Bush Officially "making It Up As He Goes" !!!

anabolicrhino · 06-20-2007, 12:06 PM

NEW WORLD RHINOS: BUSH OFFICIALLY MAKING IT UP AS HE GOES !!!

Bush has been adding amendments to congressional laws instead of using his constitutional power of veto. 37% of his changes have been ignored by the courts. dooh!!!

**Frank Costanza** · 06-20-2007, 12:10 PM

Yeah, Keith Olberman really looks at things from both sides.

Jumper · 06-20-2007, 12:34 PM

Those are not ammendments and carry no legal or binding authority. It is just his opinion and recommendation. Sort of a this is how I see it.

anabolicrhino · 06-20-2007, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jumper

Those are not ammendments and carry no legal or binding authority. It is just his opinion and recommendation. Sort of a this is how I see it.

I should have used the word "addendum" nice catch,
but...

So, what is the point then ? It is as if he wants the world to believe that he is the supreme law maker.

Is it a psychological ploy?

Is it being used as a tool to create the illusion of the executive branch having more power than congress?

If the president does not agree with a law he can veto it!

When Bush tries to execute powers he does not have it challenges our form of government.

Our governmental system is designed to be capable of handling these challenges, but it makes me wonder why Bush tries to do this type of thing!

Does he have an agenda beyond his Presidency ?

**Frank Costanza** · 06-20-2007, 01:41 PM

Yes, to dominate the world. Everyone run and hide.

zbtboy · 06-20-2007, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobo

Yeah, Keith Olberman really looks at things from both sides.

Olberman's views/slants aside, all he was doing was reporting on the Government Accountability Office's findings:

The GAO examined a sample of 19 specific provisions from fiscal year 2006 appropriations acts where Bush took exception with a signing statement. It found the laws passed by Congress were subsequently ignored about 30% of the time.

"Of these 19 provisions, 10 provisions were executed as written, 6 were not, and 3 were not triggered and so there was no agency action to examine," said the report, which was issued as a letter and signed by GAO General Counsel Gary L. Kepplinger.

**Frank Costanza** · 06-20-2007, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zbtboy

Olberman's views/slants aside, all he was doing was reporting on the Government Accountability Office's findings:

Yes, I'm sure thats all he was doing.

zbtboy · 06-20-2007, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobo

Yes, I'm sure thats all he was doing.

When presenting facts, yes that was all he was doing. Now, when commenting on the facts with his subsequent guest I'm sure he leaned a little to the left. But the facts mentioned were indeed facts. thats more than we can ever say about Rush and Hannity now isnt it?

Of course he never mentions what those 6 violations were. Honestly 5 out the 6 look quite harmless (Not getting reports back to congress in time). The other one I'm not sure about..

* - The Department of Defense (DOD) did not include as part of the fiscal year 2007 budget submission to Congress separate budget justification documents for the costs of all contingency operations for the Military Personnel, Operation and Maintenance, and Procurement accounts.

**Frank Costanza** · 06-20-2007, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zbtboy

When presenting facts, yes that was all he was doing. Now, when commenting on the facts with his subsequent guest I'm sure he leaned a little to the left. But the facts mentioned were indeed facts. thats more than we can ever say about Rush and Hannity now isnt it?

Of course he never mentions what those 6 violations were. Honestly 5 out the 6 look quite harmless (Not getting reports back to congress in time). The other one I'm not sure about..

* - The Department of Defense (DOD) did not include as part of the fiscal year 2007 budget submission to Congress separate budget justification documents for the costs of all contingency operations for the Military Personnel, Operation and Maintenance, and Procurement accounts.

As you see it. Sorry, I don't. Its an agenda, plain and simple. I mean when it comes to Bush changing and/or ignoring laws you will hear about it all the time with good ol' Keith. When predominantly liberal district and federal courts ignore laws (as they do everyday much like sanctuary cities), you won't see much of that on Keith's show. Even if Bush completely ignored/changed laws he would be doing the same thing thing many liberal judges do every single day. In other words, I don't give a sh!t because it happens on both sides. Bush signs law, ignore parts, judges ignore them completely when they don't agree.

Rush? Don't list to him and he's not the news. Its a radio opinion show. Hannity? He has Colmes on the other side. Where is Keith's conterpoint? Oh thats right, he never has them.

If you want the counterpoint there is always

Olbermann Watch - MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann

zbtboy · 06-20-2007, 02:17 PM

Colmes a counter point to Hannity? I could argue for the left better than that buffoon.

**Frank Costanza** · 06-20-2007, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zbtboy

Colmes a counter point to Hannity? I could argue for the left better than that buffoon.

No comment.

Rufio · 06-20-2007, 06:15 PM

From what I've seen of Keith Olberman, he doesn't even REMOTELY approach the crap you can see routinely on The O Reilly Factor, Glenn Beck, Nancy Grace, etc. And every single news personality has selective reporting. The idea that any news show gives fair representation to all views is ludicrous. The main issue is if the facts cited are correct and in contect.

**Frank Costanza** · 06-21-2007, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rufio

From what I've seen of Keith Olberman, he doesn't even REMOTELY approach the crap you can see routinely on The O Reilly Factor, Glenn Beck, Nancy Grace, etc. And every single news personality has selective reporting. The idea that any news show gives fair representation to all views is ludicrous. The main issue is if the facts cited are correct and in contect.

You forget Brit Hume and anything Republican...at least according to your view.

Funny you say its crap, the ratings say otherwise.

CNorris · 06-21-2007, 10:30 PM

Liberals trying to use facts to support their delusional arguments is like watching a retard run in the special Olympics.

bigSMokey · 06-22-2007, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CNorris

Liberals trying to use facts to support their delusional arguments is like watching a retard run in the special Olympics.

Wow, nice point. I like to refer to these as boomerang statements - you tossed it out, but it came back and actually hit you in the head.

I'm not a liberal, I consider myself a moderate, I'm just so sick of everybody turning a blind eye to the lies and atrocities of this administraion.

Look at all the new powers Bush and Cheney have pulled into the executive branch. But guess what, if that insane woman becomes our next pres, where do you think that disproportionate new power will lie? Hillary and her V.P. - the new "commander guys" of the US.

-Chuck Norris does not breathe, he merely permits oxygen and nitrogen molecules to enter his lung space.

Squeaks4ver · 06-22-2007, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CNorris

Liberals trying to use facts to support their delusional arguments is like watching a retard run in the special Olympics.

Please take that back. Its not funny nor is it respectful to any of our special brothers and sisters to ever be used in an analogy with liberals!.