PromoTheRobot Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 Bush good! Calzones! War pilot! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 Business as usual in Washington DC. But it's fun to pretend only one side is guilty of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 Didn't you ever hear of executive orders? Clinton signed a rcord number of them when he was in office. 714780[/snapback] 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 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. But thank you for staying on-topic... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 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. 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) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 Well, he's still wrong. 714860[/snapback] Of course. What else is new? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 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 #. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 I'm not sure what his title should be, what do you call someone who is trying to establish a capitalist theocracy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 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. Usually watch sutcoms and discovery channel. 714931[/snapback] That explains a lot... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 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 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. 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 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 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) It's a good thing we have Dubya upholding the Constitution. What would we do with out The Sentinel protecting our freedoms? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 I think the Democrats "viable agenda" for 2008 is "Anyone but Bush." After all, it worked so well in 2004... 715024[/snapback] i beg to differ. they didn't have a viable agenda in 2004. They had a Plan! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts