what about the confidentiality concerns regarding the advice that was given? I know that if someone asked my advice and I thought it might be publicly disclosed I might not be candid. Who knows how Congress might misrepresent what was said?
I was serious. If it were Clinton there would be plenty of other things to complain about. If we go down this road the next thing they'll be asking for is a transcript of every one of GW's telephone calls.
It was not a surprise when the media virtually ignored a story later in February by Washington Times reporter Paul Bedard that appeared under the headline, "First lady's task force broke law on secrecy." Bedard noted that reporters had been denied access to the first task force meeting. He went on to quote a number of attorneys and experts who asserted that this was in violation of something called the Federal Advisory Committee Act or "FACA." The little-known law, on the books since 1972, applies when a President convenes a group of people which includes private citizens to advise him on a particular issue. Although the President is advised by all kinds of formal and informal bodies within his Administration, FACA kicks in only when non-government employees or "outsiders" take part.
Has any of this ever been asked of any other sitting President before? To my knowledge this would be a first. Just like asking Estrada for his papers, that had never been done before. Am I correct in this or wrong? Honest question here.
Come on now, what did any of those people due to help Enron? Clinton and friends sure did a lot for Enron, but what did those that you posted here ever due to help out Enron?
Does anyone know who was all on that task force? I have heard numbers of over 500 people, but never saw a list of names.
The task force will be chaired by First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton and will include the Secretaries of Health and Human Services, Treasury, Defense, Veterans Affairs, Commerce, and Labor, as well as the director of the Office of Management and Budget and senior White House staff members.
I think their names are a matter of public record.
Last month, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth ruled that White House aide Ira Magaziner--the architect of President Clinton's 1993 health-care proposal--and White House lawyers had "deceived" his court in a 1993 affidavit. Officials had "run amok" in their response to a suit filed against the government, said Lamberth, and he ordered the government to cover the $285,864 legal bill incurred by the plaintiffs.
As a citizen in a citizens group yes, but not as a representative of the government.
what if the President appoints you?
I mean, no one elected Ollie North to have meetings in the basement in order to act as a representative of the government and trade arms for hostages, and yet there he was....along with a bunch of other guys no one elected, many of whom are now having meetings again because GW appointed them.
and who elected Ken Lay to have meetings? and yet he did so many times.
keep up the wishful thinking, fold, I know it is the only thing that gets you through your miserable day. there are no democrats in the field today that can beat Bush. all the candidates numbers are lower than GW's. And of course he will have to run against one them and they can't hold a candle.
Reagan had lower numbers at this point in his first term and went on to a landslide. Clinton had even lower poll numbers at this point in his first term to. They both went on to win. Clark will get a surge like Arnold did until he opens his mouth just like Arnold. They both show their inexperience and both have already been caught lying, waffling and in short, getting blindsided with questions they can't answer.
actually, Hillery was qualified and experienced in this area.
LOL!
Really? She was an expert on health care issues? Her career was in the healthcare field? Health insurance perhaps? Was she ever even a fricking candy-striper?
but to you, qualified to lie to Congress is acceptable experience.
Where do you get that? Where did I say such a thing was acceptable?
You'll do anything to deflect won't you? If you're not making shit up and attributing it to me, your saying "Oh yeah, well look at what your guy did". As if that's a defense or something.
Last Thursday, Clark tried to explain his position on the war to liberate Iraq. At first, he said he would have supported the congressional resolution authorizing the U.S. invasion. A day later, perhaps after hearing from pollsters and actual or potential donors to his campaign, he pulled a "Clinton" and tried to have it both ways. Clark said Friday that he "would never have voted for this war."
In an interview with The Associated Press on Friday, during which he tried to "clarify" his Thursday remarks, Clark sounded Nixonian when he said, "Let's make one thing real clear, I would never have voted for this war, never. I've gotten a very consistent record on this."
Expanding on his "position" (which appears to be constantly in flux), Clark said, "At the time (of the congressional resolution), I probably would have voted for it." Even here he cannot tell us what he would have done in retrospect. Hindsight is supposed to be 20/20. Clark apparently has a hindsight astigmatism. He continued, "I don't know if I would have (voted for the resolution) or not. I've said it both ways because when you get into this, what happens is you have to put yourself in a position." Yes, indeed, taking a position is something one might expect from a person who wishes to be president. Holding that position at least for the duration of the campaign (flipping once in office is another matter) is what most voters expect of a candidate soliciting their vote.
