Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: JB88 on June 26, 2007, 12:10:52 PM
-
cheney claims that he is not a part of the executive branch (http://uspolitics.about.com/b/a/208133.htm)
VP Claims He's Not Part of Executive Branch
This week's political theatre brought to you courtesy of the Vice President's office.
In order to justify five years of refusing to file annual reports with the National Archives and Records Administration oversight office, last week Vice President Cheney's office said it was exempt from a federal order because ... his office isn't really part of the Executive Branch of government.
----
um. what?
:confused:
----
In response, Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL), chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, says that Tuesday he will introduce legislation to defund the Vice President's office. Emanuel wants to suspend the $4.4 million allocated for the Vice President's office "until the vice president acknowledge he [is] in the executive branch or the Government Accountability Office determine which branch Cheney serve in."
----
:rofl
-
Yawn...investigation # 63 since that fateful day in November...I'm sure Henry Waxman will get into it as well. Too bad they didn't get that serious with Sandy Berger.
(What Cheney is claiming, is that the VP is ALSO president(?) of the Senate, who would occasionally vote to break a 50/50 tie, and as such, is exempt from this. Yah...kinda weak. What lies behind this is Cheney's ongoing premise that too much power has swung from the executive branch to Congress over the years--since Watergate-- and as a matter of principle, he fights them tooth and nail on everything.
PRObably needs to find better legal grounds though:)
-
:rolleyes:
-
its dumb founding how people( Cheney , A. Gonzalez) these days can avoid any acountability once so ever. its almost like they feel like getting voted into office gives them free reign to do as the please. and then when the whole thing comes tumbling down be looking for them to defend themselves by saying,
"Well its your fault America, you put me there in the first place."
-
"VP Claims He's Not Part of Executive Branch
This week's political theatre brought to you courtesy of the Vice President's office.
In order to justify five years of refusing to file annual reports with the National Archives and Records Administration oversight office, last week Vice President Cheney's office said it was exempt from a federal order because ... his office isn't really part of the Executive Branch of government."
Doh! Back to U.S Civics 101 with you, Dick!
:rofl
Regards,
Sun
-
Did anyone catch last night's Daily Show? They had a clip of Cheney claiming exemption from something because he was part of the Executive Branch.
Can't have it both ways, Dick.
Daily Show Link (http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/index.jhtml?ml_video=89061)
-
what are the democrats fishing for this time?
-
Originally posted by john9001
what are the democrats fishing for this time?
doesn't sound like they're fishing for anything. As a member of the Republican party for almost 20 years, I am interested in how the Office of the Vice President isn't part of the Executive Branch like our Vice Emperor..err I mean Vice President claims.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Sundowner
...last week Vice President Cheney's office said it was exempt from a federal order because ... his office isn't really part of the Executive Branch of government."
Doh! Back to U.S Civics 101 with you, Dick!
:rofl
Regards,
Sun
From your high school civics lessons, you might remember that the VP is the president of the Senate, a legislative branch institution. As he has responsibilities in the legislature, perhaps he is in the legislative branch.
That is the argument DCheney is using, and while it is rediculous, it may ultimately have to have a judge decide it because it does have some technical merit.
-
Well, there are three distinct and separate branches of the guberment as dictated by our constitution. Which other office spans the divide among them? Perhaps the framers of our constitution just gave the VP additional duties 'cause they figured he wouldn't have much to do but should nonetheless earn his pay?
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Well, there are three distinct and separate branches of the gooberment as dictated by our constitution. Which other office spans the divide among them? Perhaps the framers of our constitution just gave the VP additional duties 'cause they figured he wouldn't have much to do but should nonetheless earn his pay?
I fixed that for you. No thanks needed. :D
-
I agree with the one senator.. If Cheney isn't part of the executive branch as he claims. then his funding needs to be cut.
I'm also still voting yet to sending him to Getmo..
-
It's starting to get pretty funny watching people whom still "claim" to support this admin. Come up with excuses why all the crap like this they pull is ok.
I'm guess about the only thing the Bush supporters have left is the "anti-liberal" argument and calling us names.
ummm..
Scotter Libby..
Karal Rove
Donnald Rumpfield..
John Ashcroft
Mike Brown.
I'm sure there are more but that's just off the top of my head..
Now we have Alberto Gonzales whom pretty much out right lies to the American public by claiming not to be able to remember anything.
And now more BS out of the VP's office as if 90% of the scandals didn't originate from there anyway.
The best part about it all, is Bush ran his entire platform in 2000 on brining back "Honor and Integrity" to the white house. I just wonder, when exactlly did he plan to start bringing that back?
:rofl :rofl :rofl
btw...
which branch of government is Chaney in again?
I bet Chaney just can't remember, he probably has Alzheimer's and can't remember anything like Alberto..
-
Originally posted by crockett
....
btw...
which branch of government is Chaney in again?
I bet Chaney just can't remember, he probably has Alzheimer's and can't remember anything like Alberto..
I dont know who this Chaney is...
But Vice President ChEney is held under the following part of the US Constitution:
Section. 3.
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.
Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.
No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.
The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.
As far as I can tell, other than assuming the Presidency in case of resignation removal or death of the President, this is the only constitutional duty of the VP.
If his only constitutional duty is as the President of the Senate, perhaps constitutionally he is part of the Senate... at least he has a valid argument.
-
The Washington Post is running a four-part series on Cheney that apparently is also available here:
http:http://www.washingtonpost.com/cheney
It's called Angler, the Cheney Vice Presidency.
Hard to figure out if Cheney is Machiavelli or Rufus Rose (the puppeteer of Howdy Doody).
Whatever and however, he is definitely a go-to action man.
-
Originally posted by crockett
It's starting to get pretty funny watching people whom still "claim" to support this admin. Come up with excuses why all the crap like this they pull is ok.
I'm guess about the only thing the Bush supporters have left is the "anti-liberal" argument and calling us names.
The best part about it all, is Bush ran his entire platform in 2000 on brining back "Honor and Integrity" to the white house. I just wonder, when exactlly did he plan to start bringing that back?
