RebelKev Wrote:

nate jonesacc Wrote:And I've noticed and others have noticed... that if you didn't go pontificating on every subject, others wouldn't be quite so confrontational toward you.

....and who's confrontational with me? It seems YOU are the one WHO everyone can't stand. Hell, I WANT confrontation. I live for it.

Bigolhawg, Schadenfreude, SSJT and TPC... just to name a few, and I think it's hilarious that we find much less fault with people like Rickheel and T-Monay.

nate jonesacc Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:

nate jonesacc Wrote:And I've noticed and others have noticed... that if you didn't go pontificating on every subject, others wouldn't be quite so confrontational toward you.

....and who's confrontational with me? It seems YOU are the one WHO everyone can't stand. Hell, I WANT confrontation. I live for it.

Bigolhawg, Schadenfreude, SSJT and TPC... just to name a few, and I think it's hilarious that we find much less fault with people like Rickheel and T-Monay.

Hmmmm, nothing to do with them being liberals, is it?

RebelKev Wrote:

nate jonesacc Wrote:Maybe it's the nature of us that even when lowered I can admit I'm wrong.

I can as well, but was I wrong in this thread?

Again, the President's Veto power does NOT implicate that he has power over Congress. You don't seem to grasp the concept if "Balance of Power". They don't have to do a DAMN thing he wants and vice-versa. That's not the definition of power. Hell, even if BOTH branches support something, the Judicial can STILL deem it unconstitutional.

Vetoing is not a power???? What the judicial system can do IS power. Their power is called Judicial Review. That is most definitely a power.

nate jonesacc Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:

nate jonesacc Wrote:Maybe it's the nature of us that even when lowered I can admit I'm wrong.

I can as well, but was I wrong in this thread?

Again, the President's Veto power does NOT implicate that he has power over Congress. You don't seem to grasp the concept if "Balance of Power". They don't have to do a DAMN thing he wants and vice-versa. That's not the definition of power. Hell, even if BOTH branches support something, the Judicial can STILL deem it unconstitutional.

Vetoing is not a power???? What the judicial system can do IS power. Their power is called Judicial Review. That is most definitely a power.

Power over a bill is NOT power over a branch. Stop fabricating arguments with no basis.

RebelKev Wrote:

nate jonesacc Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:

nate jonesacc Wrote:Maybe it's the nature of us that even when lowered I can admit I'm wrong.

I can as well, but was I wrong in this thread?

Again, the President's Veto power does NOT implicate that he has power over Congress. You don't seem to grasp the concept if "Balance of Power". They don't have to do a DAMN thing he wants and vice-versa. That's not the definition of power. Hell, even if BOTH branches support something, the Judicial can STILL deem it unconstitutional.

Vetoing is not a power???? What the judicial system can do IS power. Their power is called Judicial Review. That is most definitely a power.

Power over a bill is NOT power over a branch. Stop fabricating arguments with no basis.

Power over a bill IS having power over what congress wants to do. Therefore, the President is IMPACTING the economy by vetoing a bill relating to the economy.

nate jonesacc Wrote:Power over a bill IS having power over what congress wants to do. Therefore, the President is IMPACTING the economy by vetoing a bill relating to the economy.

This is weak.

RebelKev Wrote:

nate jonesacc Wrote:Power over a bill IS having power over what congress wants to do. Therefore, the President is IMPACTING the economy by vetoing a bill relating to the economy.

This is weak.

How? The president can decide whether or not your taxes will go down or up next year.

nate jonesacc Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:

nate jonesacc Wrote:Power over a bill IS having power over what congress wants to do. Therefore, the President is IMPACTING the economy by vetoing a bill relating to the economy.

This is weak.

How? The president can decide whether or not your taxes will go down or up next year.

Yeah, and if he passes it, the Judicial branch can overrule it. With that said, it does NOT mean the JB is over the LB and EB. It's circular.....and the 4th Branch, many of your Poly-Sci Profs will say is the Bureaucracy, however, it's actually the people, can overrule them ALL.

RebelKev Wrote:

nate jonesacc Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:

nate jonesacc Wrote:Power over a bill IS having power over what congress wants to do. Therefore, the President is IMPACTING the economy by vetoing a bill relating to the economy.

This is weak.

How? The president can decide whether or not your taxes will go down or up next year.

