Since it was said very plainly and clearly then you can provide some actual citations where Bush said "I’m ignoring the law and won’t follow it??"
No, I won’t. I have neither the time or the inclination to reinvestigate something I’ve already seen (live for that matter).
I’ve yet to read where you have posted any facts to support your claims and most of what you’ve put up has been opinion and spin based on your beliefs. That’s fine with me if that’s the world you want to live in. What I put forth is fact and you are free to research it on CSPAN or Google or whatever. You would, in fact, be better off finding these things for yourself and then choosing to believe whatever. There are probably videos of the press conferences lingering around…but you won’t find them on the typical spin web blogs.
OK, I will go look for the videos - he said it several times in conjunction with the NSA spying and when he signed the reauthorization of the Patriot Act.
Don’t worry if you didn’t really hear about it - almost no one I’ve talked to about it has, or realizes what it means. Right about when folks briefly called him “King George,” although the historical reference probably escaped most people.
Tom & Kingfish - I don’t think Bush ever said he wasn’t going to follow the law. He and the AG did say that he wasn’t breaking the FISA law (assuming that’s what we are talking about).
Since it was said very plainly and clearly then you can provide some actual citations where Bush said "I'm ignoring the law and won't follow it??"
I'm not really sure why I am responding to your latest post. It is so ridiculous it is obviously meant as a flame since this information has been in the public record for months. My guess is that either you live in your mamma's basement and have not been out for years or you are so enthralled by GW Bush that you refuse to hear any negative reporting about him. Either way, if you don't know about it, there is little we can do to change your mind.
The fact is that Bush has acknowledged that laws were broken (although he claims that he is above the law since he is President) and he says that he will continue the actions that are considered law breaking (both international and domestic).
Just type, "Bush breaks laws" into your browser and you will find countless NY Times and CNN articles. If that is too tough for you maybe you should just quit breathing...
Actually, that statement is a little over the top. Sorry. I guess I get offended when an otherwise intellegent person consistantly flames and acts stupid...
Tom & Kingfish - I don't think Bush ever said he wasn't going to follow the law. He and the AG did say that he wasn't breaking the FISA law (assuming that's what we are talking about).
Since it was said very plainly and clearly then you can provide some actual citations where Bush said "I’m ignoring the law and won’t follow it??"
I’m not really sure why I am responding to your latest post. It is so ridiculous it is obviously meant as a flame since this information has been in the public record for months. My guess is that either you live in your mamma’s basement and have not been out for years or you are so enthralled by GW Bush that you refuse to hear any negative reporting about him. Either way, if you don’t know about it, there is little we can do to change your mind.
The fact is that Bush has acknowledged that laws were broken (although he claims that he is above the law since he is President) and he says that he will continue the actions that are considered law breaking (both international and domestic).
Just type, “Bush breaks laws” into your browser and you will find countless NY Times and CNN articles. If that is too tough for you maybe you should just quit breathing…
Actually, that statement is a little over the top. Sorry. I guess I get offended when an otherwise intellegent person consistantly flames and acts stupid…
Leave it to DrG to claim to take the higher ground and then throw out a bunch of typical ad hominen nonsense. I read until the third sentence and quit. See why I label you guys as dividers. You definitely don’t disappoint.
It’s not being a divider for the Congress to over-see the Executive branch. Please do a little research on how our government works.
It’s not congress’s job to “over-see” the executive branch. They have powers to impeach and remove the President and approve position appointments, but they aren’t there to micromanage and regulate the executive branch.
For what it’s worth - and completely as an outsider (being Canuck and all) it seems to me that ksdb requires solid grounds when asked to state just three things that GWB has done right yet switches the bases when GWB is accused of wrong-doing.
I’m no expert and as an outsider probably I have no right to an opinion but is seems to me that if one requires solidity in one arena one must demand solidity in all arenas to be consistent - otherwise one risks being thought of as wishy-washy.
You can’t require strict definitions in one area yet accept spin in another area without expecting to be seen as one-sided. It defies common sense.
Just my opinion and, as I said, being an outsider my opinion may mean sqat.
Since it was said very plainly and clearly then you can provide some actual citations where Bush said "I’m ignoring the law and won’t follow it??"
No, I won’t. I have neither the time or the inclination to reinvestigate something I’ve already seen (live for that matter).
Of course, you can just make any claim you want and expect it to be taken verbatim.