The entire government from the executive offices right on down has become a joke. And has been for quite some time
Both sides Rep and Dem alike. The Rep have no monopoly on what your saying. the Democrats are every bit as bad.
But its convienient for each side to wag fingers at the other while igoring the mess in theor own party.
Personally I think maybe its time that all government branches and offices
have the exempt status removed from filing reports to the National Archives and Records Administration oversight office. Right down to the janatorial level
-
I'm guessing that before Bush leaves office, we'll see another "massacre" a la Nixon's waning days.
Guessing merely.
-
what do you mean hap?
:confused:
-
From memory, so when I mess up, be nice.
Nixon was ordered to produce taped conversations that took place in the white house.
He ordered, was it Eliot Abrams??, to fire the guy from justice dept who gave the order. The guy Nixon ordered wouldn't do it. Got fired. The next guy in line had the same job. No can do. Got sacked. Then the next guy.
What was it, 2 to 5 guys who got canned?
I got the name wrong. Here's Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Massacre
-
If Cheney has a good argument with this one, Clinton didn't actually "have sexual realtions" with that woman... lol.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
If Cheney has a good argument with this one, Clinton didn't actually "have sexual realtions" with that woman... lol.
and don't even get me started on the teapot dome scandal.
:mad:
(about as relevant as the tired old clinton arguements that party loyalists continue to dust off and pull out rather than just address the issue at hand.)
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
As far as I can tell, other than assuming the Presidency in case of resignation removal or death of the President, this is the only constitutional duty of the VP.
If his only constitutional duty is as the President of the Senate, perhaps constitutionally he is part of the Senate... at least he has a valid argument.
No, VP is cabinet rank member. Read the article 2, section 2 and 4. In section 4 VP is clearly named as member of executive branch.
Edit:
Article 2.
Section 1
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of
America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together
with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct,
a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives
to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or
Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United
States, shall be appointed an Elector.
The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two
persons, of whom one at least shall not lie an Inhabitant of the same State
with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and
of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and
transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to
the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence
of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the
Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes
shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of
Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and
have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall
immediately choose by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a
Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like
Manner choose the President. But in choosing the President, the Votes shall be
taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; a quorum
for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two-thirds of the
States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In
every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest
Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there
should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall choose from
them by Ballot the Vice-President.
The Congress may determine the Time of choosing the Electors, and the Day on
which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the
United States.
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at
the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office
of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not
have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a
Resident within the United States.
In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death,
Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said
Office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by
Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of
the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as
President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be
removed, or a President shall be elected.
The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation,
which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he
shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other
Emolument from the United States, or any of them.
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following
Oath or Affirmation:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of
President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve,
protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Section 2
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United
States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual
Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the
principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject
relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to
Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in
Cases of Impeachment.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make
Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall
nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint
Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court,
and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein
otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress
may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think
proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of
Departments.
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during
the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End
of their next Session.
Section 3
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the
Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge
necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both
Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with
Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he
shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he
shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all
the Officers of the United States.
Section 4
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States,
shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason,
Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
-
I have nothing but a big SO WHAT about this. Just another squable between the Executive and Legislative branches. Sure, Cheney's argument sounds ridiculous but so do accusations against him. He's just telling the Dems to go stuff it and I don't blame him.
There's a mighty big jump between disagreeing with an administration's policy or judgement and claiming their motives are invideous or accusing them of criminal intent.
Given the Dems propensity to attack motives and integrity because they themselves have no better ideas I'd prefer Cheney just go on camera and say what he said in the Senate a few years ago when he told a Dem to go F*** himself.
-
Originally posted by Mace2004
I have nothing but a big SO WHAT about this. Just another squable between the Executive and Legislative branches. Sure, Cheney's argument sounds ridiculous but so do accusations against him. He's just telling the Dems to go stuff it and I don't blame him.
There's a mighty big jump between disagreeing with an administration's policy or judgement and claiming their motives are invideous or accusing them of criminal intent.
Given the Dems propensity to attack motives and integrity because they themselves have no better ideas I'd prefer Cheney just go on camera and say what he said in the Senate a few years ago when he told a Dem to go F*** himself.
huh? as i understand it the whole thing started because of Cheney's failure to comply with an Exectutive Order he stated he didn't have to file his secret documents with National Archive's because he isn't a part of the Executive branch. its not a squabble between the 2 branches, its Cheney trying to worm his fat oscar thru a damned small loop hole.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
The entire government from the executive offices right on down has become a joke. And has been for quite some time
Both sides Rep and Dem alike. The Rep have no monopoly on what your saying. the Democrats are every bit as bad.
But its convienient for each side to wag fingers at the other while igoring the mess in theor own party.
Personally I think maybe its time that all government branches and offices
have the exempt status removed from filing reports to the National Archives and Records Administration oversight office. Right down to the janatorial level
Ok I agree, I can't stand either side of our govt.. they are all a bunch of corrupt P.O.S.'s IMHO. If it were up to me I say have at it evil terrorist guys, blow up DC while all those A holes are there. That way the people of this country could start fresh, like our Constitution tells us too if things aren't working so well "for the people".
Of course that will never happen, so we are stuck with what we have.. (total crap) In that case I try to pick the lesser of two evils. The current Republican crop of A holes in charge, pretty much thumb their nose at any sort of accountability. And why not. who'sgoing to hold them accountable? We The people? lol yea right..
Too bad the people in this country are a bunch of limp di*k's and too sissified to actually stand of and have a little civil disorder when this kind of BS happens. If this happened in Europe or in most other countries the people would take to the streets and set things right.
The govt should fear the people, not vice versa.. I saw the movie Sicko a week or so ago and the one thing if anything that stuck out as true to me, was a French guy's quote:
"The difference between America and France is, In America the people are afraid of the govt.. In France the govt is afraid of the people."
-
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
-
Originally posted by Mace2004
I have nothing but a big SO WHAT about this. Just another squable between the Executive and Legislative branches. Sure, Cheney's argument sounds ridiculous but so do accusations against him. He's just telling the Dems to go stuff it and I don't blame him.
