too late On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 10:15 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 order troops to > Iraq in the face of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > congressional opposition, Bush said, "In this > situation, I do, yeah." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "I fully understand they could try to stop me > from doing it," he said. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "But I made my decision, and we're going > forward." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 1, 9:51 pm, Zebnick > > > > ... > > > > read more ยป > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