Yeah, and if he passes it, the Judicial branch can overrule it. With that said, it does NOT mean the JB is over the LB and EB. It's circular.....and the 4th Branch, many of your Poly-Sci Profs will say is the Bureaucracy, however, it's actually the people, can overrule them ALL.

That is true... so therefore what you're saying is that the government's role in the economy is not solely congress... it's executive and judicial... they're all intertwined... therefore not completely separate entities.

nate jonesacc Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:

nate jonesacc Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:

nate jonesacc Wrote:Power over a bill IS having power over what congress wants to do. Therefore, the President is IMPACTING the economy by vetoing a bill relating to the economy.

This is weak.

How? The president can decide whether or not your taxes will go down or up next year.

Yeah, and if he passes it, the Judicial branch can overrule it. With that said, it does NOT mean the JB is over the LB and EB. It's circular.....and the 4th Branch, many of your Poly-Sci Profs will say is the Bureaucracy, however, it's actually the people, can overrule them ALL.

That is true... so therefore what you're saying is that the government's role in the economy is not solely congress... it's executive and judicial... they're all intertwined... therefore not completely separate entities.

They ALL influence each other, just as WE influence other countries. However, we don't have POWER over those countries. It's a good system(Checks and Balances). Government ALWAYS tends to take away rights.....which is why our VERY INTELLIGENT Founding Fathers stated our rights are basically derived from just being human.


Do you know many programs the GOVERNMENT has become involved with that actually worked? I don't trust ANY of them.



...and JUST for the record, I am AGAINST the Patriot Act.

Oh yeah, Clinton is on record as saying rights are given by the government. I don't think I have to tell you what Hillary has stated about indiviualism.

Where did I ever say that they had power OVER them? They don't. They do have POWER. Period. It's not complete power, but there is definitely power there. Without some power, checks and balances wouldn't work.

So, are you still convinced that Clinton had nothing to do with the economic spur? :rolleyes:

And, duh, Hillary is a moron.

President Clinton lied about a blow job.

The Bush administration lied to get us into an illegal, unjustified war.

And nothing in this thread has refuted that second sentence.

Schadenfreude Wrote:President Clinton lied about a blow job.

The Bush administration lied to get us into an illegal, unjustified war.

And nothing in this thread has refuted that second sentence.

Define an "illegal, unjustified war".

One that was approved by Congress? The war was never over, just as the Korean War isn't over. There was a binding treaty b/t the countries and Saddam didn't live up to his promise that allowed him to stay in power. Technically, we were WELL within our rights to declare all out war on him after the FIRST infraction.

Schadenfreude Wrote:President Clinton lied about a blow job.

The Bush administration lied to get us into an illegal, unjustified war.

And nothing in this thread has refuted that second sentence.

By the way, are you saying that Clinton was justified to use force against Bosnia and Serbia? They posed NO threat to us. None, zilch, nada.

....of course you think that's ok. My guess? Because he has a D beside his name.

Show where the lie IS on the war.

If they found WMD tomorrow, your entire logic is unjustified.

Nothing shown has proven the Bush admin has lied. You guys screamed even about the State of the Union address, and Tony Blair goes to Washington and puts out that liberal spark in a few hours.

Even if Rumsfeld could say the WMD were around Tikrit and Baghdad...that's still not easy to find. Baghdad's population is close to the size of Chicago....and if you have to dig all around Chicago to find anything..it would take a HELLUVA long time.

The ONLY thing that's been proven in this whole thread is where people stand on Bush, and that Shad's so far to the left he'd have to go 1000s of miles to the right to just get back in the mainstream.

WPS

calling_the_hogs Wrote:Show where the lie IS on the war.

If they found WMD tomorrow, your entire logic is unjustified.

Nothing shown has proven the Bush admin has lied. You guys screamed even about the State of the Union address, and Tony Blair goes to Washington and puts out that liberal spark in a few hours.

Even if Rumsfeld could say the WMD were around Tikrit and Baghdad...that's still not easy to find. Baghdad's population is close to the size of Chicago....and if you have to dig all around Chicago to find anything..it would take a HELLUVA long time.

The ONLY thing that's been proven in this whole thread is where people stand on Bush, and that Shad's so far to the left he'd have to go 1000s of miles to the right to just get back in the mainstream.