Quote (KingFish @ April 25 2006,16:38)
I’ve yet to read where you have posted any facts to support your claims and most of what you’ve put up has been opinion and spin based on your beliefs. That’s fine with me if that’s the world you want to live in. What I put forth is fact and you are free to research it on CSPAN or Google or whatever. You would, in fact, be better off finding these things for yourself and then choosing to believe whatever. There are probably videos of the press conferences lingering around…but you won’t find them on the typical spin web blogs.
KingFish
Which facts have I posted that you question?? I’m more than happy to provide evidence (other than what Mr.Soul and Dr.G have backed up with their predictable behaviors and posts).
For what it’s worth - and completely as an outsider (being Canuck and all) it seems to me that ksdb requires solid grounds when asked to state just three things that GWB has done right yet switches the bases when GWB is accused of wrong-doing.
How did I switch ground?? I made no unwarranted claims. DrG made a demand on me, which I refused because it was a pointless and irrelevant demand. DrG admitted he was unwilling to admit Bush ever did anything “right.” The second issue is one of asking someone else to back up their claim.
Quote (BillClarke @ April 25 2006,17:12)
I’m no expert and as an outsider probably I have no right to an opinion but is seems to me that if one requires solidity in one arena one must demand solidity in all arenas to be consistent - otherwise one risks being thought of as wishy-washy.
I asked for solidity that DrG would accept positive claims about Bush. He said he would not. His response supported my earlier claim about liberals being dividers (as in not willing to reason and cooperate with others). I’m asking for solidity on claims that Bush said he wouldn’t follow the law and now I’m getting more dancing than a Shakira video.
Quote (BillClarke @ April 25 2006,17:12)
You can’t require strict definitions in one area yet accept spin in another area without expecting to be seen as one-sided. It defies common sense.
Just my opinion and, as I said, being an outsider my opinion may mean sqat.
No, I appreciate your comments. If you can find a claim that I made and did NOT substantiate at some point in the thread, point it out.
Before I respond to you, allow me to provide a little background to give you an inkling of my position. Here is a ‘Letter to The Editor’ that I wrote and which was subsequently published in the newspaper where I lived at that time. As you can tell from that letter (for which I suffered a certain amount of backlash) I was in agreement with your president’s actions at that time. I was so because I believed that anyone who could aspire to such a lofty office (yet alone attain it) must, by necessity, be a person of honour. I believed that.
Subsequently, in these very forums, I expressed my incredulity that GWB had failed to resign when it became obvious that he had acted upon flawed intelligence. I said so because I still believed that anyone who could aspire to such a lofty office (yet alone attain it) must, by necessity be a person of honour.
TomS had a good laugh at my expense at that time when I asked "What ever happened to the buck stops here?'
You see, in my naivete, I still thought that someone who could aspire to such a lofty office (yet alone attain it) must, by necessity, be a person of honour.
You have been challenged to name three little things which your current president has done that benefits the average American. Three things…yet you prevaricate.
In my politically active days I was a strong supporter of Pierre Trudeau. Many Canadians despised the man yet everyone could agree upon several - much more than three - things that he had done correctly. Even those who hated him (and they were legion) had to admit that he had some things right.
That you would even hesitate to venture a guess as to three things done by your two-term president that might be agreed upon as beneficial betrays a HUGE lack of confidence in your leadership. So vast that it is frightening in its implications.
Substantiation be damned. If you can’t defend the man with three simple examples, what the #### are you defending?
Before I respond to you, allow me to provide a little background to give you an inkling of my position. Here is a ‘Letter to The Editor’ that I wrote and which was subsequently published in the newspaper where I lived at that time. [img omitted for obvious reasons] As you can tell from that letter (for which I suffered a certain amount of backlash) I was in agreement with your president’s actions at that time. I was so because I believed that anyone who could aspire to such a lofty office (yet alone attain it) must, by necessity, be a person of honour. I believed that.
Subsequently, in these very forums, I expressed my incredulity that GWB had failed to resign when it became obvious that he had acted upon flawed intelligence. I said so because I still believed that anyone who could aspire to such a lofty office (yet alone attain it) must, by necessity be a person of honour.
TomS had a good laugh at my expense at that time when I asked "What ever happened to the buck stops here?'
You see, in my naivete, I still thought that someone who could aspire to such a lofty office (yet alone attain it) must, by necessity, be a person of honour.
