NEWS FLASH !!

[Guest Guest]

Actually it's the Supremes that overstepped their authority. What's next, Ginsberg  deciding on troop movements ??  Bush will ignore them, although publicly he says he'll comply.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're probably right, Bush is just a little cowboy who thinks he's above the law and you are damn stupid for thinking that's a good thing.

But hypocritical little twit that you are you only like the Supremes when you agree with them.

YOU have the typical Conservative-Republican concept of Freedom of Speech--People are free to say what you want to hear.

You'll probably fuel your holiday cook-out with burnong books.

[Guest Guest]

Actually it's the Supremes that overstepped their authority. What's next, Ginsberg  deciding on troop movements ??  Bush will ignore them, although publicly he says he'll comply.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The fact that you would so happily support a president who by your own statement would ignore the law of the land shows what little belief you actually have in the American system.

Just a little NEWSFLASH for you, there are no laws on the books that you need obey only if you like them and if you think the president should be setting any other precedent you are truly a deranged SOB.

[Guest Guest]

Actually it's the Supremes that overstepped their authority. What's next, Ginsberg  deciding on troop movements ??  Bush will ignore them, although publicly he says he'll comply.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So................"Bush will ignore them, although publicly he says he'll comply."?

And you back this man? This man who starts a war to allegedly help a country establish a government and a rule of law?

And you would back his ignoring the law?.

Congratulations!!

By your own statement you've just confirmed what HYPOCRITICAL BASTARDS YOU BOTH ARE!

[Guest Guest]

Actually it's the Supremes that overstepped their authority. What's next, Ginsberg  deciding on troop movements ??  Bush will ignore them, although publicly he says he'll comply.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just what we need, a supposed leader who believes the law is whatever HE says it is. Seems like we've spent an awful lot of blood and money half way around the world to remove someone like that from power.

Call your doctor, the meds aren't working.

[Guest Loki]

Have you been able to find the clause that tasks the government with remaking the world in our image or nation-building?  Damned if I can.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The ability to wage war is firmly entrenched as a presidential power. I am, however, looking for the clause where YOU need to agree with the president's judgement. You didn't counter my argument, you did the usual, let's bash Bush.

If you want to argue, please apply logic. The "Oh yeah, well Bush did this. . . . " argument lacks credibility.

"It's better to remain quiet and let others think you a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." I don't know if that helps. HAR HAR!!!!

[Guest Guest]

The ability to wage war is firmly entrenched as a presidential power.  I am, however, looking for the clause where YOU need to agree with the president's judgement.  You didn't counter my argument, you did the usual, let's bash Bush.

If you want to argue, please apply logic.  The "Oh yeah, well Bush did this. . . . " argument lacks credibility.

"It's better to remain quiet and let others think you a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."  I don't know if that helps.  HAR HAR!!!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Getting a little sensitive about the cowbiy?

It was a simple question, YOU claim many hours scouring the Constitution so it was a simple question with NO mention of"Bush did this". Has NOTHING to do with the ABILITY to wage war but the with the INTENTION.

By not reading the question and giving an irrelevant answer you are the one removing doubt of who's a fool.

HAR HAR HAR!!!

[Guest Guest]

The ability to wage war is firmly entrenched as a presidential power.  I am, however, looking for the clause where YOU need to agree with the president's judgement.  You didn't counter my argument, you did the usual, let's bash Bush.

If you want to argue, please apply logic.  The "Oh yeah, well Bush did this. . . . " argument lacks credibility.

"It's better to remain quiet and let others think you a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."  I don't know if that helps.  HAR HAR!!!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There was NO mention of Bush doing/not doing anything in the question nor about whether the ability to wage war was a presidentilal power and I hardly think the president can wage war without the approval of Congress. How nice of you to make up a question and then answer your own question.

[Guest Guest]

The ability to wage war is firmly entrenched as a presidential power.  I am, however, looking for the clause where YOU need to agree with the president's judgement.  You didn't counter my argument, you did the usual, let's bash Bush.

If you want to argue, please apply logic.  The "Oh yeah, well Bush did this. . . . " argument lacks credibility.

"It's better to remain quiet and let others think you a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."  I don't know if that helps.  HAR HAR!!!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Typical WANKER

Claims to have spent "countless hours scouring " the Constitution

Asked a simple question about the Constitution

Can't be bothered to read and understand the question

Answers a question that wasn't asked

Insinuates someone else is a fool

READY! FIRE! AIM!

On the big screen fool detector you are a large blip.

[Guest The George Who Would Be King]

The Supreme court is destroying the power of the people. When the people vote and the out come is not what the  libs want they run to court and have the vote overturned. That's bull shit! What ever happened to the people have spoken. This country is screwed we the people don't stand a chance. They will jam what ever they want down our throats. And then they wonder why people don't vote??? Hey, maybe they want it that way.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are so right, this more than 200 year old system just doesn't work, this system of checks and balances is just too damn complicated and hard to understand. We only need one thing, one amendment that cancels everything else and puts a crown on the one in power, it stays there until a successful coup d' etat, yeah, that's the ticket, Rules of dynasty to be added later.

Trust me, it'll be great, I'll decide everything without bothering anyone for their opinions. If you don't like what I say we'll even open the gate in the fence and let you out, promise.

[Guest Radadgast]

The ability to wage war is firmly entrenched as a presidential power.  I am, however, looking for the clause where YOU need to agree with the president's judgement.  You didn't counter my argument, you did the usual, let's bash Bush.

If you want to argue, please apply logic.  The "Oh yeah, well Bush did this. . . . " argument lacks credibility.

