Please say "Fuck You and hope you die to GW Bush!

[ygmir]

I relatively recently heard about "presidential signing statements" I believe they are called. Basically, it is an adendum to ANY bill that congress passes that the president doesn't like. He can for most intent and purpose override the meaning of the bill or totally weaken its effect. I was again shocked to hear that the president can override congress in this way. It only began being reported and common knowledge because of the number of signing statements issued by GWB--more than any other president in history, if memory serves.

JK

those are the kind of powers and things that make me so cynical.........I don't want anyone to have that much power.........it's supposed to be checks and balances.......dang it!!

Those things may be great, in the minds of those enacting them, when, they agree with the person using them, but, what happens when someone you don't like has those powers?..........it's a blade that cuts two ways..........

Gridlock is the only thing that keeps us "safe", ( a relative term, I know), in that no "in the moment" legislation can happen.........usually.........and it takes a majority, and a lot of time, before something happens, when, hopefully, cooler heads will prevail.......
The idea being to avoid wide swings in legislation ideals........

[littleflower]

very interesting link about presidential signing statements:

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/signingstatements.php

[Elderberry]

Gridlock is the only thing that keeps us "safe", ( a relative term, I know), in that no "in the moment" legislation can happen.........usually.........and it takes a majority, and a lot of time, before something happens, when, hopefully, cooler heads will prevail.......
The idea being to avoid wide swings in legislation ideals........

ygmir, ygmir, ygmir. we've had the pendulum swing way to far over the last 8 years; we need a totally democrat house, senate and president to get things back in balance again.

I would much rather have one party have all the power so that if they don't do a good job, we have someone to blame and can kick them out and give the next group a chance. But it's hard to know who to blame if there is gridlock. Way too counter productive for me. With gridlock there isn't even a chance that something good might happen. It's better to try and fail than to not even be able to try.

JK

[Elderberry]

very interesting link about presidential signing statements:

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/signingstatements.php

That was a good link. And after reading it, in the interest of fair and balanced reporting, I must amend my statement that GWB signed more of them than any president in history. It was actually Clinton. However, GWB still holds the record for signing the most controversial statements.

JK

[ygmir]

very interesting link about presidential signing statements:

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/signingstatements.php

That was a good link. And after reading it, in the interest of fair and balanced reporting, I must amend my statement that GWB signed more of them than any president in history. It was actually Clinton. However, GWB still holds the record for signing the most controversial statements.

JK

and, let me guess:
if Clinton had signed the most controversial, you'd point out the GWB had signed the most...........

[Elderberry]

and, let me guess:
if Clinton had signed the most controversial, you'd point out the GWB had signed the most...........

No, actually you'd be wrong. I was genuinely surprised when I read that it was Clinton; and my remarks regarding the type of signing orders Clinton signed was a paraphrase directly from the article. I had no agenda here. (Though I do like Clinton.)

JK

[ygmir]

and, let me guess:
if Clinton had signed the most controversial, you'd point out the GWB had signed the most...........

No, actually you'd be wrong. I was genuinely surprised when I read that it was Clinton; and my remarks regarding the type of signing orders Clinton signed was a paraphrase directly from the article. I had no agenda here. (Though I do like Clinton.)

JK

gasp........I'd a never guessed you like Clinton........hahahaaha

I completely understand how people overlook in "their" candidate what they despise in another. It's human nature, IMHO, to be that way towards someone you love or admire.
It's just so often, a person won't admit their bias, and, swear they're being fair...........
Why not just say that a person likes this side, and, are willing to overlook things, in favor of the larger agenda.

Like the argument of the big 3 MSM vs Fox.
I hear the left call Fox right biased, the right call big 3 left biased, and, defending the one they like as fair and unbiased.

Just an observation......

[Elderberry]

Like the argument of the big 3 MSM vs Fox.
I hear the left call Fox right biased, the right call big 3 left biased, and, defending the one they like as fair and unbiased.

Just an observation......

It's not the same for the media--Fox is notoriously biased. Their owner, isn't it Rupert Murdock, actually gives edicts as to what is to be reported and how. It is blatant with fox. The other networks at least try to give the appearance of being fair and balanced.

As an example of how they do business over at Fox--Bill O'Reilly has been surpassed by Keith Olbermann in the Nielson ratings for the last several weeks--so what is his comment as to why this is so? Because the Nielsen ratings are biased toward the left and the dems.

JK

[littleflower]

BOTH are biased, JK. human beings are biased. the best way to get to the truth is to vary your sources and trust nobody ... IMHO ...