But flipping one's position within 24 hours on such a crucial issue as war with Iraq and the broader issue of the battle against terrorists is not leadership.
How's this for another example of indecisiveness? Asked to comment on Howard Dean's criticism of the war, Clark responded, "I think he's right. That in retrospect we should never have gone in there. I didn't want to go in there either. But on the other hand, he wasn't inside the bubble of those who were exposed to the information."
David Limbaugh's new book, "Persecution: How Liberals Are Waging War Against Christianity," will make you cry for your country. (But don't pray for your country if you're anywhere near a public school!) Released this week, Limbaugh's copiously researched book documents how the courts, the universities, the media, Hollywood and government institutions react to any mention of Christianity like Superman recoiling from kryptonite, Dracula from sunlight, or Madonna from soap and water. His straight, factual narrative of what is happening in our public schools makes you wonder how much longer America can survive liberalism.
It is unfortunate that you don't have a clue about what you are talking about, crabs. As I said on another board it is ignorance like yours that is part of the problem. But it is more than ignorance it is deliberate stupidity and lies.
As I said on another board it is ignorance like yours that is part of the problem. But it is more than ignorance it is deliberate stupidity and lies
this from someone who doesn't even understand that it's ignorance that can be deliberate, not stupidity. It's like saying someone is deliberately near-sighted. Of course, I won't hold your not understanding this against you, since it's obviously not deliberate on your part.
this from someone who doesn't even understand that it's ignorance that can be deliberate, not stupidity.
Oh yes stupidity can be deliberate. It happens almost everytime a Howard Dean, a John Kerry or a Wesley Clark opens its mouth. There are votes of stupid people to be won. Well I am not so sure that it is delberate when it comes to Clark. Many democraps state stupid crap because they know there are a lot of stupid people out there. They know you are out there, crabs.
“My vision is to make the most diverse state on earth, and we have people from every planet on earth in this state. We have the sons and daughters of people of every planet, of every country on earth.”
- Democrat Governor Gray Davis, exaggerating slightlythe diversity of California
But that's interesting Wolvie and I already knew most of it... But how does that translate into being "Caught Lying"...?
Bill, Sorry for the confusion. It had nothing to do being "caught lying". I just saw that the current topic ws Clark and posted that editorial I read that day. BTW, he is flip flopping on some pretty major issues there.
Still... I wish LUV would let me know what "LIES" Clark was caught perpetrating on us, because frankly (and because of Clinton and Monica), we all now know EXACTLY what a true LIE is, don't we?
One minute saying he didn't know who he voted for. I mean c'mon who doesn't remember who he voted for in a presidential election. That was dishonest at best. Later when pressed on it he admitted to voting for Reagan and Nixon. It's just one of a few statements he's made that were dishonest. Like Saying after 9-11 he got a call from someone in the White House telling him to link Iraq to 9-11. He refused to say whom it was. The issue didn't go away and the source that was accoring to Weasly from the White House turned out to be a guy from a Canada So either he's really bad at Geography or dishonest. Changing opinions or stands on an issue is one thing. Take a stand tell people where you stand and let people decide.
He is learning as he goes and trying to place his ideals on firm ground for everyone to see and "for the distance" in the primaries, etc., and as any new candidate of either party would do if in a similar situation.
That is what we need a man that doesn't have a clue and has to learn as he goes along! Funny, isn't that one of the accusation liberals like fold used to criticize GW?
That the United Nations is the world's last, best hope, and every jot of its writ should always be respected, unless it inconveniences Saddam Hussein.
That nation-building is always a humanitarian and just cause, unless it is undertaken in Iraq.
That anyone who said Saddam had weapons of mass destruction prior to the war was lying, unless his or her name is Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Madeleine Albright, Bill Cohen, John Kerry or Joe Lieberman, or the person ever served in the Clinton cabinet or as a Democratic senator.
That French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin is always right.
That President Bush isn't devoting enough resources to the reconstruction of Iraq, and that -- in light of his $87 billion aid proposal -- he is devoting far too many resources to the reconstruction of Iraq.
That George Bush maneuvering the United States into war is an act of manipulative genius, and also is very stupid.