WPS

Calling, you are correct. It is he that is making the implication, therefore it is he that bears the burden the proof. :D

RebelKev Wrote:

Schadenfreude Wrote:President Clinton lied about a blow job.

The Bush administration lied to get us into an illegal, unjustified war.

And nothing in this thread has refuted that second sentence.

By the way, are you saying that Clinton was justified to use force against Bosnia and Serbia? They posed NO threat to us. None, zilch, nada.

....of course you think that's ok. My guess? Because he has a D beside his name.

No, I was very much against what Clinton did in Bosnia and Serbia. What he did was wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

Why do you think I love Democrats and hate Republicans? I don't. I like just as many Republicans as I do Democrats... I'm just trying to get you to see that Democrats HAVE done some good things over the years, just like Republicans have. I don't know how that translates into me hating all Republicans... but whatever.

nate jonesacc Wrote:No, I was very much against what Clinton did in Bosnia and Serbia. What he did was wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

Why do you think I love Democrats and hate Republicans? I don't. I like just as many Republicans as I do Democrats... I'm just trying to get you to see that Democrats HAVE done some good things over the years, just like Republicans have. I don't know how that translates into me hating all Republicans... but whatever.

I'm not a big "Democrats=Evil/Republican=Righteous" guy. I hold contempt from BOTH parties. I disagree with Republicans on many social issues and Democrats on many fiscal issues. I am a Libertarian and want freedom on both ends. I don't want to settle for hinderances on one end and enjoy freedom on the other. I'm an Amercian. I want it ALL. The great experiment that is called the United States was a success because it proved to the world that we, as mankind, can live better and prosper more with very little government intervention. Do we really need more power-hungry people assuming a paternal role over us as if we are children?

....of course we now "enjoy"(TIC) more and more government control and look at where we're heading....to a nation of dependants that assumes very little, if not none at all, personal responsibility. I smoke. I will not sue when I get cancer. I can tear UP a McDonald's Double 1/4 Lber wth cheese, supersized with a Diet Coke, but I will not sue when I start gaining weight. I love hot chocolate, yet I will not sue the Swiss Miss chick when spill it on my 'nads rushing to work in the winter. etc., etc.


....and I actually used to like Joe Lieberman, but during the election he became more entangled with Gore and lost his individualism, IMO. I liked him because he WAS an individual. I also LOVE Zell Miller.

calling_the_hogs Wrote:Show where the lie IS on the war.

If they found WMD tomorrow, your entire logic is unjustified.

Nothing shown has proven the Bush admin has lied. You guys screamed even about the State of the Union address, and Tony Blair goes to Washington and puts out that liberal spark in a few hours.

Even if Rumsfeld could say the WMD were around Tikrit and Baghdad...that's still not easy to find. Baghdad's population is close to the size of Chicago....and if you have to dig all around Chicago to find anything..it would take a HELLUVA long time.

The ONLY thing that's been proven in this whole thread is where people stand on Bush, and that Shad's so far to the left he'd have to go 1000s of miles to the right to just get back in the mainstream.

WPS

1) I don't think Bush consciously lied. I think his information was faulty, therefore he "lied" without knowing that he did; a much smaller offense.

2) WMDs that constitute invading a country still have not been found. If they were found tomorrow, the pro-war case would obviously be boosted tremendously. However, until they are found, this war was completely wrong, and IMO, will be wrong no matter how many nukes they find (that's just because I'm a pacifist, not for any political reasons).

3) RebelKev... I'm still wondering how you don't expect US soldiers to find WMDs in the area of Baghdad and Tikrit, but you expect Palestinians to be able to find Hamas terrorists in a place the size of the West Bank/Gaza Strip? a) The US military budget is somewhere around 500 billion dollars. So... what you are saying is that a couple thousand US soldiers (that's just a random guess as to how many) can't find inanimate objects in an area about the size of Connecticut (at the largest), with billions of dollars of military technology and equipment... but a couple thousand Palestinian civilians/military soldiers are expected to find HUMAN BEINGS who can reason, hide themselves and run away... in an area roughly the size of North and South Carolina (together)? And all this on a very, very tight funding budget?

FWIW, I don't expect US soldiers to find the weapons, just like I don't expect Palestinians to magically "reign in their radicals".