which branch of governement is cheney in again?

[john9001]

i never said clinton, you did. Why do you have to keep bringing up clinton?

[Eagler]

just another michael moore movement by the dems ...
witch hunts until Nov 08 and maybe beyond

[2bighorn]

Originally posted by bj229r
The arguement is that he is ALSO, as Senate president, part of the LEGISLATIVE branch, and as such, exempt. Right or wrong, at least criticise Darth for the correct thing

Blah, he's not a senator and his role as president of senate is of procedural not legislative nature. He has no vote except in tie break.

Constitution clearly defines VP as civil officer and his primary function is to become president in case of the death, resignation or impeachment of the president (replacement for the head of executive branch).

Ever since Roosevelt, VPs are also ranking members of executive office (cabinet).

Whether VP is member of executive only, or both executive and legislative branch, he still has to comply with any and all laws, rules, practices and procedures pertinent to executive branch.

There are no "ifs" "maybes" or "buts" about it as long as US Congress holds the power to investigate and to oversee the executive branch.

Everybody who claims otherwise shows complete disregard of our constitution, period.

[JB88]

Originally posted by john9001
i never said clinton, you did. Why do you have to keep bringing up clinton?

oh.  "is" it a mistake on my part as to what it "is" that you meant when you said what it "is" that you were talking about?

my bad there tiger.  my bad.

[bj229r]

Blah, he's not a senator and his role as president of senate is of procedural not legislative nature. He has no vote except in tie break.

That's where the Harvard educated lawyers come into play:eek:

[Silat]

Well once again the lie and the flip flop.
I saw Cheney on Sunday news explaining how he wasn't part of the executive branch.

Now he is lying and blaming his lawyer.
HAHAHA
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Cheney_backs_off_on_claim_that_0627.html

[2bighorn]

Originally posted by bj229r
That's where the Harvard educated lawyers come into play:eek:

Not at all. The power to interpret constitution (in legal sense) goes to judiciary branch alone (with Supreme Court being the final authority).

[crockett]

Originally posted by bj229r
Clinton already sold the best stuff to China, now it's just bargain basement stuff--in 10 years, they progressed to not even being able to put a rocket in orbit, to shooting down @#@#% satellites

In 11 years we went from launching our first un-manned rocket into space to putting a man on the moon.. So your point is? Oh yea and we had already sent a satellite to Mars in that same time frame. So are you just saying the Chinese are kinda slow?

http://my.execpc.com/~culp/space/timeline.html

Also the Chinese use the "brute force" method. As in they ram it not shoot it down.

[crockett]

Originally posted by Silat
Well once again the lie and the flip flop.
I saw Cheney on Sunday news explaining how he wasn't part of the executive branch.

Now he is lying and blaming his lawyer.
HAHAHA
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Cheney_backs_off_on_claim_that_0627.html

As a webmaster something I'd love to do is set up a site with all the flip flops and lies this admin does. I just wish I had the time to collect all the video clips of the BS they spit out then later deny.

I bet a site like that would get massive amounts of traffic after a while.

[bj229r]

Originally posted by crockett
In 11 years we went from launching our first un-manned rocket into space to putting a man on the moon.. So your point is? Oh yea and we had already sent a satellite to Mars in that same time frame. So are you just saying the Chinese are kinda slow?

http://my.execpc.com/~culp/space/timeline.html

Also the Chinese use the "brute force" method. As in they ram it not shoot it down.

The difference is all that technology came from US

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/3319656.html
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/05/20/china.spy/
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/thomas102906.htm
http://taiwansecurity.org/NYT/NYT-990514.htm
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/yeIndict.htm
http://www.cnn.com/US/9905/24/cox.report.02/
http://www.cybercrime.gov/lucentSupIndict.htm
http://www.christusrex.org/www2/china/overview/pg1.html
http://www.taiwandc.org/washt9908.htm
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=757
http://www.tibet.ca/en/wtnarchive/2004/6/17_1.html
http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/1999/cyb19990517.asp
http://www.iht.com/articles/1999/08/03/edgarwin.2.t.php

[crockett]

Originally posted by bj229r
The difference is all that technology came from US

As if we weren't already selling missiles to Egypt and then they were selling them to North Korea. There is all kinds of shady BS that goes on out there so big corporations can make crap loads of money.


Here is a nice little article about us selling weapons to Israel and them reverse engineering them and selling to China. The article is from 2002 but the same thing continues today.

