Zeb, Good morning sunshine, just having my first cup of coffee. Just wanted to say hello and assure you that I'll be around posting just as long as it pleases me to do so, regardless of little tantrums.
On Oct 5, 9:15 am, Zebnick <[email protected]> wrote: > Just make sure your drool cup doesn't overflow onto your keyboard. > > On Oct 4, 1:07 am, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Zeb, > > > I'll stop posting when it amuses me to do so punk. > > > On Oct 3, 11:48 pm, Zebnick <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Stop posting!!! Someone may come and put you in a straight jacket. > > > LOL! Are you really this clueless? > > > > On Oct 4, 12:43 am, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Zeb, > > > > > Thanks, you've just proven your stupidity on the matter. > > > > > On Oct 3, 11:15 pm, Zebnick <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > I know what the chain of command is, dim bulb. And if you had any > > > > > notion of it you'd know that it was much more important on the way up > > > > > than on the way down. I don't even expect you to understand that. You > > > > > are embarrassing yourself. > > > > > > On Oct 4, 12:11 am, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Zeb, > > > > > > > Well, it just MIGHT have given you some vauge notion of how the > > > > > > chain > > > > > > of command works and it's importance in the military culture. Now > > > > > > wouldn't it dumbass? > > > > > > > On Oct 3, 11:03 pm, Zebnick <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Holly, > > > > > > > You're just plain butt assed stupid. Whether or not I served in > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > military has nothing what so fucking ever to do with the President > > > > > > > getting input from his commanders in the field to make decisions. > > > > > > > But > > > > > > > keep talking. You're just digging yourself deeper and deeper into > > > > > > > your > > > > > > > moron's abyss. > > > > > > > > On Oct 3, 5:11 pm, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Zeb, > > > > > > > > > Jeez, but you're an idiot. Have you ever actually served in the > > > > > > > > U.S. > > > > > > > > military? You have any idea what you're talking about? > > > > > > > > > On Oct 3, 3:47 pm, Zebnick <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, yer right bright boy! Why would the commander in chief > > > > > > > > > want to > > > > > > > > > speak to the commander who is directly in charge of theater of > > > > > > > > > operation that he has to make a crucial decision about? LOL! > > > > > > > > > Second > > > > > > > > > hand information is much better, huh? You really don't know > > > > > > > > > when to > > > > > > > > > quit. > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 3, 4:31 pm, Hollywood <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Zeb, > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah sure, go ask anyone that has actually served in the > > > > > > > > > > military what > > > > > > > > > > "flimsy minutia" the chain of command it. Dumbass. > > > > > > > > > > > The POTUS can ALSO NOT speak to anyone under his command if > > > > > > > > > > he chooses > > > > > > > > > > and instead speak to the person through the chain of > > > > > > > > > > command. > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 3, 1:53 pm, Zebnick <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > >there is a system (called Chain of Command) > > > > > > > > > > > > Why do you libs try to run smokescreens behind this > > > > > > > > > > > flimsy minutia. It > > > > > > > > > > > is so transparent. The "chain of command" is not > > > > > > > > > > > something that > > > > > > > > > > > prevents communication between command levels. It is a > > > > > > > > > > > protocol. > > > > > > > > > > > Nothing more. The President can AND DOES speak to anyone > > > > > > > > > > > and at any > > > > > > > > > > > level in the military he chooses to. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 2, 11:15 pm, LimboIndo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > No one is saying it wouldn't be better if he talked to > > > > > > > > > > > > McCrystal more. > > > > > > > > > > > > My point is, there is a system (called Chain of > > > > > > > > > > > > Command) in which > > > > > > > > > > > > McCrystal does not report directly to Obama. He is not > > > > > > > > > > > > "not doing what > > > > > > > > > > > > he is supposed to" by not talking to him directly. And > > > > > > > > > > > > to imply he is, > > > > > > > > > > > > would be false. > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 2, 3:46 pm, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is 45 minutes with the President's time the right > > > > > > > > > > > > > amount in 6 months > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the top general??? Less time than what he spent > > > > > > > > > > > > > on trying to get > > > > > > > > > > > > > the Olympics... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 2, 2:44 pm, Hollywood > > > > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Zeb, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He made his point in the very first sentance of his > > > > > > > > > > > > > > post. What was it > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you don't understand? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 2, 8:48 am, Zebnick <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SO? WHats your point? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 1, 11:08 pm, LimboIndo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > These are isolated incedents. Not permanent > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expansion to executive > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > power. You are comparing apples and oranges. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Cheney's office has taken the lead in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > challenging many of these laws, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > officials said, because they run counter to an > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expansive view of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > executive power that Cheney has cultivated for > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the past 30 years. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Under the theory, Congress cannot pass laws > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that place restrictions or > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > requirements on how the president runs the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > military and spy agencies. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nor can it pass laws giving government > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > officials the power or > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > responsibility to act independently of the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > president. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Mainstream legal scholars across the political > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > spectrum reject > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheney's expansive view of presidential > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > authority, saying the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Constitution gives Congress the power to make > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all rules and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regulations for the military and the executive > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > branch and the Supreme > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Court has consistently upheld laws giving > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bureaucrats and certain > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > prosecutors the power to act independently of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the president." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > After an unprecedented number of signing > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > statements, the White House > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > laid low for a while. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But Cheney finally couldn't contain himself any > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > longer, apparently. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And here's the first Bush signing statement in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > three months , quietly > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > filed away two weeks ago in response to the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > deeply threatening Coastal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2005 . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The law, sponsored by five Republicans from > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > both houses, and passed by > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unanimous consent in the Senate and by voice > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vote in the House, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > directs the Secretary of the Interior to report > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to Congress on the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > creation of digital maps of the John H. Chafee > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Coastal Barrier > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Resources System units and other protected > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > areas under a digital > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping pilot project. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But here's what Bush's signing statement says: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Section 3(c)(2) and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > section 4(c)(3)(C) and (D) purport to require > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > executive branch > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > officials to submit legislative recommendations > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to the Congress. The > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > executive branch shall construe such provisions > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in a manner consistent > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with the Constitution's commitment to the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > President of the authority > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to submit for the consideration of the Congress > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > such measures as the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > President judges necessary and expedient and to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supervise the unitary > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > executive branch." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2006/06/06/BL200606... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-06-05-power-play_x.htm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Congress, courts push back against Bush's > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assertions of presidential > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > power > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc etc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And in response to your second statement, yes > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > they have tried it > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > before. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bush: Congress can't stop troop > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > increasehttp://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/14/bush.60.minutes/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Congress cannot reverse > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > last week's decision to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > send 21,000 more troops to Iraq, President Bush > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > said in an interview > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > intended to rally popular support for his plan. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Frankly, that's not their responsibility," > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bush said in an interview > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on the CBS News program "60 Minutes," which > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > aired Sunday. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "It's my responsibility to put forward the plan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that I think will > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > succeed. I believe if they start trying to cut > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > off funds, they better > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > explain to the American people and the soldiers > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why their plan will > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > succeed," the president said. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some Democrats, including Massachusetts Sen. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Edward Kennedy, have > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > called on Congress to block Bush from > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > committing more troops to Iraq, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > either by limiting the number of troops that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can be committed or by > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cutting off funds for further deployments. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (Watch congressional > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reaction to plan ) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Asked if he believes that he, as > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commander-in-chief of the armed > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > forces, has the authority to > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
