Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060627/ap_on_...ning_statements

 

I know for most of you, George W. Bush could be found guilty of eating babies and that would be okay. But I have never seen a president threaten the foundation of a nation like this guy has. I think I've seen it all, then he comes up with even more unbelievable stuff. Blah, blah, liberal...blah, blah, war on terror...you'll never convince me otherwise, and I'll never change your minds.

 

PTR

  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

You're JUST hearing about this? What, does news get to NH via Pony Express?

 

I'll believe he's a dictator when he doesn't leave office in two years. Good luck with that.

Posted

Didn't you ever hear of executive orders? Clinton signed a rcord number of them when he was in office. One of these took the coal fields in the Escalante-Staircase area out of use, so his buddies in Indonesia, the Riadys, could make billions on the low sulfur coal we have to buy from them.

Posted
  Johnny Coli said:
Wrong.

Number of signing statements for Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2.

Bush #1: 232 in four years

Clinton: 140 in eight years

The Emporer: 750 in five years

714807[/snapback]

You have some nerve bringing actual, factual, statistics into this discussion. Bush's order #578 decreed that statistics are not relevant and are in fact the tools of evildoers who hate freedom and seek to discredit his administration. :lol:

Posted
  Johnny Coli said:
Wrong.

Number of signing statements for Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2.

Bush #1: 232 in four years

Clinton: 140 in eight years

The Emporer: 750 in five years

714807[/snapback]

 

But Wacka mentioned executive orders, and you're talking about signing statements. Two completely different things.

 

Of course, the original topic of the thread was signing statements, and Wacka's talking about executive orders, which are two completely different things. :lol: But thank you for staying on-topic...

Posted
  Crap Throwing Monkey said:
But Wacka mentioned executive orders, and you're talking about signing statements.  Two completely different things. 

 

Of course, the original topic of the thread was signing statements, and Wacka's talking about executive orders, which are two completely different things.  :lol:  But thank you for staying on-topic...

714853[/snapback]

Well, he's still wrong.

Executive Orders Disposition Tables Index

 

Reagan: 380 in eight years (avg 47.5/yr)

Bush 1: 165 in four years (41/yr)

Clinton: 363 in eight years (45/yr)

Emporer: 206 in a little over 5 years (41/yr so far)

Posted

I never heard of these signing statements before and assumed that the article was talking about executive orders. Figured they changed the name to hide the fact tht Clinton signed a record #.

Posted
  Wacka said:
I never heard of these signing statements before and assumed that the article was talking about executive orders. Figured they changed the name to hide the fact tht Clinton signed a record #.

714913[/snapback]

 

Never heard of them? You been hiding under a rock for the past three months or something? :lol:

Posted

I don't live in the DC area, where politics is at the top of the news every day and I don't watch the lame stream media, hell I haven't watched fox much recently. Usually watch sutcoms and discovery channel.

Posted
  Wacka said:
Didn't you ever hear of executive orders? Clinton signed a rcord number of them when he was in office. One of these took the coal fields in the Escalante-Staircase area out of use, so his buddies in Indonesia, the Riadys, could make billions on the low sulfur coal we have to buy from them.

714780[/snapback]

 

 

Clinton Coal Buddies? It just doesn't have the same ring "Bush Oil Buddies" does.

 

:lol:

Posted
  Wacka said:
I don't live in the DC area, where politics is at the top of the news every day and  I don't watch the lame stream media, hell I haven't watched fox much recently.

 

How about this message board? It's been all over here for a while. You probably posted in a few of the threads.

 

  Quote
Usually watch sutcoms and discovery channel.

714931[/snapback]

 

That explains a lot...

Posted
  Wacka said:
I don't live in the DC area, where politics is at the top of the news every day and  I don't watch the lame stream media, hell I haven't watched fox much recently. Usually watch sutcoms and discovery channel.

714931[/snapback]

The "internets" is our friend.

 

A wink, a nod, and a flick of the pen

  Quote
President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.

 

Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ''whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research.

 

Pay no attention to the Dick behind the curtain.

  Quote
The officials said Cheney's legal adviser and chief of staff, David Addington , is the Bush administration's leading architect of the "signing statements" the president has appended to more than 750 laws. The statements assert the president's right to ignore the laws because they conflict with his interpretation of the Constitution.

 

Bait and switch

  Quote
Sen. John McCain thought he had a deal when President Bush, faced with a veto-proof margin in Congress, agreed to sign a bill banning the torture of detainees.

 

Not quite.

 

While Bush signed the new law, he also quietly approved another document: a signing statement reserving his right to ignore the law.

 

Let's use what's left of it to wrap a dead fish with

  Quote
The White House on Tuesday (June 27, 2006) defended President Bush's frequent use of special statements that claim authority to limit the effects of bills he signs, saying the statements help him uphold the Constitution

(emphasis mine)

:lol:

 

It's a good thing we have Dubya upholding the Constitution. What would we do with out The Sentinel protecting our freedoms?

Posted

Good gawd, instead of b*tchin and moaning about the current occupant of the White House wouldn't it be more productive to formulate an viable agenda and try to win it back in 2008

Posted
  /dev/null said:
Good gawd, instead of b*tchin and moaning about the current occupant of the White House wouldn't it be more productive to formulate an viable agenda and try to win it back in 2008

715002[/snapback]

 

I think the Democrats "viable agenda" for 2008 is "Anyone but Bush."

 

After all, it worked so well in 2004... :lol:

Posted
  Crap Throwing Monkey said:
I think the Democrats "viable agenda" for 2008 is "Anyone but Bush."

 

After all, it worked so well in 2004...  :lol:

715024[/snapback]

 

i beg to differ. they didn't have a viable agenda in 2004. They had a Plan!

×
×
  • Create New...