employees of the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission can give information to Congress.
Dec. 23, 2004: Forbids US troops in Colombia from participating in any combat against rebels, except in cases of self-defense. Caps the number of US troops allowed in Colombia at 800.
Bush's signing statement: Only the president, as commander in chief, can place restrictions on the use of US armed forces, so the executive branch will construe the law ''as advisory in nature."
Dec. 17: The new national intelligence director shall recruit and train women and minorities to be spies, analysts, and translators in order to ensure diversity in the intelligence community.
Bush's signing statement: The executive branch shall construe the law in a manner consistent with a constitutional clause guaranteeing ''equal protection" for all. (In 2003, the Bush administration argued against race-conscious affirmative-action programs in a Supreme Court case. The court rejected Bush's view.)
Oct. 29: Defense Department personnel are prohibited from interfering with the ability of military lawyers to give independent legal advice to their commanders.
Bush's signing statement: All military attorneys are bound to follow legal conclusions reached by the administration's lawyers in the Justice Department and the Pentagon when giving advice to their commanders.
Aug. 5: The military cannot add to its files any illegally gathered intelligence, including information obtained about Americans in violation of the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches.
Bush's signing statement: Only the president, as commander in chief, can tell the military whether or not it can use any specific piece of intelligence.
Nov. 6, 2003: US officials in Iraq cannot prevent an inspector general for the Coalition Provisional Authority from carrying out any investigation. The inspector general must tell Congress if officials refuse to cooperate with his inquiries.
Bush's signing statement: The inspector general ''shall refrain" from investigating anything involving sensitive plans, intelligence, national security, or anything already being investigated by the Pentagon. The inspector cannot tell Congress anything if the president decides that disclosing the information would impair foreign relations, national security, or executive branch operations.
Nov. 5, 2002: Creates an Institute of Education Sciences whose director may conduct and publish research ''without the approval of the secretary [of education] or any other office of the department."
Bush's signing statement: The president has the power to control the actions of all executive branch officials, so ''the director of the Institute of Education Sciences shall [be] subject to the supervision and direction of the secretary of education."
.......Or as he likes to say......."I don't trust smart people."
I'm tired........can't even get to the other threads.....be back soon..........D:SIB C
DTB.......here's a brief accounting for you so as not to trample back over some of the same grounds......please keep in mind I don't have a J.D.
State Secrets Privelege
Starting with the more obscure of his abuses b/c this one really freaks me out. This basically means the executive branch can can any case against the govt based on protecting sensitive info that may come to light in the judicial process. Makes sense, right? The janitor at Los Alamos trips over a box of U-235 and busts his ankle and the govt censors out what the box contains and the case goes forward w/o that info. Cold War anachronism, but not horrible. Precedent set in '53 (US v Reynolds) where a suit by some Air Force wives to get info on why and how their husbands died in a B-29 crash was tossed out based on this privelege. Can't let the Russkies know what put on those planes, after all. Then it turns out that its invokation was :bs: and just a cover-up of poor maintainance of the planes. Had been used only sparingly (55 times since, and all but 4 documented as missuse) until 9/11 when Cheney figured out you can just bludgeon everybody with it, and some 20+ times since then. Renditions, protecting telecom against suit for involvement in wiretaps.......shit, they even let Libby flap in the wind with this one. Whole suits are barred, instead of the pertinent "secret" info. Hillary absolutely adores this precedent, and I promise she'll stfu in a heartbeat if its brought up in conversation. It absolutely shatters the ability of the Congress and the jusiciary to provide oversight, checks, or balances imho.
Presidential Signing Statements
This covers just about every other time he has:mj12: :flush: right on the document. Hundreds of times!! De-facto vetoes not subject to interpretation! just ignore the law if it doesn't dovetail with your interpretation of the Constitution, George. :mj03: He's a lawyer or judge, right? He's emminently qualified to review something debated on and decided by the legislative branch, right? The Constitution is not particularly ambiguous on this one....."to faithfully excute the the laws...." is what it says, not "interpret" the laws, b/c that belongs to the other subjugated branch of govt (thats been well covered in the last year: see Gonzalez, A) Its like Baby Fawking Huey.....
.......duhhhh, gee George, can I play with dat pen, George??
Source: Boston Globe
March 9, 2006: Justice Department officials must give reports to Congress by certain dates on how the FBI is using the USA Patriot Act to search homes and secretly seize papers.
Bush's signing statement: The president can order Justice Department officials to withhold any information from Congress if he decides it could impair national security or executive branch operations.
Dec. 30, 2005: US interrogators cannot torture prisoners or otherwise subject them to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.
Bush's signing statement: The president, as commander in chief, can waive the torture ban if he decides that harsh interrogation techniques will assist in preventing terrorist attacks.
Dec. 30: When requested, scientific information ''prepared by government researchers and scientists shall be transmitted [to Congress] uncensored and without delay."
Bush's signing statement: The president can tell researchers to withhold any information from Congress if he decides its disclosure could impair foreign relations, national security, or the workings of the executive branch.
Aug. 8: The Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and its contractors may not fire or otherwise punish an employee whistle-blower who tells Congress about possible wrongdoing.
Bush's signing statement: The president or his appointees will determine whether employees of the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission can give information to Congress.
Dec. 23, 2004: Forbids US troops in Colombia from participating in any combat against rebels, except in cases of self-defense. Caps the number of US troops allowed in Colombia at 800.
Bush's signing statement: Only the president, as commander in chief, can place restrictions on the use of US armed forces, so the executive branch will construe the law ''as advisory in nature."
Dec. 17: The new national intelligence director shall recruit and train women and minorities to be spies, analysts, and translators in order to ensure diversity in the intelligence community.
Bush's signing statement: The executive branch shall construe the law in a manner consistent with a constitutional clause guaranteeing ''equal protection" for all. (In 2003, the Bush administration argued against race-conscious affirmative-action programs in a Supreme Court case. The court rejected Bush's view.)
Oct. 29: Defense Department personnel are prohibited from interfering with the ability of military lawyers to give independent legal advice to their commanders.
Bush's signing statement: All military attorneys are bound to follow legal conclusions reached by the administration's lawyers in the Justice Department and the Pentagon when giving advice to their commanders.
Aug. 5: The military cannot add to its files any illegally gathered intelligence, including information obtained about Americans in violation of the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches.
Bush's signing statement: Only the president, as commander in chief, can tell the military whether or not it can use any specific piece of intelligence.
Nov. 6, 2003: US officials in Iraq cannot prevent an inspector general for the Coalition Provisional Authority from carrying out any investigation. The inspector general must tell Congress if officials refuse to cooperate with his inquiries.
Bush's signing statement: The inspector general ''shall refrain" from investigating anything involving sensitive plans, intelligence, national security, or anything already being investigated by the Pentagon. The inspector cannot tell Congress anything if the president decides that disclosing the information would impair foreign relations, national security, or executive branch operations.
Nov. 5, 2002: Creates an Institute of Education Sciences whose director may conduct and publish research ''without the approval of the secretary [of education] or any other office of the department."
Bush's signing statement: The president has the power to control the actions of all executive branch officials, so ''the director of the Institute of Education Sciences shall [be] subject to the supervision and direction of the secretary of education."
.......Or as he likes to say......."I don't trust smart people."
I'm tired........can't even get to the other threads.....be back soon..........D:SIB C
If I said more Docs, less SpyThe Webs you wouldn't have wagged your finger, would you?
you got me....:142smilie
btw....hedgehog is a little too extreme for me also.
the other guy is just a sad sack...
Last edited:
