BillsNYC Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 My brother just sent me this and says its a huge deal over there, the Queen is allegedly saying to stop spending $ to fix the problems, no more stimulus, as are more and more Eupropeans. Obama is heading over to England next week. Apparently the Labour Party is trying to force Gordon Brown out. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_...icle5970954.ece
The Big Cat Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 Vote of no confidence. We should have one here.
VABills Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 Vote of no confidence. We should have one here. I agree. Although, in Obamas defense he should get at least 90 days. Of course I don't expect much difference 25 days from now.
The Big Cat Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 I agree. Although, in Obamas defense he should get at least 90 days. Of course I don't expect much difference 25 days from now. Uuuh, I think half of an elected official's term should be the buffer, so long as there aren't MAJOR screw ups. Major screw ups being defined as breaking the law. If it means your political opponents set up a 24/7 watch dog group to hover over, ready to pounce when you DO break the law, so be it.
VABills Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 Uuuh, I think half of an elected official's term should be the buffer, so long as there aren't MAJOR screw ups. Major screw ups being defined as breaking the law. If it means your political opponents set up a 24/7 watch dog group to hover over, ready to pounce when you DO break the law, so be it. Wow, he's already damaged the economy, financial systems, business, tax system, deficit, etc... in 65 days. Not sure we can handle 2 full years of this. Of course I suspose he is subject to the UCMJ and could be charged with dereliction of duty.
The Big Cat Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 Wow, he's already damaged the economy, financial systems, business, tax system, deficit, etc... in 65 days. Not sure we can handle 2 full years of this. Of course I suspose he is subject to the UCMJ and could be charged with dereliction of duty. C'mon now.
VABills Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 C'mon now. How's about UA? Since he is never at work, and always going on TV shows, comedy shows, etc... I am sure with as much time as he's taken off in the first 65 days, unauthorized absense would apply.
The Big Cat Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 How's about UA? Since he is never at work, and always going on TV shows, comedy shows, etc... I am sure with as much time as he's taken off in the first 65 days, unauthorized absense would apply. You must have forgotten about all the brush clearing at The Ranch.
VABills Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 You must have forgotten about all the brush clearing at The Ranch. Nope that's why I bring these up. Overall pretty non-sensicle isn't it? Hypocritical of the left to have different rules for their boy vs. the right. Of course, what really sucks is that they both suck.
The Big Cat Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 Nope that's why I bring these up. Overall pretty non-sensicle isn't it? Hypocritical of the left to have different rules for their boy vs. the right. Of course, what really sucks is that they both suck. True dat.
/dev/null Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 The Queen isn't the one saying to stop the spending. Even if she did, she has no power to enforce it Her role is symbolic. And she's using the symbolic role to give a voice to Count DeMoney... http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/poli...icle5971296.ece
erynthered Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 Maybe we need this guy on this side of the pond to talk to obama.
Jim in Anchorage Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 Well shoot. I thought this was a thread on Hillery.
/dev/null Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 Well shoot. I thought this was a thread on Hillery. Or Barney Frank
BillsNYC Posted March 25, 2009 Author Posted March 25, 2009 The Queen isn't the one saying to stop the spending. Even if she did, she has no power to enforce it Her role is symbolic. And she's using the symbolic role to give a voice to Count DeMoney... http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/poli...icle5971296.ece True... But by granting an unheard of meeting with the Governor of the Bank of England and publicizing it, she is sending a strong signal against Brown and more stimulus spending. She may have no true power but she has powerful influence, when she speaks (which is rare) people listen. What she did is a big deal and will sway public opinion with one simple act.
blzrul Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 True... But by granting an unheard of meeting with the Governor of the Bank of England and publicizing it, she is sending a strong signal against Brown and more stimulus spending. She may have no true power but she has powerful influence, when she speaks (which is rare) people listen. What she did is a big deal and will sway public opinion with one simple act. The Queen has enough damned money to bring the whole world out of recession...I think only Lord Spam's family (Vesty) has more in the UK.
/dev/null Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 The Queen has enough damned money to bring the whole world out of recession...I think only Lord Spam's family (Vesty) has more in the UK. Maybe Congress should levy a tax against her. She's not a US citizen or illegal immigrant, so that pesky Article I Section IX in the Constitution might not apply
blzrul Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 Maybe Congress should levy a tax against her. She's not a US citizen or illegal immigrant, so that pesky Article I Section IX in the Constitution might not apply The UK still owes the US a bundle for those pesky world wars. Maybe they should pay up.
Recommended Posts