World Events
Topic: Bush sucks; worst president in history...

#	Author	Message
321	DouglasDubh Mon 6/23/2008 5:35p	<How anyone can in one breath support this administration and then lecture on the importance of "fiscal responsibility" is beyond ludicrous at this point.> No one is supporting the fiscal responsibility of the Bush Administration. But as bad as they've been, the Republicans are still better than Democrats.
322	DouglasDubh Mon 6/23/2008 5:36p	<I showed the stats, in #277.> Your stats did not show that the Democrats only "tinkered" with the budget, while President Reagan greatly increased them. They can't show that, because it's not true.
323	DouglasDubh Mon 6/23/2008 5:40p	<But even then both you and Douglas remain staunch supporters even as far as excusing obvious War Crimes.> The only ones excusing obvious war crimes are the people who believe we should have left Saddam Hussein in power.
324	DouglasDubh Mon 6/23/2008 5:45p	<However, Congress signed a bill in 2006 which essentially pardoned this administration for anything illegal it did after 9/11/01.> While that's not true, I doubt it matters, since I doubt that the administration is guilty of war crimes.
325	Kar2oonMan Mon 6/23/2008 5:46p	>>But as bad as they've been, the Republicans are still better than Democrats.<< Well, you keep saying that, Doug. But it doesn't explain why, during teh years they held the reigns, there wasn't any improvement in spending overall. To me that's evidence that politicians of every stripe pretty much spend like crazy, given the chance. You believe the Republicans are "better" because you generally agree with the things they like to spend all our money on. A staunch Democrat would feel the same way about their party. But from the outside of both parties looking in, it's a lot of bologna that either of them attempts to claim any sort of fiscal disciline. The "credit record" of both parties is the pits. One is "better" than the other? Big deal. A person drowning a little more slowly than the person drowning quickly is still in no position to offer swimming tips, much less make sweeping claims that they are swim champions. It was the idea that the GOP would be more disciplined, not rack up all this debt and deficit spending that made me become a Republican back in the late 90's. I believed it when they said they were serious about getting our financial house in order. And what happened? They botched it, and had no one else to blame. I should take some comfort that they're "still better than Democrats would be"? The results say it really isn't so.
326	DouglasDubh Mon 6/23/2008 5:51p	<But it doesn't explain why, during teh years they held the reigns, there wasn't any improvement in spending overall.> There was in the late 1990's, but then President Bush wanted to compromise with the Democrats, and 9/11 happened.
327	DyGDisney Mon 6/23/2008 7:08p	Ever heard of the Military Commissions Act of 2006? <<"HR 6166 EH (and the Senate version which reads the same). In plain language, since the bills are deliberately obfuscatory in language; It does away with constitutional rights if the executive office decides that you are supporting terrorism in any way. That can include disagreeing with what the executive says. It suspends the right to a speedy trial, the right to trial by a jury of your peers, and if they say they think you may have had some involvement with torture, it legalizes torture and overrides the torture bill of 2005. Habeas Corpus is suspended, you do not have the right to face your accusers or to see the evidence against you, and in fact there need be no evidence. All this can be used against U.S. citizens if martial law is declared or in the absence of martial law. if you have been classed as aiding terrorism in any way. And that is the biggest danger in the bill, it gives the Executive Branch the apparent power to make you a "terrorist" with the wave of a hand and in the best tradition of totalitarianism, you just disappear. The Geneva Convention, which applies to captured enemy military is overridden ex post facto to cover war crimes already committed and any that may be. Though verbiage in the bills purports to demonstrate constitutionality, the bill is anti-constitutional and a good prelude to dictatorship.">> http://answers.yahoo.com/quest...5AAl8JJp http://www.16beavergroup.org/j...2015.php <<". Last week's congressional authorization of torture, referred to as the Military Commissions Act of 2006, basically reverses and erases any of those victories. ===================== 3. It uses a broad and sweeping definition of "unlawful enemy combatants." a. The term did not exist in any statutes. b. This category was used and exploited by the Bush Administration to undermine Geneva Conventions without allowing defendants to have any recourse to the Judicial Branch, or so was their hope. With the Supreme Court decision in Hamden, they were delivered a severe blow. c. Their hope failed and they have sought and received this act from Congress to continue what they have been doing while getting the authorization which the Hamden case insisted the President needed. Furthermore, they have sought to shield themselves through this act from any war crimes by making these laws retroactive.">>
328	DouglasDubh Mon 6/23/2008 7:53p	<Ever heard of the Military Commissions Act of 2006?> Yes, I read it the last time you brought this up. It doesn't say what your links claim it does. As I mentioned the last time, if it did, it would not have received bipartisan support.
329	DyGDisney Mon 6/23/2008 8:49p	While some Democrats voted for this bill, I wouldn't exactly call it bipartisan support. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/200...l491.xml 160 Democrat noes to 34 ayes. And the Republicans only had 7 noes.
330	DouglasDubh Mon 6/23/2008 8:54p	And it passed the Senate 65 to 34. If it said what you claim it said, it would have been filibustered, or defeated.

All times are Pacific Time (US)

Note: Information on the discussion boards is sometimes based on rumors or incorrect information and should not be assumed true. Messages do not necessarily reflect the opinion of LaughingPlace.com or its editors.

More messages:	1-10	11-20	21-30	31-40	41-50
	51-60	61-70	71-80	81-90	91-100
	101-110	111-120	121-130	131-140	141-150
	151-160	161-170	171-180	181-190	191-200
	201-210	211-220	221-230	231-240	241-250
	251-260	261-270	271-280	281-290	291-300
	301-310	311-320	321-330	331-340	341-350
	351-360	361-365

< Previous Topic

Next Topic >

You must be a registered user to post messages.
Click here to register.
After registration you will automatically be brought back to this topic

Disneyland Attraction Posters at
The LaughingPlace Store
The LaughingPlace Store now carries a Disneyland Attraction Posters from Sanders CC Gallery

What's on
The Latest
LP Guide to Bolt updated
Bolt Across America Cross-Country Journey Culminates at Red Carpet Premiere of "Bolt" 16 week tour visits 32 cities, raising awareness for the movie and for the ASPCA
Beauty and the Beast to be released in 3D in 2010
Disney's New Five-Picture Deal With IMAX to Begin With 'A Christmas Carol'
Buffalo International Film Festival presents a film benefit celebrating Mickey's 80th birthday December 13th
Disney's Hawai'i Project Begins with Ground Blessing
The Lion King to perform as part of 2008 Royal Variety Performance and BBC Radio 2's Friday Night is Music Night
Walt Disney Imagineering Earns Four Thea Awards
Travel Industry Honors Walt Disney Parks and Resorts Chairman Jay Rasulo
The Walt Disney Company Grants $1.5 Million to Reforest Fire-Ravaged Areas in Southern California

Click here for The Latest