There's a mighty big jump between disagreeing with an administration's policy or judgement and claiming their motives are invideous or accusing them of criminal intent.
Given the Dems propensity to attack motives and integrity because they themselves have no better ideas I'd prefer Cheney just go on camera and say what he said in the Senate a few years ago when he told a Dem to go F*** himself.
It's not criminal to sell off our govt to the highest bidder?
-
the whole thing comes down to what "is" is.
"is" cheney in this branch or "is" cheney in that branch, or "is" the democrats having failed to do anything with congress looking for witches to distract the public from their lack of action?
-
Originally posted by crockett
It's not criminal to sell off our govt to the highest bidder?
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
-
Originally posted by john9001
the whole thing comes down to what "is" is.
"is" cheney in this branch or "is" cheney in that branch, or "is" the democrats having failed to do anything with congress looking for witches to distract the public from their lack of action?
oh. gee. looky there. the clinton play again. didn't see that one coming.
-
i never said clinton, you did. Why do you have to keep bringing up clinton?
-
just another michael moore movement by the dems ...
witch hunts until Nov 08 and maybe beyond
-
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.
-
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.
-
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:
-
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
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.iapws.com/) 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?
-
Originally posted by crockett
I guess that's why IAP (http://www.iapws.com/) 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
-
Originally posted by 2bighorn
No, VP is cabinet rank member. Read the article 2, section 2 and 4. In section 4 VP is clearly named as member of executive branch.
Art 2 Sec 1.
The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and together with the Vice-President, chosen for the same term, be elected as follows:
So this says the President has the executive power... no power or duties to the VP other than to wait around and assume the presidency should something happen.
ART 2 Sec 1.6
In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President,
So this says the President has the executive power... no power or duties to the VP other than to wait around and assume the presidency should something happen.
Section 4
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States,
shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
source (http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c236.htm)
CIVIL OFFICER - The Constitution of the United States, Art. 2, S. 4, provides, that the president, vice-president, and civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. By this term are included all officers of the United States who hold their appointments under the national government, whether their duties are executive or judicial, in the highest or the lowest departments of the government, with the exception of officers of the army and navy. A senator of the United States, it was once decided, was not a civil officer, within the meaning of this clause in the Constitution.
Even though ART 2 is the executive branch, The term civil officer does cross over from the executive to the judicial branch, so Section 4 does not clearly define the position of VP as an exective one.
So barring the assumption of the Presidency, the only constitutional power of the VP is as president of the Senate so before a rise to the presidency, perhaps he is a member of the legislature. It’s an interesting argument anyway.
-
He gets to go to all the funerals too:aok
-
Originally posted by crockett
I guess that's why IAP (http://www.iapws.com/) 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?
Of course, Crocket proves my point yet again.
First, you can stop crediting me with things I didn't say.
Second, all you're doing is the same thing some conservatives did when they tried to tie Clinton to various murders. This is like the six degrees of Kevin Bacon stuff, you can tie anyone to anyone else if you go deep enough yet do you have any proof? No, you don't.
Third, the VP has absolutely nothing at all to do with letting government contracts with the Pentagon. As a matter of fact, as the purse string holders Congress has much more to do with contracts than the Executive branch.
Fourth, efficiency doesn't have much to do with contracts, cost does. "Efficiency" is a relative term. Some think its more "efficient" to use Military personnel because they're already being paid so why not? Seems cheaper, right? Sure, up until the light comes on and you realize they still have to get paid and, unlike contractors the taxpayer is paying for the military lifetime retirement and medical care. Government contractors are regularly hired in place of Military personnel for many reasons one simple one of which is to free up the military personnel we have so they can go fight a war. Go to just about any military base and you'll probably see that most of the security forces are contractors. I went to the MacDill AFB clinic yesterday to see a doc...guess what? Yes, he was a contractor. Can contractors be nefarious and bribe or otherwise influence government people to gain contracts? Sure they can, just ask Randy Cunningham...last I checked though Cunningham was in Congress, not the White House. Every contractor related scandal I can recall (except the White House Travel Office) was related to either civilians in the Pentagon or Congress. The only influence over the award of contracts that I recall haveing involved the White House was at the beginning of Iraqi Freedom. Although everyone screams about Halliburton, after having dealt with them myself I'd say they were the only ones not only capable of providing the required support but were also in place since they had numerous existing contracts and personnel in the Gulf. BTW, the existing contracts were all let under the Clinton administration. Also, tell me this; if your house were being robbed would you want your city to spend six months renegotiating the Police force's contract or do you want them to use the one they already have?
Bottom line here Crockett is that just about anything can be "spun" to appear nefarious and underhanded, especially when the "accuser" has a motive to do it. A missile hit the Pentagon, not a plane; the towers were wired for demolition; the US Navy shot down an airliner departing New York; Clinton killed x number of people; Bush "knew", etc., etc., etc. These are all sad lies and distortions for a public that seems all to willing to swallow this junk. In the end, you have to realize that just because you disagree with a policy or decision doesn't mean the guy's a criminal. Sometimes, good decisions are made, sometimes bad ones are, but a mistake, error in judgement, or just a decision made you don't agree with doesn't mean someone is guilty of crime or corruption.
-
Originally posted by bj229r
He gets to go to all the funerals too:aok
They don't go to funerals.
-
Originally posted by JB88
and don't even get me started on the teapot dome scandal.
:mad:
(about as relevant as the tired old clinton arguements that party loyalists continue to dust off and pull out rather than just address the issue at hand.)
And you dont think the democrat party loyalists will be doing the exact same thing when the roles are reversed??
-
Originally posted by Mace2004
Of course, Crocket proves my point yet again.
First, you can stop crediting me with things I didn't say.
Second, all you're doing is the same thing some conservatives did when they tried to tie Clinton to various murders. This is like the six degrees of Kevin Bacon stuff, you can tie anyone to anyone else if you go deep enough yet do you have any proof? No, you don't.