That (fill in blank with latest conflict here) is another Vietnam.
That the U.S. military is overextended -- and should be smaller.
That unilateral U.S. diplomatic pressure is always wrong, unless it is brought to bear on Israel.
That it is absolutely necessary for the cause of clean government for candidates to abide by the limits set by the presidential public-financing system, unless they -- like Kerry and Howard Dean -- have enough money not to.
That big money corrupts politics, unless it is big money raised by California Gov. Gray Davis.
That punch-card ballots are a travesty of justice, unless they elect a Democrat (as they did in California just one year ago).
That Bush is bankrupting the federal government, but is a tightfisted ogre for countenancing only a $400 billion new prescription-drug benefit.
That Bush is fiscally profligate, but isn't spending enough on education, "first responders," health care or anything else not called "defense."
That the nation cannot afford the pending retirement of the baby boomers, but the baby boomers should get more benefits for their pending retirements.
That Bush is responsible for an economic downturn that began before he was elected and that Clinton is responsible for an economic recovery that began before he was elected (here at last -- a kind of consistency!).
That small-business owners are the heart of the economy unless they succeed, at which point they become "the rich."
That it is evil to be rich, unless you got that way by marrying Teresa Heinz.
That it is wrong to be a millionaire, unless you got that way by suing people.
That the sons of the upper-crust Northeastern elite are always and everywhere out-of-touch, unless they are named Howard Dean.
That it is unseemly to mix military matters with politics, but you should vote for FORMER GENERAL Wesley Clark, and salute when you do so.
That a deranged candidate should not be elected president, unless he is named Bob Graham.
That no child should be left behind, unless it is in an urban public-school system.
That no child should be left behind, unless it is in the womb.
That the Patriot Act is denying Americans their liberties, and John Kerry, Joe Lieberman, John Edwards or Bob Graham should be elected president after having voted for it.
That deposing John Ashcroft would be preferable to deposing Mullah Omar.
That library records are sacred, but the Constitution -- a "living document" subject to manipulation by judges -- is not.
Well it must take another lunatic to decipher it because it didn't make sense. Do you guys have some special super secret code that helps you understand each other?
Basic fundamental human nature can be overcome.
but you just disagreed that it was possible. which is it?
That is not what I said. There you go again mixing and matching comments to suit whatever nonsense tickles your fancy.
By the way.... Wolvie, the Constitution IS a "Living Document", subject to change, review and constant vigilance by US, the people...even if that means sometimes, through the judgements and scrutiny of Federal Judges/Supreme Courts. Hell, if you want to correct a Court-Problem, lets start by appointing LOTS MORE of them, in ALL the states, and relieve the stress on the system and lets STOP seeing Judges in Texas (for instance) being elected by people with the most CAMPAIGN-MONEY, and the citizens being given what amounts to a "PAYOLA JUSTICE" system...eh? Appointing and affirming thew appointments of many more Judges would be a Big Step in the right direction... By BOTH parties. This "Tit For Tat" non-appointing procedure by BOTH parties is OLD, and tiresome PAYBACK government, and I don't like it any more than you do.
The Constitution is not a living document. Period. It is a set of laws for our goverenment and it is getting bastardized by liberal judges.
Since you want more judges, I expect that you will contact those Democrats that a blocking Bush's nominees and tell them how displeased you are. The judges have enough votes to get the posts, but Democrats are doing an UNPRECIDENTED fillabuster on them.
I gotta laugh Wolvie. Your TRUTHFUL list contains just about everything fold has been bashing GW about for years. After he reads it, he realizes just how correct it is. Then he backpedals...backpedals...backpedals. Fun to watch.
Sorry Wolvie, but every historian of any note says the contrary, that the Constitution is a living document to be interpreted through contemporary-eyes, rather than by the "Cold, Dead Hands" of Mr. Heston, and his followers.
Idiocy and lies. That belief leads down the road to tyranny. you are a damn fool fold.
But, let's say it NEVER changed. No one say it can never be changed, fool. There is a mechanism to change it until that mechanism is utilized any changes are undemocratic.Well, women wouldn't have the right to vote, nor would 18 year olds... I believe these things were changed via amendment process.
By strict-interpretation, it IS a living-document, in that we CAN change it, any time the will of the people says we can. Your strict interpretation is foolish and utterly wrong.
