Guest viewing limit reached
  • You have reached the maximum number of guest views allowed
  • Please register below to remove this limitation

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
anabolicrhino

anabolicrhino

Well-known member
Invalid Link Removed

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!!!
 
Yeah, Keith Olberman really looks at things from both sides. :rolleyes:
 
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.
 
Jumper said:
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.
Click to expand...


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 ?
 
Yes, to dominate the world. Everyone run and hide.
 
Bobo said:
Yeah, Keith Olberman really looks at things from both sides. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

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.
 
zbtboy said:
Olberman's views/slants aside, all he was doing was reporting on the Government Accountability Office's findings:
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm sure thats all he was doing. :rolleyes:
 
Bobo said:
Yes, I'm sure thats all he was doing. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

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.
 
zbtboy said:
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.
Click to expand...



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

Invalid Link Removed


:D
 
Colmes a counter point to Hannity? I could argue for the left better than that buffoon. :D
 
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.
 
Rufio said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Funny you say its crap, the ratings say otherwise.
 
Liberals trying to use facts to support their delusional arguments is like watching a retard run in the special Olympics.
 
CNorris said:
Liberals trying to use facts to support their delusional arguments is like watching a retard run in the special Olympics.
Click to expand...

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


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!.
 
bigSMokey said:
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.
Click to expand...

Great post ! I was beginning to think that the only two choices in life were Bush Administration pundit or liberal !
 
bigSMokey said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone turns a blind eye here. If fact, I think there are more people blinded by hate....the hatred of Bush. If you are Republican, you're with Bush and every policy he's ever made. They don't decipher anything whereas Republicans routinely separate many moderate Democrats from the left wing loons. It just seems more and more of them are leaning more left.....to get elected. That's fine, if it was reversed Republicans would do the same.

I also think using the terms "lie and atrocities" is pretty ridiculous.

Considering the political affiliations of most of the news media it wouldn't be inconcevible if what they reported wasn't quite factual. Dan Rather anyone?

You are sick and tired of so called lies. I am sick and tired of the "blame America" first mentality.
 
Bobo said:
Considering the political affiliations of most of the news media it wouldn't be inconcevible if what they reported wasn't quite factual. Dan Rather anyone?
Click to expand...

There was a tax cut rally headed by a local (minneapolis) right wing radio host. well when the news reported on it NBC said there was hundreds in attendance. CBS said dozens in attendance. there was over 3,000 people there at the rally at the capital. and the footage they showed wasnt even from the rally. :think:

I dont undertand it...
 
spunkles182 said:
There was a tax cut rally headed by a local (minneapolis) right wing radio host. well when the news reported on it NBC said there was hundreds in attendance. CBS said dozens in attendance. there was over 3,000 people there at the rally at the capital. and the footage they showed wasnt even from the rally. :think:

I dont undertand it...
Click to expand...

There isn't a left wing bias...just because.


:)
 
Bobo said:
You forget Brit Hume and anything Republican...at least according to your view.
Click to expand...


Never seen Brit Hume, but what exactly are you talking about?


Bobo said:
Funny you say its crap, the ratings say otherwise.
Click to expand...


"It's popular so it's not crap." OK, the Ashlee Simpson argument. Michael Moore is popular as hell. Does that mean he's not crap, or does it only apply to the right?


The fact of the matter is that most people pay attention to catchy advertising more so than actual facts. Emotion and crowd control tactics usually are way more popular than making logical arguments. That's why you get things like the quest to ban porn in the 80's or the steroid ignorance that's right now resulting from Benoit's actions.


I also know quite a few people who watch Bill O Reilly just for the amusement of watching him rant.


Bobo said:
Considering the political affiliations of most of the news media it wouldn't be inconcevible if what they reported wasn't quite factual. Dan Rather anyone?
Click to expand...



Ok, you have some serious media double standards. I've seen Bill O Reilly lie about his guest's position right after he had his guest on. Blatant lies.



Bobo said:
You are sick and tired of so called lies. I am sick and tired of the "blame America" first mentality.
Click to expand...


Hugo Chavez made an ANTI-militarism speech that praised American citizens but criticized the government. The "liberal media" presented him as someone wanting to wage war on America. Ward Churchill brought up the double standards regarding American atrocities in the Middle East, and the "liberal media" claimed he supported 9/11.


Why don't you take a look at the rest of the world's media? If you do some research, it will become VERY clear that what you call "the liberal media" has a great pro-American bias. The only question is how much of a bias. The media allows for criticism of one politician or another's METHODS, but not their intentions. It's blatant double standards. They don't scrutinize American leaders to nearly the same degree as they do other world leaders.


The US media also has a long history of under-estimating the death tolls of American military actions to civilian populations compared to the rest of the world.
 
Bobo said:
Yes, to dominate the world. Everyone run and hide.
Click to expand...


The US is dominating the world through veto power and puppet control. That's why the creation of Israel was allowed to bypass international law -- the US backed it as their personal military base in the Middle East and as a superpower, they had the influence to overrule international law. Then there's the US' long history of vetoing UN resolutions where they're VASTLY outnumbered. Generally, what the US says goes. That's the real reasoning behind the Iraq war. Control of the oil reserves means veto power over the parts of Europe and Asia that depend on it.


If you think that politicians invade poor countries that are little threat to us to spread "freedom," you need to study the history a bit more. It is all about holding control over the world, just as it was for France, Rome, England, and all the other hegemonies.
 