Third, the VP has absolutely nothing at all to do with letting government contracts with the Pentagon. As a matter of fact, as the purse string holders Congress has much more to do with contracts than the Executive branch.
Fourth, efficiency doesn't have much to do with contracts, cost does. "Efficiency" is a relative term. Some think its more "efficient" to use Military personnel because they're already being paid so why not? Seems cheaper, right? Sure, up until the light comes on and you realize they still have to get paid and, unlike contractors the taxpayer is paying for the military lifetime retirement and medical care. Government contractors are regularly hired in place of Military personnel for many reasons one simple one of which is to free up the military personnel we have so they can go fight a war. Go to just about any military base and you'll probably see that most of the security forces are contractors. I went to the MacDill AFB clinic yesterday to see a doc...guess what? Yes, he was a contractor. Can contractors be nefarious and bribe or otherwise influence government people to gain contracts? Sure they can, just ask Randy Cunningham...last I checked though Cunningham was in Congress, not the White House. Every contractor related scandal I can recall (except the White House Travel Office) was related to either civilians in the Pentagon or Congress. The only influence over the award of contracts that I recall haveing involved the White House was at the beginning of Iraqi Freedom. Although everyone screams about Halliburton, after having dealt with them myself I'd say they were the only ones not only capable of providing the required support but were also in place since they had numerous existing contracts and personnel in the Gulf. BTW, the existing contracts were all let under the Clinton administration. Also, tell me this; if your house were being robbed would you want your city to spend six months renegotiating the Police force's contract or do you want them to use the one they already have?
Bottom line here Crockett is that just about anything can be "spun" to appear nefarious and underhanded, especially when the "accuser" has a motive to do it. A missile hit the Pentagon, not a plane; the towers were wired for demolition; the US Navy shot down an airliner departing New York; Clinton killed x number of people; Bush "knew", etc., etc., etc. These are all sad lies and distortions for a public that seems all to willing to swallow this junk. In the end, you have to realize that just because you disagree with a policy or decision doesn't mean the guy's a criminal. Sometimes, good decisions are made, sometimes bad ones are, but a mistake, error in judgement, or just a decision made you don't agree with doesn't mean someone is guilty of crime or corruption.
So you are going to sit there and try to say having ex political officials on your board of directors and as spokesmen, isn't going to help get contracts? I guess Halliburton KBR and co should quit wasting all that money paying guys like George Bush Sr. to bee spoksmen.
I guess they just hire these guys because they love our country so much and hate to see an ex govt worker out of a job. :aok
-
muter mutter clicked on wrong thingie
-
Originally posted by rpm
They don't go to funerals.
Hey, if Cheney runs the country, he can go to all the funerals he wants to:aok
-
Originally posted by crockett
So you are going to sit there and try to say having ex political officials on your board of directors and as spokesmen, isn't going to help get contracts? I guess Halliburton KBR and co should quit wasting all that money paying guys like George Bush Sr. to bee spoksmen.
I guess they just hire these guys because they love our country so much and hate to see an ex govt worker out of a job. :aok
No, I didn't say that. I said that there are contractors that will buy influence, it's just that there is absolutely no indication at all that Cheney had anything to do with it. If you have anything, something other than the six degrees of Dick Cheney routine, then put it out, I'll listen.
P.S. Regarding your comment about love of country, well to tell you the truth most of the contractors out there actually are motivated by a desire to help. Most contractors are former employees of the government including a huge number that are former military. Sure, some just see a great opportunity to make money but for many of these (I would even go so far as saying the majority) going into contracting is a way to continue to serve even after their military careers are over. Not being sappy here, it's just the truth.
-
Originally posted by Mace2004
No, I didn't say that. I said that there are contractors that will buy influence, it's just that there is absolutely no indication at all that Cheney had anything to do with it. If you have anything, something other than the six degrees of Dick Cheney routine, then put it out, I'll listen.
Did I say Cheney himself? I said the Bush admin.. in which Cheney happened to be the CEO of Halliburton after leaving his Dept of Defense position. Of course George Bush Jr's daddy just happens to be a "paid" spokesmen for Halliburton.
Humm No need for lobbyists when you can hire ex-politicians and get all their govt ties, or better yet put your own guys right in the govt you want to buy.
Na it's all on the up and up I mean no one in our govt would ever do anything wrong.. right?
I guess Cheney didn't do this either.
Halliburton subsidiary Brown & Root is paid $9 million by the Pentagon (under Cheney's direction as Secretary of Defense) to produce a classified report detailing how private companies (like itself) could provide logistical support for American troops in potential war zones around the world. Shortly after this report, the Pentagon awards Brown & Root a five-year contract to provide logistics for the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. The General Accounting Office estimates that through this contract, Brown & Root makes overall $2.2 billion in revenue in the Balkans.
Too make it short, Cheney as SoD used his position to pay a company 9 million dollars to do a report telling the govt if it was profitable to give that company more contracts.
That's like putting a cookie jar in front of a little kid, then going away and telling him he can't touch the cookies. Think about it and put respect for your country above political BS.
Maybe you should read a little bit at http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/about_hal/chronology.html
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
And you dont think the democrat party loyalists will be doing the exact same thing when the roles are reversed??
most definately.
but that is neither relevant nor useful to the question at hand.
people who bring up clinton over and over again when the conversation is about the current administration must think that a good defense strategy for a murderer would be to say..."well that guy last week killed somebody too - so lets all talk about that."
i can't wait for this cycle of our nation's history to get over with. it's become an abominable joke on so many levels.
it's not even about the issues anymore...it's all about drama.
-
Originally posted by crockett
Did I say Cheney himself? I said the Bush admin.. in which Cheney happened to be the CEO of Halliburton after leaving his Dept of Defense position. Of course George Bush Jr's daddy just happens to be a "paid" spokesmen for Halliburton.
Humm No need for lobbyists when you can hire ex-politicians and get all their govt ties, or better yet put your own guys right in the govt you want to buy.
Na it's all on the up and up I mean no one in our govt would ever do anything wrong.. right?
I guess Cheney didn't do this either.