See above, dip-shit. The term living document refers to the ability of the courts to interpret the document in light of current political and social conditions. What that means, in practice, is that the Constitution is meaningless.
fold your posy #4285 disputes nothing. It is simply the ravings of an idiot shouting "it's not true, it's not true." If you can refute what I wrote do so. But since you haven't one must assume that you can't. That would be par for the course for you.
Save it for what? I say we tap the oil. Just before we turn on the flow, we ask OPEC if they really want to keep prices high. If they get greedy, we use our own oil and they starve to death. If they keep prices reasonable, we hang on to our reserves and everybody wins.
WASHINGTON — Republican members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (search) held a "mock" vote Wednesday to support President Bush's choice to head the Environmental Protection Agency after committee Democrats refused to show up.
Again the anti-democracy philosophy shines through. Democraps don't believe in democracy they believe only in obtaining the results they want and it doesn't matter how they get there.
what about the confidentiality concerns regarding the advice that was given? I know that if someone asked my advice and I thought it might be publicly disclosed I might not be candid. Who knows how Congress might misrepresent what was said?
Well they can misrepresent what was said now because nobody really knows, so Congress can only guess as to what is in there.
If it were someone like Clinton I would have all sorts of things to be criticize him for. It happens when amoral men get power
Come on Jethro, if roles were reversed here, you'd be raking Clinton over the coals.
Why you being softer on Dubya?
I was serious. If it were Clinton there would be plenty of other things to complain about. If we go down this road the next thing they'll be asking for is a transcript of every one of GW's telephone calls.
I'm sure if someone like Clinton was doing this, you would be all over him for it.
Do you mean like Hillary's health care reform group?
It was not a surprise when the media virtually ignored a story later in February by Washington Times reporter Paul Bedard that appeared under the headline, "First lady's task force broke law on secrecy." Bedard noted that reporters had been denied access to the first task force meeting. He went on to quote a number of attorneys and experts who asserted that this was in violation of something called the Federal Advisory Committee Act or "FACA." The little-known law, on the books since 1972, applies when a President convenes a group of people which includes private citizens to advise him on a particular issue. Although the President is advised by all kinds of formal and informal bodies within his Administration, FACA kicks in only when non-government employees or "outsiders" take part.
http://www.nlpc.org/hctf/tfl-09.htm
Has any of this ever been asked of any other sitting President before? To my knowledge this would be a first. Just like asking Estrada for his papers, that had never been done before. Am I correct in this or wrong? Honest question here.
Do you mean like Hillary's health care reform group?
Exactly.
I'd take that further and say Hillary had no right or reason to be having any sort of meetings. We the voters didn't hire her to do shit.
so, US citizens don't have the right to have any sort ofmeetings?
really?
Where is the outcry from you over this? The secrecy that you claim is such a problem now was not a problem then?
Does anyone know who was all on that task force? I have heard numbers of over 500 people, but never saw a list of names.
you got it backwards.
Come on now, what did any of those people due to help Enron? Clinton and friends sure did a lot for Enron, but what did those that you posted here ever due to help out Enron?
I think their names are a matter of public record.
Both of these contradictory claims about the Clinton health care task force are wrong. Contrary to Speaker Hastert's claim, the Clinton White House complied with GAO information requests and turned over information about the health-care task force. And contrary to the Vice President's claim, a federal appellate court ruled that the Clinton task force was not subject to FACA. The truth is that the Clinton White House disclosed information about the health care task force to GAO without being required to do so under FACA.
January 11, 1998, at 12:30 AM PT
Last month, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth ruled that White House aide Ira Magaziner--the architect of President Clinton's 1993 health-care proposal--and White House lawyers had "deceived" his court in a 1993 affidavit. Officials had "run amok" in their response to a suit filed against the government, said Lamberth, and he ordered the government to cover the $285,864 legal bill incurred by the plaintiffs.
so, US citizens don't have the right to have any sort of meetings?
As a citizen in a citizens group yes, but not as a representative of the government.
what if the President appoints you?
I mean, no one elected Ollie North to have meetings in the basement in order to act as a representative of the government and trade arms for hostages, and yet there he was....along with a bunch of other guys no one elected, many of whom are now having meetings again because GW appointed them.
and who elected Ken Lay to have meetings? and yet he did so many times.
keep up the wishful thinking, fold, I know it is the only thing that gets you through your miserable day. there are no democrats in the field today that can beat Bush. all the candidates numbers are lower than GW's. And of course he will have to run against one them and they can't hold a candle.