"It's better to remain quiet and let others think you a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."  I don't know if that helps.  HAR HAR!!!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

'The ability to wage war is firmly entrenched as a presidential power'

Now, Loki ... you know that's not true. Bush had to lie to Congress in order to get his blank check for the the Iraqi boondoggle and bloodbath. Thus, Bush needs to keep his Republican lackies in office if he expects to continue his endless war. If he loses either House of Congress this November ... its over. You can't fight a war without money.

Perhaps even he is over. I can see the headline now: "Judiciary Chairman Conyers gavels the Impeachment Hearings to Order" ... we shall see.

[Guest Guest]

'The ability to wage war is firmly entrenched as a presidential power'

Now, Loki ... you know that's not true. Bush had to lie to Congress in order to get his blank check for the the Iraqi boondoggle and bloodbath. Thus, Bush needs to keep his Republican lackies in office if he expects to continue his endless war. If he loses either House of Congress this November ... its over. You can't fight a war without money.

Perhaps even he is over. I can see the headline now: "Judiciary Chairman Conyers gavels the Impeachment Hearings to Order" ... we shall see.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Hillary, members of the Senate Select Committee all made similar claims about reasons to go to war, and yet Bush is the only liar.

Somewhere in that forest, if you look close enough, are trees.

For all the banter about how Clinton shouldn't have been impeached, I offer this. I don't agree that Clinton should have been removed from office over his misdeeds, however, if he were, Al Gore would have been president (as per the rules of succession.) If Richard Nixon were impeached and removed, YOUR pillar of truth and justice, John Conyers, was ready to forego these rules and install a Dem as president. I love History, don't you?????

[Guest BushBacker]

'The ability to wage war is firmly entrenched as a presidential power'

Now, Loki ... you know that's not true. Bush had to lie to Congress in order to get his blank check for the the Iraqi boondoggle and bloodbath. Thus, Bush needs to keep his Republican lackies in office if he expects to continue his endless war. If he loses either House of Congress this November ... its over. You can't fight a war without money.

Perhaps even he is over. I can see the headline now: "Judiciary Chairman Conyers gavels the Impeachment Hearings to Order" ... we shall see.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"Boondoggle and bloodbath" ?? You're dreaming. Iraq will go down as the beginning of the end for worldwide terrorism, and Bush will be credited with having the courage to take the fight to the enemy.

[Guest Guest]

"Boondoggle and bloodbath" ??  You're dreaming.  Iraq will go down as the beginning of the end for worldwide terrorism, and Bush will be credited with having the courage to take the fight to the enemy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's more likely Iraq will inspire more terrorists in other countries to hate the US.

[Guest Radagast]

"John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Hillary, members of the Senate Select Committee all made similar claims about reasons to go to war, and yet Bush is the only liar.

Somewhere in that forest, if you look close enough, are trees."

Only the Executive Branch ( CIA, Pentagon ..) had access to ALL the intel. BushCo cherry picked what they wanted to hear and passed it on to Congress. That's a pretty well established fact. Welcome to the trees.

"For all the banter about how Clinton shouldn't have been impeached, I offer this.  I don't agree that Clinton should have been removed from office over his misdeeds, however, if he were, Al Gore would have been president (as per the rules of succession.)  If Richard Nixon were impeached and removed, YOUR pillar of truth and justice, John Conyers, was ready to forego these rules and install a Dem as president.  I love History, don't you?????"

I browsed every far out right wing piece of doo-doo I can find on the internet and I can't even find a reference to Conyers wanting to replace Nixon with a Democrat. What far corner of Michelle Malkin's butt did you find that little 'historical' tid-bit in?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Guest Guest]

I browsed every far out right wing piece of doo-doo I can find on the internet and I can't even find a reference to Conyers wanting to replace Nixon with a Democrat. What far corner of Michelle Malkin's butt did you find that little 'historical' tid-bit in?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Welcome to NeoCon world operating in the fine tradition of Joe McCarthy. Just blather a lot, factual basis is optional. Don't like a law? Just ignore it and issue a signing statement.

[Guest Loki]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"Far corner of Michelle Malkin's butt."?? Another piece of understanding and tolerance for the "big tent party". Love diversity, as long as it doesn't include political disagreement.

Rad, I for one, thought you had thicker skin.

[Guest Radagast]

"Far corner of Michelle Malkin's butt."??  Another piece of understanding and tolerance for the "big tent party".  Love diversity, as long as it doesn't include political disagreement.

Rad, I for one, thought you had thicker skin.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I guess one of the most frustrating things about a discussion of contentious issues is when instead of coming up with a better argument, admitting they're wrong or just keeping their mouth shut, some folks just make stuff up. The comment that I was refering to, 'John Conyers tried to put a Democrat in as President to replace Nixon' or something along those lines, was silly on the face of it but I thought maybe this was something that was floationg around the wingnut area of the blogsphere. So I put put my rubber gloves on and googled every right wing site that refered to John Conyers. Nothing. Not one mention of replacing Nixon with a Democrat. Even if it was his desire, it would have been a bit of a Constitutional hurdle with Gerald Ford as VP and at the time the Democrats didn't have the contempt for the Constituion that the Republicans of today seem to.

As radical as Conyers might seem to some today, he was a lot more pro-active (ya like that word?) when he was younger. I give the wingnuts like Malkin, Coulter and others credit. Even though they often lie through their teeth, their lies have plausibilty or 'legs'. They are believable on first glance until you research what they say and come up with vapor. Of course, their followers don't question them so they get away with saying damn near anything.

Thus the reference to Ms. Malkin's posterior since that is where many of her rantings are pulled from from. You're right, I have little tolerance for lies and/or nonsense.