George Bush: "Fuck You Congress"

[dt_3pin]

Yup, I'm unpatriotic as hell! I guess that fact that I'm a registered and active voter, participate in my community and really do want what is best for the country as a whole is diminished and/or obliterated by the fact that I don't like what is wrong wrong with our country. What really pisses me off is the position many of the followers of the current moron in chief take: if you ain't for us, your against us. Sounds like we need another revolution because it was precisely that type of thinking that got those hacks over here in the first place.

 

Q4T. Well said.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Sounds like we need another revolution because it was precisely that type of thinking that got those hacks over here in the first place.

 

There you go. That says it all.

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Yup, I'm unpatriotic as hell! I guess that fact that I'm a registered and active voter, participate in my community and really do want what is best for the country as a whole is diminished and/or obliterated by the fact that I don't like what is wrong wrong with our country. What really pisses me off is the position many of the followers of the current moron in chief take: if you ain't for us, your against us. Sounds like we need another revolution because it was precisely that type of thinking that got those hacks over here in the first place.

 

Q4T. Well said.

 

Lick crack, jizzgargler

[Crux]

All from Wiki....which is not alway true.

 

 

Executive Privilege is the power claimed by the President of the United States and other members of the executive branch to resist certain search warrants and other interventions by the legislative and judicial branches of government. The concept of executive privilege is not mentioned in the United States Constitution, but some consider it to be an element of the separation of powers doctrine, and/or derived from the supremacy of executive branch in its own area of Constitutional activity.[1]

 

Presidents since George Washington and Thomas Jefferson have argued that each branch of government may operate with some degree of freedom from the control or supervision of the others.[citation needed] The Supreme Court confirmed the legitimacy of this doctrine in United States v. Nixon, but only to the extent of confirming that it can be invoked when the oversight of the executive would impair that branch's national security concerns.

 

Historically, the uses of executive privilege underscore the untested nature of the doctrine, since Presidents have generally sidestepped open confrontations with Congress and the courts over the issue by first asserting the privilege, then producing some of the documents requested on an assertedly voluntary basis.

 

 

See bold highlighted area......

 

Nuff said....bush is a crimial.....what is he trying to hide?

 

so let's list the things that AREN'T stated in the constitution...

 

abortion???

gay marriage??

etc....

 

oh wait - it's open to interpretation, eh?

 

Either you have not read the Constitution or else you did not understand it. There is no mention of our civil rights b/c the document outlines the limitations of our govt's powers--NOT our rights.

 

Good point. Rights thought to be fundamental to the human nature, as intrinsic as life and reason itself, are rights that existed and continue to exist regardless of the actions of governments. In this regard, the Constitution does not create rights, yet it explicitly restricts the power of governments to trespass upon those essential human rights that have come to be called civil liberties.

 

The Constitutional limitations on governmental power begins with our own and by extension reaches from there to all governments and all people. It is by the word of our Constitution that Americans have stood as a people whose self-evident and inalienable rights are not to be tread upon by any government, least of all their own.

[Doug]

baby raping fuckstain

[KaskadskyjKozak]

baby raping fuckstain

 

I like your new sig. It's honest and succinct.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

baby raping fuckstain

 

I like your new sig. It's honest and succinct.

[Doug]

Ha Ha, you are funny!

[JayB]

I think those hacks had a great idea. And they put a pretty effective form of government together some 200+ years ago. The fact that it's lasted this long with minor changing here and there is a testament to their brilliance and foresight.

 

Unfortunately politicians, both liberal and conservative, and the parties they are associated with and the special interests they represent have expolited the system for their own gain and in some cases will take down anything and evreything that stands in their way.

 

Yup, I'm unpatriotic as hell! I guess that fact that I'm a registered and active voter, participate in my community and really do want what is best for the country as a whole is diminished and/or obliterated by the fact that I don't like what is wrong wrong with our country. What really pisses me off is the position many of the followers of the current moron in chief take: if you ain't for us, your against us. Sounds like we need another revolution because it was precisely that type of thinking that got those hacks over here in the first place.

 

"Politics: A strife of interest masquerading as a contest of principles."

 

Yawn. Ah yes, the lament of the righteous heretic. As a played-out self-serving political trope, it's right up there with the "Reluctant-Warrior-Who-Wants-Nothing-More-Than-Peace-But-Who-Is-Forced

-To-Whup-Some-Serious-Ass---One....Last....time..." And about as

convincing as the oft-mouthed "That's it I'm Moving to Canada...sooon. Seriously. Really. Honest." type stuff that was echoing across the

aisles of every Restoration Hardware in the country a few days after the '04 election.

 

Might well drop the pretense that your outrage is inspired by anything other than naked partisan zeal until the fervor/rageo-o-meter stops red-lining after every action the

administration takes.