Bill,
Love them polls :)
Reagan had lower numbers at this point in his first term and went on to a landslide. Clinton had even lower poll numbers at this point in his first term to. They both went on to win. Clark will get a surge like Arnold did until he opens his mouth just like Arnold. They both show their inexperience and both have already been caught lying, waffling and in short, getting blindsided with questions they can't answer.
what if the President appoints you?
That would be fine, if the person were actually qualified and experienced.
That wasn't the case with the Bill and his nepotism.
actually, Hillery was qualified and experienced in this area.
but to you, qualified to lie to Congress is acceptable experience.
actually, Hillery was qualified and experienced in this area.
LOL!
Really? She was an expert on health care issues? Her career was in the healthcare field? Health insurance perhaps? Was she ever even a fricking candy-striper?
but to you, qualified to lie to Congress is acceptable experience.
Where do you get that? Where did I say such a thing was acceptable?
You'll do anything to deflect won't you? If you're not making shit up and attributing it to me, your saying "Oh yeah, well look at what your guy did". As if that's a defense or something.
"Oh yeah, well look at what your guy did". As if that's a defense or something.
It worked real well for Bill during the impreachment episode.
so, you don't accept Bush's appointment of all those Iran/Contra felons who his daddy bailed out in order to cover his ass?
I see.
If you were against all the criminals that Bush has stacked his administration, why didn't you just say so?
Here's some stuff on your hero Clark.....
Last Thursday, Clark tried to explain his position on the war to liberate Iraq. At first, he said he would have supported the congressional resolution authorizing the U.S. invasion. A day later, perhaps after hearing from pollsters and actual or potential donors to his campaign, he pulled a "Clinton" and tried to have it both ways. Clark said Friday that he "would never have voted for this war."
In an interview with The Associated Press on Friday, during which he tried to "clarify" his Thursday remarks, Clark sounded Nixonian when he said, "Let's make one thing real clear, I would never have voted for this war, never. I've gotten a very consistent record on this."
Expanding on his "position" (which appears to be constantly in flux), Clark said, "At the time (of the congressional resolution), I probably would have voted for it." Even here he cannot tell us what he would have done in retrospect. Hindsight is supposed to be 20/20. Clark apparently has a hindsight astigmatism. He continued, "I don't know if I would have (voted for the resolution) or not. I've said it both ways because when you get into this, what happens is you have to put yourself in a position." Yes, indeed, taking a position is something one might expect from a person who wishes to be president. Holding that position at least for the duration of the campaign (flipping once in office is another matter) is what most voters expect of a candidate soliciting their vote.
But flipping one's position within 24 hours on such a crucial issue as war with Iraq and the broader issue of the battle against terrorists is not leadership.
How's this for another example of indecisiveness? Asked to comment on Howard Dean's criticism of the war, Clark responded, "I think he's right. That in retrospect we should never have gone in there. I didn't want to go in there either. But on the other hand, he wasn't inside the bubble of those who were exposed to the information."
And neither were you, Gen. Clark.
Link to Editorial
David Limbaugh's new book, "Persecution: How Liberals Are Waging War Against Christianity," will make you cry for your country. (But don't pray for your country if you're anywhere near a public school!) Released this week, Limbaugh's copiously researched book documents how the courts, the universities, the media, Hollywood and government institutions react to any mention of Christianity like Superman recoiling from kryptonite, Dracula from sunlight, or Madonna from soap and water. His straight, factual narrative of what is happening in our public schools makes you wonder how much longer America can survive liberalism.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/ac20030925.shtml
the separation of Church and State is one of the great things about this country, always has been.
It is unfortunate that you don't have a clue about what you are talking about, crabs. As I said on another board it is ignorance like yours that is part of the problem. But it is more than ignorance it is deliberate stupidity and lies.
Once again the Liberals take a good idea to the extreme.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...
this from someone who doesn't even understand that it's ignorance that can be deliberate, not stupidity. It's like saying someone is deliberately near-sighted. Of course, I won't hold your not understanding this against you, since it's obviously not deliberate on your part.
this from someone who doesn't even understand that it's ignorance that can be deliberate, not stupidity.