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0509-07.htm

The whole BS with Clinton was nothing new because it's been going on a long time. People in this country are just far to brainwashed to actually think and look up info for themselves.

[Mace2004]

Originally posted by crockett
It's not criminal to sell off our govt to the highest bidder?

You guys see here what I'm talking about.  Because you disagree with the administration and/or have a personal dislike of the VP there is absolutely no proof what-so-ever that this has happened.  Nothing, nada, zero, zip, zilch.  All that you have are a bunch of politically motivated hacks with no plan of their own.  Since they cannot argue constructively they make inane accusations to distract a public all too willing to believe them.  Crockett appears to be one of the willing public.  I would never claim that this admistration has been perfect and that mistakes and poor decisions haven't been made.  As a matter of fact I'd be perfectly willing to debate the merits of decisions and actions, both good and bad while Crockett just mouths the Dems words and claim Cheney is a criminal.  I, on the other hand, am not willing to ascribe criminal and/or malicious intent to actions that I believe (and have no proof otherwise) were taken in good faith.  If people would pay more attention to established facts and less to wild accusations and conspiracy theories we'd be better off.

[Elfie]

Originally posted by Silat
Well once again the lie and the flip flop.
I saw Cheney on Sunday news explaining how he wasn't part of the executive branch.

Now he is lying and blaming his lawyer.
HAHAHA
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Cheney_backs_off_on_claim_that_0627.html

I think it's probably a reasonable assumption to think the Cheney talked to lawyers before he made his original statement. If he repeated what his lawyers told him, is he lying?

You're reaching on this one Silat heh.

[crockett]

Originally posted by Mace2004
You guys see here what I'm talking about.  Because you disagree with the administration and/or have a personal dislike of the VP there is absolutely no proof what-so-ever that this has happened.  Nothing, nada, zero, zip, zilch.  All that you have are a bunch of politically motivated hacks with no plan of their own.  Since they cannot argue constructively they make inane accusations to distract a public all too willing to believe them.  Crockett appears to be one of the willing public.  I would never claim that this admistration has been perfect and that mistakes and poor decisions haven't been made.  As a matter of fact I'd be perfectly willing to debate the merits of decisions and actions, both good and bad while Crockett just mouths the Dems words and claim Cheney is a criminal.  I, on the other hand, am not willing to ascribe criminal and/or malicious intent to actions that I believe (and have no proof otherwise) were taken in good faith.  If people would pay more attention to established facts and less to wild accusations and conspiracy theories we'd be better off.

I guess that's why IAP was given the contract to manage part of the Walter Reed veterans hospital even after in 2004 the Army determined that federal employees could operate the facilities more efficiently.

The contract was still given to IAP whom happens to have "the right" connections in the white house. I.E.  CEO's were former KBR executives aka subsidiary of Halliburton. One of the Chairmen for IAP  just happens to be  John W. Snow the Bush admin former Secretary of the Treasury.

Of course that's all just coincidence and I must be a Liberal just wanting to bash the Bush admin. I mean after all the whole scandle about our troops getting sub par treatment was just the liberal media trying to bash the bush again.

1)So we have army telling us they can do a better job cheaper and serve our soldier's beter.
+
2)IAP has links to Bush and co white house and is given contract in which they fumble things up big time.
=
3)Liberal media just bashing Bush again.. no evidence of any wrong doing here tune into more FOX news so you can decide.

That's just one example.. do you need more?

[bj229r]

Originally posted by crockett
I guess that's why IAP was given the contract to manage part of the Walter Reed veterans hospital even after in 2004 the Army determined that federal employees could operate the facilities more efficiently.

The contract was still given to IAP whom happens to have "the right" connections in the white house. I.E.  CEO's were former KBR executives aka subsidiary of Halliburton. One of the Chairmen for IAP  just happens to be  John W. Snow the Bush admin former Secretary of the Treasury.

Of course that's all just coincidence and I must be a Liberal just wanting to bash the Bush admin. I mean after all the whole scandle about our troops getting sub par treatment was just the liberal media trying to bash the bush again.

1)So we have army telling us they can do a better job cheaper and serve our soldier's beter.
+
2)IAP has links to Bush and co white house and is given contract in which they fumble things up big time.
=
3)Liberal media just bashing Bush again.. no evidence of any wrong doing here tune into more FOX news so you can decide.

That's just one example.. do you need more?

TWO of the 3 letters in IAP are used in Halliburton:noid