[Doug]

who said anything about moving to Canada?

I suppose I could plead guilty to naked partisan zeal. As long as it's defined as equal disdain for both current predominant parties.

 

Call me what you want, I still believe what I believe and one of those beliefs is that this is still the best place to live on the planet.

 

I'm checking out now, you whack jobs bore me.

[ashw_justin]

Unfortunately politicians, both liberal and conservative, and the parties they are associated with and the special interests they represent have expolited the system for their own gain and in some cases will take down anything and everything that stands in their way.

Yes but luckily, or I mean hopefully, the biggest thing standing in their way is each other. The infighting has come back up to healthy levels. 9/11 fucked up the normal balance of cutthroat politics that we depend on to keep the powerful from being dangerous. A couple of buildings go down, and everybody's ready to call Bush the Supreme Leader and kowtow 77-23 to his administration's megalomania. OOOPS.

 

At least Washington is getting back to normal now. The last thing we need is for our big powerful government to get any more big bright ideas. That's been demonstrated. The moment they stop bitchslapping each other again, watch out.

[archenemy]

All from Wiki....which is not alway true.

 

 

Executive Privilege is the power claimed by the President of the United States and other members of the executive branch to resist certain search warrants and other interventions by the legislative and judicial branches of government. The concept of executive privilege is not mentioned in the United States Constitution, but some consider it to be an element of the separation of powers doctrine, and/or derived from the supremacy of executive branch in its own area of Constitutional activity.[1]

 

Presidents since George Washington and Thomas Jefferson have argued that each branch of government may operate with some degree of freedom from the control or supervision of the others.[citation needed] The Supreme Court confirmed the legitimacy of this doctrine in United States v. Nixon, but only to the extent of confirming that it can be invoked when the oversight of the executive would impair that branch's national security concerns.

 

Historically, the uses of executive privilege underscore the untested nature of the doctrine, since Presidents have generally sidestepped open confrontations with Congress and the courts over the issue by first asserting the privilege, then producing some of the documents requested on an assertedly voluntary basis.

 

 

See bold highlighted area......

 

Nuff said....bush is a crimial.....what is he trying to hide?

 

so let's list the things that AREN'T stated in the constitution...

 

abortion???

gay marriage??

etc....

 

oh wait - it's open to interpretation, eh?

 

Either you have not read the Constitution or else you did not understand it. There is no mention of our civil rights b/c the document outlines the limitations of our govt's powers--NOT our rights.

 

Good point. Rights thought to be fundamental to the human nature, as intrinsic as life and reason itself, are rights that existed and continue to exist regardless of the actions of governments. In this regard, the Constitution does not create rights, yet it explicitly restricts the power of governments to trespass upon those essential human rights that have come to be called civil liberties.

 

The Constitutional limitations on governmental power begins with our own and by extension reaches from there to all governments and all people. It is by the word of our Constitution that Americans have stood as a people whose self-evident and inalienable rights are not to be tread upon by any government, least of all their own.

Wish I said that myself--very well put!

[mattp]

Anybody else notice how JayB and KK cannot seem to defend the Bush administration's actions but in thread after thread feel the need to attack anybody who complains about it as partisan?

 

Hey guys: lets hear how great it is that they can't follow the law and get retroactive warrants from a court that is a rubber stamp for all but the most aggregious abuses, or how you honestly believe that the torture memo and Rumsfeld's statement that "we're taking the gloves off now" had nothing to do with the proliferation of torture at Guantanimo and Abu Ghraib. Tell us again how great it is that Bush's boys have politicized the Justice Department to an extent not seen before. How 'bout it, huh? And if you believe these things, why again would it be that the Congress or the public have no right to know how these programs were chosen or carried out?

[whirlwind]

isn't questioning your goverment the whole idea behind democracy? therefore being a true patiot would mean questioning the goverment and keeping it in check and making it justify its actions to the people for which it was created.

i mean are we to just stand behind the few in power and let them do what ever the fuck they want, justified or not? i would hope that unjustified actions or actions that we are purposely misinformed about, would stand out even more, and result in some form of punishment or proper reprocusion.

to see these action happen time and time again and to just shrug it off and say eveyone of the presidents has done it in one form or another is a sad, weak, and very unpatrotic. and thats a fact.

 

and to even compair Clinton's blowjob afair with the likes of what the Bush administraion has been able to pull is like trying to compair, the lie you tell to a fat person: oh you look good did you losde weight" to a lie at a murder seane: " i dont know who killed him mister officer" all the while holding the smoking gun behind your back

[JayB]

"Anybody else notice how JayB and KK cannot seem to defend the Bush administration's actions but in thread after thread feel the need to attack anybody who complains about it as partisan?"