Oh yes stupidity can be deliberate. It happens almost everytime a Howard Dean, a John Kerry or a Wesley Clark opens its mouth. There are votes of stupid people to be won. Well I am not so sure that it is delberate when it comes to Clark. Many democraps state stupid crap because they know there are a lot of stupid people out there. They know you are out there, crabs.
QUOTE OF THE WEEK
“My vision is to make the most diverse state on earth, and we have people from every planet on earth in this state. We have the sons and daughters of people of every planet, of every country on earth.”
- Democrat Governor Gray Davis, exaggerating slightlythe diversity of California
no Davis is right there are lot of people that live on different planets, especially in California!
But that's interesting Wolvie and I already knew most of it... But how does that translate into being "Caught Lying"...?
Bill, Sorry for the confusion. It had nothing to do being "caught lying". I just saw that the current topic ws Clark and posted that editorial I read that day. BTW, he is flip flopping on some pretty major issues there.
One minute saying he didn't know who he voted for. I mean c'mon who doesn't remember who he voted for in a presidential election. That was dishonest at best. Later when pressed on it he admitted to voting for Reagan and Nixon. It's just one of a few statements he's made that were dishonest. Like Saying after 9-11 he got a call from someone in the White House telling him to link Iraq to 9-11. He refused to say whom it was. The issue didn't go away and the source that was accoring to Weasly from the White House turned out to be a guy from a Canada So either he's really bad at Geography or dishonest. Changing opinions or stands on an issue is one thing. Take a stand tell people where you stand and let people decide.
He is learning as he goes and trying to place his ideals on firm ground for everyone to see and "for the distance" in the primaries, etc., and as any new candidate of either party would do if in a similar situation.
That is what we need a man that doesn't have a clue and has to learn as he goes along! Funny, isn't that one of the accusation liberals like fold used to criticize GW?
Not to mention that it seems he had to have a poll to see how he should answer.
Not to mention that it seems he had to have a poll to see how he should answer.
Ah yes. True leadership, its a beautiful thing.
The Democrats of '04 believe:
That wars should be authorized, but never fought.
That the United Nations is the world's last, best hope, and every jot of its writ should always be respected, unless it inconveniences Saddam Hussein.
That nation-building is always a humanitarian and just cause, unless it is undertaken in Iraq.
That anyone who said Saddam had weapons of mass destruction prior to the war was lying, unless his or her name is Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Madeleine Albright, Bill Cohen, John Kerry or Joe Lieberman, or the person ever served in the Clinton cabinet or as a Democratic senator.
That French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin is always right.
That President Bush isn't devoting enough resources to the reconstruction of Iraq, and that -- in light of his $87 billion aid proposal -- he is devoting far too many resources to the reconstruction of Iraq.
That George Bush maneuvering the United States into war is an act of manipulative genius, and also is very stupid.
That (fill in blank with latest conflict here) is another Vietnam.
That the U.S. military is overextended -- and should be smaller.
That unilateral U.S. diplomatic pressure is always wrong, unless it is brought to bear on Israel.
That it is absolutely necessary for the cause of clean government for candidates to abide by the limits set by the presidential public-financing system, unless they -- like Kerry and Howard Dean -- have enough money not to.
That big money corrupts politics, unless it is big money raised by California Gov. Gray Davis.
That punch-card ballots are a travesty of justice, unless they elect a Democrat (as they did in California just one year ago).
That Bush is bankrupting the federal government, but is a tightfisted ogre for countenancing only a $400 billion new prescription-drug benefit.
That Bush is fiscally profligate, but isn't spending enough on education, "first responders," health care or anything else not called "defense."
That the nation cannot afford the pending retirement of the baby boomers, but the baby boomers should get more benefits for their pending retirements.
That Bush is responsible for an economic downturn that began before he was elected and that Clinton is responsible for an economic recovery that began before he was elected (here at last -- a kind of consistency!).
That small-business owners are the heart of the economy unless they succeed, at which point they become "the rich."
That it is evil to be rich, unless you got that way by marrying Teresa Heinz.
That it is wrong to be a millionaire, unless you got that way by suing people.
That the sons of the upper-crust Northeastern elite are always and everywhere out-of-touch, unless they are named Howard Dean.