Halliburton subsidiary Brown & Root is paid $9 million by the Pentagon (under Cheney's direction as Secretary of Defense) to produce a classified report detailing how private companies (like itself) could provide logistical support for American troops in potential war zones around the world. Shortly after this report, the Pentagon awards Brown & Root a five-year contract to provide logistics for the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. The General Accounting Office estimates that through this contract, Brown & Root makes overall $2.2 billion in revenue in the Balkans.
Too make it short, Cheney as SoD used his position to pay a company 9 million dollars to do a report telling the govt if it was profitable to give that company more contracts.
That's like putting a cookie jar in front of a little kid, then going away and telling him he can't touch the cookies. Think about it and put respect for your country above political BS.
Maybe you should read a little bit at http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/about_hal/chronology.html
Actually, you yet again prove my point.
You seem to be overly impressed that a company makes a lot of money. When you consider the number of people they employ and the services it provides that number is reasonable. I can understand that when you read large numbers your sense of perspective may be a bit skewed because the true scope of what the US government spends is unbelievable but think of these numbers. From personal experience I can testify to the fact that Cheney cancelled production of the F-14D. The development contract alone was $1 billion and Grumman lost out on $15 billion in sales. This ended up basically putting the entire aircraft production and development side of the company (yes, they qualify as an evil Government Contractor) out of work. They closed down Calverton Long Island, the development site Grumman used and most of their people were fired. I have no idea how many billions of dollars that really cost Grumman but, after probably 80 years they no longer make Navy airplanes. Does that help put a little perspective on the relative importance of a $9 million dollar study? Hell, I had an $11 million budget for six months of F-14D OPEVAL and I spent almost $3 million in my squadron just for gas every quarter. The fact that B&R made $2 billion over the life of the contract means the taxpayer was probably saved twice that. Probably a pretty good deal.
Again, and here's where you prove my point again. The fact that Cheney was SECDEF at the time this particular contract went out means what exactly??? As I've said several times, you can spin anything to give an air of suspicion and appearance of corruption and again, I'll repeat that it does happen but do you have any proof of any malfeasance on Cheney's part? Any indictments? Special prosecutors? FBI investigations? DOD IG investigations? Uhhhhh...no. The Pentagon was ordered BY CONGRESS to find less expensive ways to provide non-combatant services and allow Congress to cut the military further. This was all part of the "peace dividend" that the Dems loved so dearly, not an insideous scheme by Dick Cheney.
As a final note, maybe you should try to put respect for individuals above your political BS. You know almost nothing at all about what you're talking about yet you continue to do it. Again, find some other justification for your accusations rather than the six degrees of Dick Cheney stuff.
-
Wish we could get those 3 infantry divisions back....damn never occurred to me about Grumman---all the way back to the Wildcat and further, I'd guess. Probably never come back
-
Originally posted by Mace2004
Actually, you yet again prove my point.
You seem to be overly impressed that a company makes a lot of money.
No I tend to be overly un-impressed at a company whom has been caught several times over charging our govt for services which costs me as a tax payer money.
I'm un-impressed at a company whom has had a gravy ride and has made billions on backs of the tax payers of this country. Then has the gull to move it's head quarters to Dubai so it can get out of paying taxes on those very earnings.
As far as Grumman.. contracts get cut and added all the time. Difference is, in the Aviation sector there tends to be competitive bidding between the different companies whom supply our military needs. It's not one big company that runs everything and has a monopoly.
When it comes to the other end. It's all halliburton and it's child companies, there is really no direct competition. Which is a very big diffrence in how things are done.
-
Mace,
Didn't DiFi recently bail from an appropriations commite because it was about to come out that her husband's contracting firm had made billions in direct government contracts while she sat on the commite? No hue and cry from the media.
No grass roots conservitive screeching for DiFi's head and her husband hung from the town square. And we the little people paid for it with our taxes. DiFi and her husband Lewinskied the American people and crokett wants Cheney hung by his goodies for conspiricy theories.
I bet crokett wouldnt be happy even if Bush and Cheney invited Lewinksi to the white house to give them both a Lewinski and then held a rose garden interview to tell the world they are now as good a men as Clinton while holding up a stained dress. He'd probably want Bush empeached for malfesence, lewd behavior and adutry while in office and Cheney jailed for sexual harrassment, sexual deviency and lacivious behavior in the work place.......:lol
-
Originally posted by crockett
No I tend to be overly un-impressed at a company whom has been caught several times over charging our govt for services which costs me as a tax payer money.
I'm un-impressed at a company whom has had a gravy ride and has made billions on backs of the tax payers of this country. Then has the gull to move it's head quarters to Dubai so it can get out of paying taxes on those very earnings.
As far as Grumman.. contracts get cut and added all the time. Difference is, in the Aviation sector there tends to be competitive bidding between the different companies whom supply our military needs. It's not one big company that runs everything and has a monopoly.
When it comes to the other end. It's all halliburton and it's child companies, there is really no direct competition. Which is a very big diffrence in how things are done.
Just about everything you just said is either wrong or irrelevant. I was not talking about the sad demise of Grumman fighters but rather just trying to give you some sense of proportion when it comes to these debates. It's easy to say "x company earned x billion dollars on the back of the taxpayer" when you don't understand the scope of US government spending. It's not all just Halliburton, there are literally thousands of government contractors, here's (http://www.washingtontechnology.com/smallbusiness/fast50/2004/revenue.html) a link to just the top 50 from 2003. RS got over $260,000,000 in revenue. Probably 99% of Americans have never even heard of RS or any of the other top 50 contractors.
Here (http://For here we have the editorial page coming to the defense of Halliburton against attacks by Democrats. The page claims that the Kerry-Edwards ticket is criticizing this mega-well-connected, warfare state pillager as a proxy for all of American business. True or not, the Journal is guilty of something far worse: defending Halliburton on grounds that this parasite embodies the very heart of free enterprise.) we have an example of an ad-hominum attack on Halliburton typical of hacks just out for sensationalized pablum for the masses. Look at the wording and breathless hysteria and vitriol. Read his entire diatribe and you will see nary a fact, just the previously mentioned breathless hysteria and vitriol. He backs up none of his claims, he just adds more. This, is nonsense.