 

Exhibit A chimes in. You are to morally and intellectually serious political discussions what "Loose Change" is to the Warren Commission.

 

Most of the issues that you brought up have to be discussed at length to be discussed seriously, and I have tried to do so on various occasions, but simply don't have the time to respond in that fashion to every histrionic missive that you and the rest of the incantations that you and the rest of the chorus here chant repeatedly on a daily basis.

 

I think I've actually addressed every one of those issues in other posts, and you are welcome to search them out and review them at your leisure. While you are doing so, perhaps you'd like to comment on this piece of legislation:

 

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_cr/s3001.pdf

 

Take special note of the sponsors.

 

 

 

 

[JayB]

isn't questioning your goverment the whole idea behind democracy? therefore being a true patiot would mean questioning the goverment and keeping it in check and making it justify its actions to the people for which it was created.

i mean are we to just stand behind the few in power and let them do what ever the fuck they want, justified or not? i would hope that unjustified actions or actions that we are purposely misinformed about, would stand out even more, and result in some form of punishment or proper reprocusion.

to see these action happen time and time again and to just shrug it off and say eveyone of the presidents has done it in one form or another is a sad, weak, and very unpatrotic. and thats a fact.

 

and to even compair Clinton's blowjob afair with the likes of what the Bush administraion has been able to pull is like trying to compair, the lie you tell to a fat person: oh you look good did you losde weight" to a lie at a murder seane: " i dont know who killed him mister officer" all the while holding the smoking gun behind your back

 

"Some claim a place in the list of patriots, by an acrimonious and unremitting opposition to the court. This mark is by no means infallible. Patriotism is not necessarily included in rebellion. A man may hate his king, yet not love his country."

 

 

[mattp]

You are right, Jay, that we discussed the FISA court before. I got the impression that you were unaware that the warrants could be issued retroactively, as you argued that they couldn't be slowed down by having to obtain warrants. I could try to do your arguing for you, but I'm not sure I can find a search engine that will show me where you explained how cool it is for the Administration to fire prosecutors who have the integrity to do their job. And I'm pretty sure I cannot find where you've convincingly argued how our leaders have proclaimed that we were not bound by the Geneva Conventions and said that we needed to get tough with terrorists and then showed how this didn't lead to systemic abuse of prisoners.

 

In this thread, however, the topic was "should Bush administratin officials have to comply with Congressional subpoena's." That is a different conversation, and one that I'd like to hear more about your ideas on. (If you look at my post above, you will notice I did not ask you simply to defend the Bush admin rather than attack its detractors, but I asked if you could defend their stance as to subpoenas directed to find about about matters like this.) In light of your and KK's insistence that it is all just partisan politics, however, I'd caution you, though, to consider what would your answer be if it was a Democratic president.

[cj001f]

JayB criticizing others for an inability to have an honest discussion? bwahahaha

[Fairweather]

 

 

 

Yup, I'm unpatriotic as hell! ... Sounds like we need another revolution because it was precisely that type of thinking that got those hacks over here in the first place.

 

You haven't really thought that one through - have you?

[JayB]

You are also apparently aware that members of the Democratic party helped to sponsor and draft legislation that would address some of the concerns and objections raised by the administration. If both were completely without merit and little more than an open window for grievous civil rights abuses and naked criminality I don't imagine such efforts would have been forthcoming. The sane members of your party are serious. You are not.

 

With regards to the prosecutors, part of doing their job means directing their efforts in a manner that's consistent with the administration's law-enforcement priorities. If a particular administration thinks that prosecuting X is more vital to the national interest than prosecuting Y, and a prosecutor insists on using his or her offices resources to prosecute Y, the administration is perfectly within their rights to fire them since they serve at the pleasure of the president. This is why most presidents clean-house and appoint their own prosecutors when they enter office.

 

You seem to be convinced that they were fired because they were directed to use the resources of their office in a manner that was consistent with a personal or party interest, rather than a legitimate national interest. This may be, and if it is, then I won't cry any tears for whoever gets the axe - but I'm also not terribly keen for Congress to secure the ability to have carte blance when it comes to getting their hands on internal communications within the executive branch, so it won't bother me too much if the Supreme Court has to adjudicate here.

 

This would be true regardless of which party had the office. You could just as well consider this matter with regards to the present war.

[Fairweather]

I'm not sure what's more dangerous: Bush's relatively minor misinterpretations of executive privilege - common to presidents throuought American history - or the gasoline that hysterical types like those here are throwing on the lit match? No one is suggesting we stifle debate (except Crux, MattP, and certain other Democrats bent on suppressing free political expression in media), but the rise of anger on the left is reaching heights that far exceed in-kind or appropriate levels. When those on the left don't get their way they will go to great lengths to justify their anger with vitriol about a broken system, stolen elections, or insults directed at the intellect of the general voting populace. You want a revolution? I say, bring it. But you won't end up with anything better than what we all have right now.