That it is unseemly to mix military matters with politics, but you should vote for FORMER GENERAL Wesley Clark, and salute when you do so.
That a deranged candidate should not be elected president, unless he is named Bob Graham.
That no child should be left behind, unless it is in an urban public-school system.
That no child should be left behind, unless it is in the womb.
That the Patriot Act is denying Americans their liberties, and John Kerry, Joe Lieberman, John Edwards or Bob Graham should be elected president after having voted for it.
That deposing John Ashcroft would be preferable to deposing Mullah Omar.
That library records are sacred, but the Constitution -- a "living document" subject to manipulation by judges -- is not.
How true.
It is undecipherable nonsense.
no it wasn't.
That was all it was.
it made sense and was completely decipherable.
Well it must take another lunatic to decipher it because it didn't make sense. Do you guys have some special super secret code that helps you understand each other?
Basic fundamental human nature can be overcome.
but you just disagreed that it was possible. which is it?
That is not what I said. There you go again mixing and matching comments to suit whatever nonsense tickles your fancy.
By the way.... Wolvie, the Constitution IS a "Living Document", subject to change, review and constant vigilance by US, the people...even if that means sometimes, through the judgements and scrutiny of Federal Judges/Supreme Courts. Hell, if you want to correct a Court-Problem, lets start by appointing LOTS MORE of them, in ALL the states, and relieve the stress on the system and lets STOP seeing Judges in Texas (for instance) being elected by people with the most CAMPAIGN-MONEY, and the citizens being given what amounts to a "PAYOLA JUSTICE" system...eh? Appointing and affirming thew appointments of many more Judges would be a Big Step in the right direction... By BOTH parties. This "Tit For Tat" non-appointing procedure by BOTH parties is OLD, and tiresome PAYBACK government, and I don't like it any more than you do.
The Constitution is not a living document. Period. It is a set of laws for our goverenment and it is getting bastardized by liberal judges.
Since you want more judges, I expect that you will contact those Democrats that a blocking Bush's nominees and tell them how displeased you are. The judges have enough votes to get the posts, but Democrats are doing an UNPRECIDENTED fillabuster on them.
I gotta laugh Wolvie. Your TRUTHFUL list contains just about everything fold has been bashing GW about for years. After he reads it, he realizes just how correct it is. Then he backpedals...backpedals...backpedals. Fun to watch.
Sorry Wolvie, but every historian of any note says the contrary, that the Constitution is a living document to be interpreted through contemporary-eyes, rather than by the "Cold, Dead Hands" of Mr. Heston, and his followers.
Idiocy and lies. That belief leads down the road to tyranny. you are a damn fool fold.
But, let's say it NEVER changed. No one say it can never be changed, fool. There is a mechanism to change it until that mechanism is utilized any changes are undemocratic.Well, women wouldn't have the right to vote, nor would 18 year olds... I believe these things were changed via amendment process.
By strict-interpretation, it IS a living-document, in that we CAN change it, any time the will of the people says we can. Your strict interpretation is foolish and utterly wrong.
See above, dip-shit. The term living document refers to the ability of the courts to interpret the document in light of current political and social conditions. What that means, in practice, is that the Constitution is meaningless.
That's why we need to tap that Alaskan oil!
I have mixed feelings about drilling ANWR.
I sort of think we should save US oil until we really need it.
fold your posy #4285 disputes nothing. It is simply the ravings of an idiot shouting "it's not true, it's not true." If you can refute what I wrote do so. But since you haven't one must assume that you can't. That would be par for the course for you.
Save it for what? I say we tap the oil. Just before we turn on the flow, we ask OPEC if they really want to keep prices high. If they get greedy, we use our own oil and they starve to death. If they keep prices reasonable, we hang on to our reserves and everybody wins.
Save it for what?
For when everyone else is out of oil.
If they tap ANWR, they'll pump it. They won't keep it for reserves.
WASHINGTON — Republican members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (search) held a "mock" vote Wednesday to support President Bush's choice to head the Environmental Protection Agency after committee Democrats refused to show up.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98804,00.html
Again the anti-democracy philosophy shines through. Democraps don't believe in democracy they believe only in obtaining the results they want and it doesn't matter how they get there.
Yeah, poor Rush. What will he ever do without ESPN?