-
Originally posted by bustr
Mace,
Didn't DiFi recently bail from an appropriations commite because it was about to come out that her husband's contracting firm had made billions in direct government contracts while she sat on the commite? No hue and cry from the media.
That's true and, as I've said there are plenty of opportunities for the dishonest to capitalize on the "system". It's unfortunent when a few bad companies and/or government employees tarnish the reputation of all of them and it's even worse when the press ignores some while harping on others.
-
Originally posted by Mace2004
........ I went to the MacDill AFB clinic yesterday to see a doc...guess what? .......
Is Kojak's ribs still there on Gandy and Bayshore?? mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
-
Yes BJ it is and still crowded at lunch time.
-
I've been to 35-40 states and that is the BEST bbq I've ever had.:aok Every time I come to Tampa to visit family/friends, I go there on first day. (Well...that and to watch chicks on Bayshore:D )
-
Watch it on Bayshore nowdays. Some nitwit on a motorcycle was going 80-90mph and hit a pedestrian a couple of years ago so they've become kinda anal about that road....of course going slower gives a better view. I particularly like about 9 or 10am when all the trophy wifes are out jogging. I assume they're trophy wives...judging by the amount of silicon they could be "professionals".
-
Without a long drawn out deliberation....
The action point of this story is simple, and any citizen SHOULD be able to see the forest through the trees.
NO SINGLE PERSON MAKES OR, IS ABOVE THE LAW. This includes the president, vice president.... all the way down to me and you.
The storing of documents into the national archive is mandated and was enacted to provide oversight powers. One elected individual cannot decide whether he is or is not going to follow it. There is no citizen that should EVER debate this in favor of Cheney. Personal feelings aside... and all the side banter... we need to demand those policies are followed. For that matter, do away with executive privilege, even though I fully understand why it is there.
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
Without a long drawn out deliberation....
The action point of this story is simple, and any citizen SHOULD be able to see the forest through the trees.
NO SINGLE PERSON MAKES OR, IS ABOVE THE LAW. This includes the president, vice president.... all the way down to me and you.
The storing of documents into the national archive is mandated and was enacted to provide oversight powers. One elected individual cannot decide whether he is or is not going to follow it. There is no citizen that should EVER debate this in favor of Cheney. Personal feelings aside... and all the side banter... we need to demand those policies are followed. For that matter, do away with executive privilege, even though I fully understand why it is there.
It's not a law Moray, it's an executive order by the President pertaining to the executive branch. Seems to me he can decide who it applies to. Also, just for the sake of argument assume it is a law. If so, laws are regularly tested in court many times to determine what they really mean. Sometimes they're found unconstitutional, sometimes judgements are made regarding exactly what was meant and who they apply to. That's all part of the discussions going on regarding treatment of unlawful combatants, wiretapping, etc., etc., so it's a little simplistic to describe the situation as you do. Executive privilege is also one of those things that can get a bit squishy, but it exists for a very good reason and the Executive branch couldn't function without it.
-
Originally posted by bj229r
Hey, if Cheney runs the country, he can go to all the funerals he wants to:aok
That would be zero. Funerals are bad press.
-
Just another way of avoiding the questions, don't blame the guy really. wouldn't we all do the same?
On a point of order, i think cherney is Just a money making sheister who would sell his Grandma for two bucks
-
Originally posted by Mace2004
It's not a law Moray, it's an executive order by the President pertaining to the executive branch. Seems to me he can decide who it applies to. Also, just for the sake of argument assume it is a law. If so, laws are regularly tested in court many times to determine what they really mean. Sometimes they're found unconstitutional, sometimes judgements are made regarding exactly what was meant and who they apply to. That's all part of the discussions going on regarding treatment of unlawful combatants, wiretapping, etc., etc., so it's a little simplistic to describe the situation as you do. Executive privilege is also one of those things that can get a bit squishy, but it exists for a very good reason and the Executive branch couldn't function without it.
what a load of rubbish, the Judges are all dubyas cronies, the Law is only applied if it suits him, All Bush and cheney care about is making cash and lots of it
-
Hawco you need to chill out just a bit.
ALL of the judges are Bush's cronies? Don't you think that's a little over the top or do you really believe that Bush has replaced all of those federal judges that have been appointed over what...maybe 30 years?
The simplest answer seems to be that if Bush wants to, all he has to do is issue a new executive order clearly saying what he wants. If he wants to exclude the VP then he can do it, he makes the executive branch rules, after all, he's the one in charge of it (not Congress as the Dems would have you believe)
And, as I've asked before, what evidence (as in actual facts) do you have that the VP has done anything wrong at any time? Surely there must be an indictment or conviction for someone that's as dirty as you seem to think. Or, are you just living by the 30-second sound bites put out by the left in this country? Surely you're not that gulable, or maybe you're thinking back to the Clinton administration. A guy who was actually found guilty of perjury.
-
Originally posted by Mace2004
Hawco you need to chill out just a bit.
ALL of the judges are Bush's cronies? Don't you think that's a little over the top or do you really believe that Bush has replaced all of those federal judges that have been appointed over what...maybe 30 years?
The simplest answer seems to be that if Bush wants to, all he has to do is issue a new executive order clearly saying what he wants. If he wants to exclude the VP then he can do it, he makes the executive branch rules, after all, he's the one in charge of it (not Congress as the Dems would have you believe)
And, as I've asked before, what evidence (as in actual facts) do you have that the VP has done anything wrong at any time? Surely there must be an indictment or conviction for someone that's as dirty as you seem to think. Or, are you just living by the 30-second sound bites put out by the left in this country? Surely you're not that gulable, or maybe you're thinking back to the Clinton administration. A guy who was actually found guilty of perjury.
get yer bellybutton out of the cockpit and feel some steel on the deck, come face to face with Cheney and the rest of them's policies and you will have a different song to sing, It's alright to sing at 20k with bits of metal flying around below you, try it up front and you'll see what i mean.