[ygmir]

Like the argument of the big 3 MSM vs Fox.
I hear the left call Fox right biased, the right call big 3 left biased, and, defending the one they like as fair and unbiased.

Just an observation......

It's not the same for the media--Fox is notoriously biased. Their owner, isn't it Rupert Murdock, actually gives edicts as to what is to be reported and how. It is blatant with fox. The other networks at least try to give the appearance of being fair and balanced.

As an example of how they do business over at Fox--Bill O'Reilly has been surpassed by Keith Olbermann in the Nielson ratings for the last several weeks--so what is his comment as to why this is so? Because the Nielsen ratings are biased toward the left and the dems.

JK

I guess, JK, I was hoping for an answer not quite this..........myopic.
Your unwillingness to accept the left of the MSM, but, willingness to put fox on it's own on the right.......and, that you want to say you're way is the right way, no ones opinion is as valid or informed......
that's what I see........
I'd bet there are as many edicts from management at the MSM as Fox......maybe they're better at keeping it quiet........who knows.
Just because the MSM is owned by Jews or Conservatives, does not indicate no bias.....
In fact, from a business, sense, it's make sense for them to allow and even promote left bias, since, it seems to play to the masses best....and, makes us all feel warm and fuzzy........

and, you know how the "owners" are all about business and ratings......

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on this.
I think they're all biased one left, MSM, right, Fox. If you don't, I accept that......

[Apollonaris Zeus]

Look like Dick Cheney is going to jail for breaking the law with his signing of the torture bill. Congresss is going to task and they want to make cheney an example that it doesn't happen again.

Fuck you GWB, hope you die before office!


AIIZ

[Elderberry]

Look like Dick Cheney is going to jail for breaking the law with his signing of the torture bill. Congresss is going to task and they want to make cheney an example that it doesn't happen again.

Fuck you GWB, hope you die before office!


AIIZ

Well they better not do anything until GWB is out of office and can't pardon him or commute his sentence.

JK

[ygmir]

Look like Dick Cheney is going to jail for breaking the law with his signing of the torture bill. Congresss is going to task and they want to make cheney an example that it doesn't happen again.

Fuck you GWB, hope you die before office!


AIIZ

Well they better not do anything until GWB is out of office and can't pardon him or commute his sentence.

JK

I"m pretty sure he can pardon anyone for crimes committed, whether charged or not.

[Elderberry]

Look like Dick Cheney is going to jail for breaking the law with his signing of the torture bill. Congresss is going to task and they want to make cheney an example that it doesn't happen again.

Fuck you GWB, hope you die before office!


AIIZ

Well they better not do anything until GWB is out of office and can't pardon him or commute his sentence.

JK

I"m pretty sure he can pardon anyone for crimes committed, whether charged or not.

Hmmm, how could he pardon someone of a crime it the crime has not been acknowledged as such? I would think that unless the person was at least indited, they couldn't be pardoned. But I don't know this for sure.

JK

[ygmir]

I thought I remembered a pardon languaged as being for any and all crimes committed.
that would work, IMHO, as stated.

[Apollonaris Zeus]

congess is going to take up the issue in the next legislature so that Obama won't have to and he can remain neutal on the issue.

Obama will have more then enough issues to tackle like the worst economy that any president had to content with since Roosevelt



AIIZ

[Elderberry]

I thought I remembered a pardon languaged as being for any and all crimes committed.
that would work, IMHO, as stated.

You might be right. Was that what Ford did with Nixon's pardon then? That would really suck.

JK

[ygmir]

I thought I remembered a pardon languaged as being for any and all crimes committed.
that would work, IMHO, as stated.

You might be right. Was that what Ford did with Nixon's pardon then? That would really suck.

JK

IIRC, it was something like that.
all presidents have done it, pardoned bad people............some worse than others........
it's a prerogative given them, for right or wrong, and, as always, it depends on your point of view.........
very subjective thing to judge........
IMHO, that is...........

[Elderberry]

for whatever reason, your post started me thinking about GWB demanding that the telecoms be given immunity in that wire-tap whatever it was. The country wouldn't be safe without it, yet he would veto it if the telecoms weren't given immunity. Now why would that matter if he didn't know that what he was asking them to do was illegal? Just seems like they are taking executive privlidge and power far beyond where I recall ever seeing it before.

JK

[littleflower]

jk, i am not sure that there is any set definition of what is or is not legal in the current situation ... the bushies has relied on some supreme court rulings from WWII that the current court has ruled were not applicable... in other words, the current conflict is something new, so there could be no precedent...

it would be nice if the law were clear on these things, but it is not.