Rufio said:
The US is dominating the world through veto power and puppet control. That's why the creation of Israel was allowed to bypass international law -- the US backed it as their personal military base in the Middle East and as a superpower, they had the influence to overrule international law. Then there's the US' long history of vetoing UN resolutions where they're VASTLY outnumbered. Generally, what the US says goes. That's the real reasoning behind the Iraq war. Control of the oil reserves means veto power over the parts of Europe and Asia that depend on it.


If you think that politicians invade poor countries that are little threat to us to spread "freedom," you need to study the history a bit more. It is all about holding control over the world, just as it was for France, Rome, England, and all the other hegemonies.
Click to expand...

WOW! you make anabolicrhino sound sane. At least he attempts to connect his delusions with factual information.
:nutkick:
 
CNorris said:
Your post = most worthless by far.

You lose, try again.
Click to expand...

I've been brought up Republican, have always been Republican ... Capitalist. What we currently have in the White House, whether he/she be Left or Right ... is a Corporatist. Moderates are always elected ... (Clinton, Bush, Regean). They're all out for BIG BUSINESS. A modern age Fascism. In what moral, good hearted, intelligent human being's head fits the notion that the mass massacre of decent innocent people, whether they be American or Iraqui people be good for our country (us as a people). I could understand it if they had been the ones to attack us but they were not. There's no denying that. No WMDs found. Free Trade, Imigration ... No child left behind. When have we ever had such and incompetent individual. This is not a fan club. This is our country. He who has said he wanted to spread Democracy to Iraq has compromised ours (wire tapping, habeas corpus, Abu Ghraib,the list goes on ...) .
His support of Alberto Gonzales? Remarkable individual our president. Truly powerful. May God forgive him.
 
CNorris said:
WOW! you make anabolicrhino sound sane. At least he attempts to connect his delusions with factual information.
:nutkick:
Click to expand...




Oh, right. Because random ranting about "the liberal media wants everyone to think the same" is citing facts. In case you didn't notice, I DID cite examples, such as Churchill and Chavez's words being distorted by the media unanimously, including Democrat-biased sources.


Here's an example of the US veto power:


Invalid Link Removed


147 countries vote for it, but it doesn't go through because the US, along with US puppet Israel disagree, and the UN abstains. The reasoning given was that "experts claim it couldn't be monitored." Apparently 147 different countries either had crappy experts or they never thought about whether the monitoring of fissile materials was actually possible, and just voted anyway. It couldn't be that the US leaders don't want their own fissile material monitored.


And of course there's the long list of vetoes on the issue of Palestine:


Invalid Link Removed



Yeah, the US has no veto power alright. And do you want to get into the large list of "regime change" including installing dictators?


I can't believe that there are people naive enough to think our leaders are just trying to spread "freedom" and yet claim that people recognizing the POWER issue are the real whackos. Yeah, installing and supplying dictators over democratically elected leaders was all for freedom. Consolidating world power and influence has nothing to do with it. They don't care if other countries grow powerful enough to challenge their influence. Right.
 
What I just can understand is .... if Bush and Co. are so much for spreading democracy ... Why haven't they done something with Castro? ....


Cuba = Tabaco = $$$
Iraq = Oil = $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
 
Castro isn't the best example. There's still an embargo on Cuba due to a grudge left over from the Cold War. There were several terrorist attacks on Castro back then, and in fact the world was virtually brought to nuclear war because of Kennedy's vendetta.

It was pretty much political imperialism ... If you were a Communist sympathizer, nothing else mattered. That's why the US helped install Augusto Pinochet and the Shah in Iran, and supported Saddam. Being anti-Communist mattered more than how democratic a leader you were. Anti-Communist dictators were favored over democratically elected leaders with Communist leanings.

A better point to raise is why Bush's people allied with Saddam for so long, even for a brief time after the Cold War was over, as well as Osama in the first place. Or installing dictators and stopping elections in various instances.


The truth is that most US leaders (and world leaders in general) are for democracy except when it's inconvenient to their strategic and economic goals.
 
Rufio said:
Castro isn't the best example. There's still an embargo on Cuba due to a grudge left over from the Cold War. There were several terrorist attacks on Castro back then, and in fact the world was virtually brought to nuclear war because of Kennedy's vendetta.

It was pretty much political imperialism ... If you were a Communist sympathizer, nothing else mattered. That's why the US helped install Augusto Pinochet and the Shah in Iran, and supported Saddam. Being anti-Communist mattered more than how democratic a leader you were. Anti-Communist dictators were favored over democratically elected leaders with Communist leanings.

A better point to raise is why Bush's people allied with Saddam for so long, even for a brief time after the Cold War was over, as well as Osama in the first place. Or installing dictators and stopping elections in various instances.


The truth is that most US leaders (and world leaders in general) are for democracy except when it's inconvenient to their strategic and economic goals.
Click to expand...

There are so many points! The embargo is irrelevant in bringing democracy to Cuba. We've placed it ... so as I said .... pointless. We started a war and didn't even care what the UN thought. We could finsh with Castro tomorrow ... but what for? I just brought Cuba up to show the hypocracy of the "spreading freedom" 50th defense on going into Iraq. Also, I am of Cuban decent and its close to my heart. Want to talk about desregard for human rights? Cuba is a tragedy.

I think I read on MSNBC or some other news site that Cheney's stock in Haliburton didn't double, triple or quadruabled ... it multiplied by a factor of 32.

Why did we go into Iraq?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top