[cj001f]

I'm waiting for the press conference of Dick Cheney claiming Executive Privilege for not submitting documents.

[Doug]

 

 

 

Yup, I'm unpatriotic as hell! ... Sounds like we need another revolution because it was precisely that type of thinking that got those hacks over here in the first place.

 

You haven't really thought that one through - have you?

elaborate.

[JayB]

I'm not sure what's more dangerous: Bush's relatively minor misinterpretations of executive privilege - common to presidents throuought American history - or the gasoline that hysterical types like those here are throwing on the lit match? No one is suggesting we stifle debate (except Crux, MattP, and certain other Democrats bent on suppressing free political expression in media), but the rise of anger on the left is reaching heights that far exceed in-kind or appropriate levels. When those on the left don't get their way they will go to great lengths to justify their anger with vitriol about a broken system, stolen elections, or insults directed at the intellect of the general voting populace. You want a revolution? I say, bring it. But you won't end up with anything better than what we all have right now.

 

Yup.

 

Pretty short road from the end of Condorcet to the beginning of Marat and Robespierre.*

 

*Help:

 

"Condorcet took a leading role when the French Revolution swept France in 1789, hoping for a rationalist reconstruction of society, and championed many liberal causes. As a result, in 1791 he was elected as a Paris representative in the Assemblée, and then became the secretary of the Assembly. The institution adopted Condorcet's design for state education system, and he drafted a proposed Bourbon Constitution for the new France. He advocated women's suffrage for the new government, writing an article for Journal de la Société de 1789, and by publishing De l'admission des femmes au droit de cité ("For the Admission to the Rights of Citizenship For Women")in 1790.

 

There were two competing views on which direction France should go, embodied by two political parties: the moderate Girondists, and the more radical Montagnards, led by Maximilien Robespierre, who favored purging France of its royal past (Ancien Régime). Condorcet was quite independent, but still counted many friends in the Girondist party. He presided over the Assembly as the Girondist held the majority, until it was replaced by the National Convention, elected in order to design a new constitution (the French Constitution of 1793), and which abolished the monarchy in favor of the French Republic as a consequence of the Flight to Varennes.

 

At the time of King Louis XVI's trial, the Girondists had, however, lost their majority in the Convention. Condorcet, who opposed the death penalty but still supported the trial itself, spoke out against the execution of the King during the public vote at the Convention. From that moment on, he was usually considered a Girondist. The Montagnards were becoming more and more influential in the Convention as the King's "betrayal" was confirming their theories. One of them, Marie-Jean Hérault de Seychelles, a member, like Condorcet, of the Constitution's Commission, misrepresented many ideas from Condorcet's draft and presented what was called a Montagnard Constitution. Condorcet criticized the new work, and as a result, he was branded a traitor. On October 3, 1793, a warrant was issued for Condorcet's arrest.

 

The warrant forced Condorcet into hiding. He hid for five months in the house of Mme. Vernet, Rue Servandoni, in Paris. It was there that he wrote Esquisse d'un tableau historique des progrès de l'esprit humain (English translation: Sketch for a Historical Picture of the Progress of the Human Mind), which was published posthumously in 1795 and is considered one of the major texts of the Enlightenment and of historical thought. It narrates the history of civilization as one of progress in the sciences, shows the intimate connection between scientific progress and the development of human rights and justice, and outlines the features of a future rational society entirely shaped by scientific knowledge.

 

On March 25, 1794 Condorcet, convinced he was no longer safe, left his hideout and attempted to flee Paris. Two days later he was arrested in Clamart and imprisoned in the Bourg-la-Reine (or, as it was known during the Revolution, Bourg-l'Égalité, "Equality Borough" rather than "Queen's Borough"). Two days after that, he was found dead in his cell. The most widely accepted theory is that his friend, Pierre Jean George Cabanis, gave him a poison which he eventually used. However, some historians believe that he may have been murdered (perhaps because he was too loved and respected to be executed)."

[whirlwind]

um since when has "liberal" media been the only biased media. 6 yrs ago it was all one sided the other way for a long period of time, but iam kinda out of the loop on curent events.

 

personaly im tired of the left right fumble fucked bs. no one really knows wtf they really belive, at least not to the point that the suposed left and right are unique and seperate. they are more of a blur or retards augueing insugnifigant rubish and failing to adress real world problems directly, and in a way that may actually acomplish something other than drawn out boring broken record dribble, that dosn't in the least bit begain to solve any of this countries real problems. cource i guess this is the first real problem that needs to be solved.

Edited June 29, 2007 by wirlwind