-
Originally posted by Hawco
get yer bellybutton out of the cockpit and feel some steel on the deck, come face to face with Cheney and the rest of them's policies and you will have a different song to sing, It's alright to sing at 20k with bits of metal flying around below you, try it up front and you'll see what i mean.
could someone tell me what that means?
-
Originally posted by Hawco
get yer bellybutton out of the cockpit and feel some steel on the deck, come face to face with Cheney and the rest of them's policies and you will have a different song to sing, It's alright to sing at 20k with bits of metal flying around below you, try it up front and you'll see what i mean.
Hawco, you do realize that emotion is not the same as reason? Just because you have a strong personal dislike of a man doesn't PROVE the guy merits it.
-
I am voting Dem in 2008 hoping to prove a point, with a potential two years thru 2010 to get pretty much anything done with total control of house, senate and oval office the economy will tank, taxes will go to 50%+, and nothing will get done. And it will all be blamed on Bush and Cheney.... But more important, the sheep will believe it...
You can whine about Cheney and Bush and alot of it has merit but they have not waivered on national security even with the kicking and screaming of the left and right, even realizing that border security has been an issue they inherited Bush even against party line has pushed for a resolution eroding his base of support, he is doing what he thinks is right not what the base wants.
Bush saved us from Gore, that will be his legacy.... Amazing that nobody is willing to admit that we dodged a bullet in the 2000 election with gore loosing...I guess its an inconvienant truth...
Fairness doctrine..... Affirmitive action for left leaning talk radio hosts... What a concept...
-
Tojo, among other irreversible acts the Democrats will grant amnesty to illegal aliens. Proving a point by committing suicide just isn't the answer.
-
Originally posted by T0J0
I am voting Dem in 2008 hoping to prove a point, with a potential two years thru 2010 to get pretty much anything done with total control of house, senate and oval office the economy will tank, taxes will go to 50%+, and nothing will get done. And it will all be blamed on Bush and Cheney.... But more important, the sheep will believe it...
You can whine about Cheney and Bush and alot of it has merit but they have not waivered on national security even with the kicking and screaming of the left and right, even realizing that border security has been an issue they inherited Bush even against party line has pushed for a resolution eroding his base of support, he is doing what he thinks is right not what the base wants.
Bush saved us from Gore, that will be his legacy.... Amazing that nobody is willing to admit that we dodged a bullet in the 2000 election with gore loosing...I guess its an inconvienant truth...
Fairness doctrine..... Affirmitive action for left leaning talk radio hosts... What a concept...
I wonder, would you even give credit where credit was due in the end, or have you been resigned to let your right leaning view to it's end?
This administration has GOTTEN NOTHING DONE. Nothing... zip zero zilch.
National Security? What a joke. You are no safer today than you were 8 years ago. Ports are wide open...one percent of containers even get a cursory look. In federal tests, on average, you can get through security 40 percent of the time with a loaded gun. We put up a 700 mile wall on an american border...that's 2100 miles long. (not even counting Canada) And Bush pushed that resolution, I imagine you're talkin about immigration, because his "base" only makes up 18 to 20 percent of the total number of americans. He attempted to do something the other 82 percent would approve... and looked stupid in the end, on both ends.
He cries about goverment spending... balancing the budget... The only administration that balanced the books in the past 30 years was a democrat. If you or I ran our homes like this, we would be on the street.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Tojo, among other irreversible acts the Democrats will grant amnesty to illegal aliens. Proving a point by committing suicide just isn't the answer.
It really scares me that so many people have a superiority complex. Most immigrants come here, legally or illegally, for a better life. Which, our bill of rights decrees, you can get here. Why is that so bad? We, every single one of us, are immigrants. Get over your superiority complex..what happened to "give me your poor, your tired, your hungry." Most immigrants I've worked around, work 2 to 3 times what any "american" considers normal. Hard work, a new start, and Amnesty.. Isn't that the American way?
Here is where someone will insert.. "but they just come here to live on welfare.." which is a gross over reach and is racist to boot. Plenty of our born here citizenry living in certain geographical areas, take advantage of our welfare system. There will always be those that do, yet using it as a vice to put immigrants in...is wrong.
I ask you this... would you wait the average 3-5 years it takes right now to get citizenship in your third world craphole, with no way to support your family... or would you try to enter illegally? The people you want in the country...the strong willed, will enter for the good of their family and their being... just as you would if positions were reversed.
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
National Security? What a joke. You are no safer today than you were 8 years ago.
Hillary Clinton said we are safer now than we were five years ago. She must be a right wing gunnut"neocon".
i was born in the USA, i am not a immigrant.
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
It really scares me that so many people have a superiority complex. Most immigrants come here, legally or illegally, for a better life. Which, our bill of rights decrees, you can get here. Why is that so bad? We, every single one of us, are immigrants. Get over your superiority complex..what happened to "give me your poor, your tired, your hungry." Most immigrants I've worked around, work 2 to 3 times what any "american" considers normal. Hard work, a new start, and Amnesty.. Isn't that the American way?
Here is where someone will insert.. "but they just come here to live on welfare.." which is a gross over reach and is racist to boot. Plenty of our born here citizenry living in certain geographical areas, take advantage of our welfare system. There will always be those that do, yet using it as a vice to put immigrants in...is wrong.
I ask you this... would you wait the average 3-5 years it takes right now to get citizenship in your third world craphole, with no way to support your family... or would you try to enter illegally? The people you want in the country...the strong willed, will enter for the good of their family and their being... just as you would if positions were reversed.
I don't fault the Mexicans and other Central Americans whose governments are so corrupt these people can't work. I do fault our government for selling us out for cheap labor and votes. We have laws that are being ignored. If we can be selective in which laws we enforce then why should anyone obey a law they don't particularly like? Like paying income tax for example.
-
I agree with you on that one iron. Our enforcement is a severe issue. Laws are not, or should not be, circumventable by anyone, of upper or lower class. Too often, money, either the abundance of it or lack of it, determines what laws will be followed.