[ygmir]

for whatever reason, your post started me thinking about GWB demanding that the telecoms be given immunity in that wire-tap whatever it was. The country wouldn't be safe without it, yet he would veto it if the telecoms weren't given immunity. Now why would that matter if he didn't know that what he was asking them to do was illegal? Just seems like they are taking executive privlidge and power far beyond where I recall ever seeing it before.

JK

I'd only submit, JK, that you see it from an adversarial P.O.V. and, I'd bet that many presidents have committed criminal acts by pardoning certain people.........before and after crimes........
my feeling is that your dislike for this president makes you think everything he does is the worst ever........
I'd suggest, lesser evil is still evil, less wrong is still wrong, and, that it's hard to objectively judge who's done what, the worst.

not saying it's ok, just saying it is how it is........

if it's a bad rule, get rid of it........

I think it's a left over from royalty and such from the founding of our country, and, was sort of devised and a "kingly right" to pardon, on a whim...........
not sure if I agree, but, I'm ok with it..........surely Clinton pardoned some despicable characters......
and, others before him.........

just a thought......

[Elderberry]

jk, i am not sure that there is any set definition of what is or is not legal in the current situation ... the bushies has relied on some supreme court rulings from WWII that the current court has ruled were not applicable... in other words, the current conflict is something new, so there could be no precedent...

it would be nice if the law were clear on these things, but it is not.

I have a strong suspicion that the law will be clarified on these issues in the coming years.

JK

[ygmir]

jk, i am not sure that there is any set definition of what is or is not legal in the current situation ... the bushies has relied on some supreme court rulings from WWII that the current court has ruled were not applicable... in other words, the current conflict is something new, so there could be no precedent...

it would be nice if the law were clear on these things, but it is not.

I have a strong suspicion that the law will be clarified on these issues in the coming years.

JK

wouldn't it be refreshing, if not surprising, to see clearly written laws, and, applied evenly, to the common folk and politicians.......

not to much hope of this, but, it's a nice thought......

[Elderberry]

for whatever reason, your post started me thinking about GWB demanding that the telecoms be given immunity in that wire-tap whatever it was. The country wouldn't be safe without it, yet he would veto it if the telecoms weren't given immunity. Now why would that matter if he didn't know that what he was asking them to do was illegal? Just seems like they are taking executive privlidge and power far beyond where I recall ever seeing it before.

JK

I'd only submit, JK, that you see it from an adversarial P.O.V. and, I'd bet that many presidents have committed criminal acts by pardoning certain people.........before and after crimes........
my feeling is that your dislike for this president makes you think everything he does is the worst ever........
I'd suggest, lesser evil is still evil, less wrong is still wrong, and, that it's hard to objectively judge who's done what, the worst.

not saying it's ok, just saying it is how it is........

if it's a bad rule, get rid of it........

I think it's a left over from royalty and such from the founding of our country, and, was sort of devised and a "kingly right" to pardon, on a whim...........
not sure if I agree, but, I'm ok with it..........surely Clinton pardoned some despicable characters......
and, others before him.........

just a thought......

Yes, and so did Ford--probably the most controversial pardon in history.

My anti-Bush sentiments did not grow from adversary. There were several republican presidents that I have liked and supported (Reagan & Nixon), some that I have not especially liked but supported (GHWB), and there was even one democratic president that I thought was terrible(Carter) (MY GOD, HE SOLD THE YACHT!!!!).

GWB has earned my disgust via his actions and policies. So hopefully my thoughts on his pardons are coming from a more studied than emotional place.

And interestingly enough, I am ok with the presidential pardon authority too.

Thoughts are good, and I always enjoy hearing yours.

JK

[Apollonaris Zeus]

Fuk you gwb thanks for the economy. Now die!

AIIZ

[ygmir]

deep thinking, consice, well worded, insightful, intuitive..........

nice, AZ........

[Apollonaris Zeus]

Good morning and Fuck You george bush!

thanks for giving the wealthy all the tax breaks and screwing the American economy!

and the Gods should bless you Obama for stopping the downward spiral and turning around the worst economy that a president has ever inherited since Roosevelt.

We would not have come to this point in recovering the worst economy in little more then half a year if it wasn't for the Obama Administration.

Fuck You Georgie!

AIIZ

[ygmir]

are you still bitter?

*opens door marked "Move forward"*

[Apollonaris Zeus]

are you still bitter?

*opens door marked "Move forward"*

No, I love this economy, banking and tax give-aways to the wealthy, War in Iraq BW Bush has gifted us!

Bernie Madoff loves Bushy too!

Fuck You, GWB!

[ygmir]

*says "Myopia: king of the desert"*.....

giggling..........