Zeb, Why, thank you for sharing. What the fuck does it have to do with my post?
On Oct 5, 9:19 am, Zebnick <[email protected]> wrote: > LOL! Your self-worship would allow you to be nothing other than a > liberal. > > On Oct 4, 9:58 am, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > LImbolndo, > > > I know what you mean. I have to take a break and go away once it > > awhile for a period becuase it can be so frustrating to deal with such > > complete idiocy. Unfortunately for me I injured by back not too long > > ago and have had more time spent indoors on the computer. I don't make > > any attempt whaysoever to try to change any of the fools like Zeb & > > others. I just shoot holes in their statements to show the people > > READING this forum that their crap is just that. > > Look at it this way, there are something like 1300 or 1400 member here > > and yet only maybe only a couple of dozen post here on a regular > > basis. And of course anyone on the internet can read these posts, so > > their no telling how many people read this forum. > > So, when I point out Zeb's, or anyone's idiocy, I am not talking to > > them expecting them to suddenly say "oh gee, you're right about that, > > never mind". AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN, bullshit and fear is about all they > > have. I'm talking to the person anonymously reading these posts that > > just pops in once in awhile that is maybe straddling the political > > fence on this issue or that. I want THAT person, that undecided voter > > that decides most all elections, to see the ridiculousness of Zeb's > > and others on the far right's bullshit. > > > So remember, your not really debating Zeb or any of these other > > extremists, your exposing their bullshit to the readers out there. > > Pretty much everyone here had chosen their "side" years ago and is not > > going to change a single position and/or attitude no matter what. > > > On Oct 4, 12:44 am, LimboIndo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Listen up numb-nuts. I'm sick and gd tired of your pointless fucking > > > ranting. You don't make fucking sense. I posted like 10 fucking > > > articles by various sources all stating that bush tried to expand > > > executive power more-so than any other president. All you have given > > > as proof to the opposite is your fucking ranting insults. Well fuck > > > you cake-boy, two can play that game. > > > > It's pointless to try to debate with you, you are a fucking idiot. I > > > wish turtle and perp would come back here, I can see now why most of > > > the sensible people on this board left. Plain, holly and a couple > > > others are the only people on this gd board with enough sense to know > > > what the fuck a debate is. This board is filled with the ranting of > > > degenerate, stupid fucking pricks like yourself. I leave this board > > > for a while and come back to find it overrun by nerd raging assholes > > > who think the word "proof" is the sound a fucking genie makes when it > > > dissapears. > > > > 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 > > ... > > 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