-
Hello Moray,
Originally posted by MORAY37
Here is where someone will insert.. "but they just come here to live on welfare.." which is a gross over reach and is racist to boot. Plenty of our born here citizenry living in certain geographical areas, take advantage of our welfare system. There will always be those that do, yet using it as a vice to put immigrants in...is wrong.
I don't think that anyone reasonable believes that every illegal or legal immigrant from the the third world is coming here to live off the welfare system. The evidence that immigrants are currently doing much of our manual labor and low level service jobs is all around us. They pick our food, build our houses, clean our buildings, and so on. However, what is undeniable is that the massive influx of illegal immigrants is breaking our social services net. Hospital emergency rooms throughout the country are closing, and not because they are "racists," but because they cannot remain solvent and comply with the legal obligation to provide medical care to anyone who asks for it, including a huge influx of illegals who do not pay.
Additionally, it is not the immigrant laborers who are funding the services they receive. Many if not most of them pay no taxes, and their jobs are generally below the taxable level in any event. Its American taxpayers (generally families in the middle and upper classes) who fund the system, and so we have a system in which indigenous American families are essentially funding the services used by illegal immigrants via taxation. Aside from the question of whether it is fair for me to pay for services being disproportionately used by families in the United States illegally (and no one asks that question - as far as the politicos are concerned the American taxpayer apparently exists to put up and shut up), the fact is that the social services system cannot support the increasing burdens being placed upon it.
So you have three options, a massive hike in the American taxpayers financial tax burden, an end to the welfare state, or getting serious about limiting illegal immigration. The system as it stands is dangerously imbalanced, and getting worse all the time.
(BTW - I am a legal immigrant to the USA, and I do not feel "superior" in any sense to the illegal immigrants. There, but for the grace of God, go I.)
- SEAGOON
-
Most immigrants come here, legally or illegally, for a better life. Which, our bill of rights decrees, you can get here. Why is that so bad?
Absolutely nothing.....as long as they come here legally.
If they come here illegally not only are they mere criminals, but they also show a lack of respect for our laws and our country.
My grandparents on both sides came here legally.
-
Originally posted by john9001
Hillary Clinton said we are safer now than we were five years ago. She must be a right wing gunnut"neocon".
i was born in the USA, i am not a immigrant.
Clinton is wrong.... and she isn't a right wing insert whatever name you want here....she's just wrong.
-
I just wanted to point out how one side redefines the argument in order to discredit the motives of the opposition. In this case, being against illegal aliens is equated to being "anti-immigration" and racist. You must be a really, really bad person to be "anti-immigration" because, not only are you disrespecting those that came here legally and are productive members of the American society, you're also a racist. Of course, the real argument is anti-illegal immigration. Same old stuff, hyperbole rather than reason.
-
Those of you that argue the US isn't safer are not paying much attention. There have been dozens of plots which have been stopped and not a single terrorist attack within the US since 9/11 (discounting the Anthrax attacks, nobody really knows who/what was behind that). UBL, Zawahiri, Zarchai and others have called for further attacks yet none have been successful. Hummmm, I wonder why? Could it be that we're doing a better job at counter-terroism than before 9/11? Of course, it would defeat the argument if the facts of the past 7 years are mentioned....so they're not.
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
It really scares me that so many people have a superiority complex. Most immigrants come here, legally or illegally, for a better life. Which, our bill of rights decrees, you can get here. Why is that so bad?
Come visit me in North Hollywood and wake up to "day laborers" voiding their bowels on the sidewalk for about a year... There are enough street urchins around here already, I don't see the need to import bums from Mexico.
After a good sidewalk poop, its nap time in the shadow on an LAPD car.. while finishing a beer.
(http://members.dslextreme.com/users/fanofhockey/images/workers.jpg)
Also consider you're more likely to be slaughtered by an illegal alien while minding your own business, than a "terrorist":
Alfredo Ramos: illegal as a home made $4, was convicted of DUI in 2006.. wasn't deported, then on March 30, 2007 he slaughtered 2 teenage girls while drunk again.
Carlos Prieto: Blew a red light killing 50% of a family of 6 on Christmas Eve 2006.
Eduardo Raul Morales-Soriano: killed Marine Cpl. Brian Mathews, 21, and his date, Jennifer Bower, 24, on Thanksgiving night, 2006.
Guillermo Paniagua: 4 DUI arrests & zero deportations, got drunk again and killed Needville Texas Independent School District Chief of Police Ernie Mendoza on Jan. 19, 2007.
Gustavo Reyes Garcia: 14 previous arrests, never deported, slammed his SUV into Sean and Donna Wilson, killing them both.
Hector Velazquez-Nava: was driving with a BAC 3x times the legal limit, drove his SUV head on into a car slaughtering film director Bob Clark and his 22-year-old son.
The list goes on...
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55965
I spent 6 years as a cop in East LA watching illegals get away with all kinds of outlandish criminal activity, there are a-lot more hardcore stone cold criminals crossing the border than people realize; murders, rapists, child molesters, drunk drivers, gangsters... it was sickening to watch... but republicans & democrats apparently consider a few thousand dead / victimized US citizens per year as 'acceptable losses'.
Maybe kicking out 12 million people is unrealistic, but giving criminal aliens the boot on their 1st offense would be a good start.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Tojo, among other irreversible acts the Democrats will grant amnesty to illegal aliens. Proving a point by committing suicide just isn't the answer.
I also believe that we need a Dem in the oval office just to finish the job in Iraq no matter what the outcome win or loss... History of the Cuban boatlift being what it was, was amnesty, and what it did to Miami and nearby areas is a work of beauty, Carters legacy or how I destroyed a city with the signing of a documnet, easy for Carter to do when he would turn his back on South Florida as it was being torn apart by Cuban organized crime...
How does Cuban Amnesty mimic the current trend in gifts to lawbreakers crossing the border illegally..
Big business wants illegal workers, the american public doesnt...Its obvious whom controls society, Its a B movie with a bad ending...
TJ