You have been challenged to name three little things which your current president has done that benefits the average American. Three things…yet you prevaricate.
The demand is arbitrary and dishonest. It’s an excuse for DrG to engage in a pointless debate in which he’ll automatically disagree with everything listed and/or just start making personal insults. I owe him NOR anyone else such a list. I have made no claims on which such a list establishes any credibility or lack of.
Quote (BillClarke @ April 25 2006,18:21)
In my politically active days I was a strong supporter of Pierre Trudeau. Many Canadians despised the man yet everyone could agree upon several - much more than three - things that he had done correctly. Even those who hated him (and they were legion) had to admit that he had some things right.
That you would even hesitate to venture a guess as to three things done by your two-term president that might be agreed upon as beneficial betrays a HUGE lack of confidence in your leadership. So vast that it is frightening in its implications.
The key concept is things that “MIGHT BE AGREED UPON.” DrG has admitted he will NOT AGREE. TomS has admitted he will NOT AGREE. MrSoul usually chooses NOT TO AGREE. What really is the point of coming up with a list that will be instantly discredited?? It would be an exercise in futility.
Quote (BillClarke @ April 25 2006,18:21)
Substantiation be damned. If you can’t defend the man with three simple examples, what the #### are you defending?
Very interesting, you start by pretending to take higher ground and then end with comments that must be filtered?? Why does it matter to you whether I can come up with such a list?? Will your world view collapse without it?? This is just silly to place so much emphasis on it.
Bill, I don’t remember having a good laugh, but I suspect I did, in a strictly friendly way. By the way, didn’t your letter contain a false dichotomy? ONe can be for peace in the instant case but not in all cases. Not all of us who have said that the present war is a mistake thought, e.g., that Afghanistan was a mistake - I think that one was justified.
Bush threatens to veto Iraq funding bill Reuters - 1 hour, 49 minutes ago WASHINGTON - President George W. Bush threatened on Tuesday to veto a bill to fund the Iraq war and Hurricane Katrina rebuilding if its cost exceeds $92.2 billion, as he weighed in on a heated Senate debate over the bill’s rising price tag. The veto threat, announced in a White House statement on the $106.5 billion emergency spending measure, was aimed at placating conservatives in Bush’s Republican Party who are irate over extra items added that they deem as “special-interest” spending.
And who put the extra items in?
<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
Pet Projects Unleash Anger in Republican Ranks Items unrelated to the war or hurricane relief in an emergency bill test the resolve of senators. By Richard Simon, Times Staff Writer April 25, 2006
WASHINGTON ? Slipping pet projects into spending bills long has been a point of pride among Washington’s lawmakers. But growing discord over the practice is expected to pit Republican against Republican this week in the GOP-controlled Congress.
The major dispute involves projects contained in a “must-pass” emergency spending bill for the war in Iraq and Hurricane Katrina relief efforts. A handful of Republican senators plan to challenge several of the funding requests unrelated to the war or hurricane recovery.
The most controversial request seeks $700 million to help pay for moving railroad tracks in Mississippi. The state’s two influential GOP senators, Trent Lott and Thad Cochran, are pushing the project. But it is strongly opposed by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.).
Will your world view collapse without it?? This is just silly to place so much emphasis on it.
Look ksdb, you continue to make statements that have no basis in fact. Here is one fact that you have overlooked. I agreed with Kingfish on a couple of positive things Bush has done. So your statement, <!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
The demand is arbitrary and dishonest. It’s an excuse for DrG to engage in a pointless debate in which he’ll automatically disagree with everything listed
is just plain false.
The problem I have with your posts are more on the line of them being a flame of twisted half-truths that have no basis in real facts. You are the guy yelling fire in a crowded theater where there is no fire. That is the reason for the question about giving 3 positive things Bush has done. I wanted to see if you really had any knowledge at all or you were all bark. Obviously Kingfish has much more knowledge than either of us on positive things done by the Bush administration and I thanked him for that info.
His hydrogen cell inititive has yet to really get off the ground, but it is a real step away from oil ( I only wish it were a solar cell inititive )
But if all you have is smoke and mirrors to contribute to the conversation then you are nothing but a flame here. The question was valid and my response was honest to the positives Kingfish pointed out. So as far as my scoring goes, you are still batting .000 .
) 