Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 63
  1. #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael
    daThomas, I hope this doesn't come off condescending, but the Legislature and the Executive Branches have been wrestling for power since the beginning. Lert media mongers are quick to capture and exploit little back and forth quips like this.
    You attribute ALL of the expansion of this presiden't executive power to media mongers? And compare the power grab's of this president to any whe have seen this decade? Or this generation?
  2. #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    You attribute ALL of the expansion of this presiden't executive power to media mongers? And compare the power grab's of this president to any whe have seen this decade? Or this generation?
    That's not what he's saying. He's saying the back and forth between the branches is very real and that we are indeed seeing an expansion of executive power. His point is that this is normal and we've seen this for 200 years (go back to the founding of the republic for some perspective on this), and that elements in the media make it sound like Hitler has taken charge in Washington.
  3. #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael
    Yeah, thanks LATimes. No bias there

    daThomas, I hope this doesn't come off condescending, but the Legislature and the Executive Branches have been wrestling for power since the beginning. Lert media mongers are quick to capture and exploit little back and forth quips like this.
    I'd hardly call it a match. The Executive has assumed power that no other admin has and this Legislature has been sitting around like a lap dog. Spending also out of control.
  4. #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    That's not what he's saying. He's saying the back and forth between the branches is very real and that we are indeed seeing an expansion of executive power. His point is that this is normal and we've seen this for 200 years (go back to the founding of the republic for some perspective on this), and that elements in the media make it sound like Hitler has taken charge in Washington.
    At what point does our "very real and natural expansion of executive power" become alarming and or troubling?
  5. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #25  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    You attribute ALL of the expansion of this presiden't executive power to media mongers? And compare the power grab's of this president to any whe have seen this decade? Or this generation?
    I attribute NONE of the expansion of the presidents executive power to media mongers. Note that previous administrations went far beyond this one during times of war. Check FDR and Lincoln sometime. Lincoln would have thrown most of the staff of the NY and LA Times into jail by now.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  6. #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    At what point does our "very real and natural expansion of executive power" become alarming and or troubling?
    It should always be alarming -- we should always be aware of it. Troubling? I don't know. My gut tells me we aren't yet there, but that's just my opinion.

    Importantly, people tend to allow more executive power to those for whom they voted/would vote for again. So you are naturally going to have a wide range of opinions on the matter.
  7. #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael
    Yeah, thanks LATimes. No bias there
    http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...lines-politics
    Micael, your eye rolling puzzles me. The person lashing out at Bush on the misleading Congress story is not the LA Times but conservative republican congressman Peter Hoekstra, one of the administration's biggest cheerleaders, recently teaming up with Fox news and Rick Santorum to promote misleading information about finding WMDs.

    http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...,813044.column

    If there is any bias with Hoekstra, it is strongly in favor of the administration. That just makes his accusations all the more plausible. In the same spirit of hiding things from the public, it would not surprise me that the Bush administration is also hiding things from Congress, but to be fair we need to hear the Bush admistration's take on this before casting judgement.

    However, either way, I would say it does not look good for Bush. If this is real, then this could represent a new milestone in this administration's abuse of executive power, if this is not real, this just shows how eroded President Bush's ability to function is, when his own cheerleaders are now turning against him politically.
  8. #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael
    Note that previous administrations went far beyond this one during times of war.
    I question this status and the comparison to the other two "times of war".

    That's really quite a stretch.
  9. #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Here is Bush's oath at swearing in.

    "I do solemnly swear 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."

    Discuss.
    This argument is not as powerful as you think it is. Federal judges and congress take similar oaths. So to the extent that all three branches of government disagree at any point, for whatever reason, you would be implying one of the three is committing a "Lie??" What you fail to recognize here is that there are differing opinions out there.
  10. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
       #30  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    This argument is not as powerful as you think it is. Federal judges and congress take similar oaths. So to the extent that all three branches of government disagree at any point, for whatever reason, you would be implying one of the three is committing a "Lie??" What you fail to recognize here is that there are differing opinions out there.
    Oh I see and recognize differing opinions, and they are usally down party lines. But as I have stated many times, we have a system of checks and balances, and this admin is doing everything it can to subvert that system.
  11. #31  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Oh I see and recognize differing opinions, and they are usally down party lines. But as I have stated many times, we have a system of checks and balances, and this admin is doing everything it can to subvert that system.
    You can say that all you want, but by listing the contents of the oat of office, you're saying Bush is lying. What I'm pointing out is that unless you think everyone is a liar, you can't say he is, based on the "evidence" you presented.
  12. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
       #32  
    Quote Originally Posted by Ramsauer
    You can say that all you want, but by listing the contents of the oat of office, you're saying Bush is lying. What I'm pointing out is that unless you think everyone is a liar, you can't say he is, based on the "evidence" you presented.
    He was sworn to uphold and protect the constitution, which many will argue Bush has not.
  13. #33  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    He was sworn to uphold and protect the constitution, which many will argue Bush has not.
    But my point is that EVERYONE in gov't swears that. So to the extent that they don't always agree on anything, you're calling them liars. You're confusing your interpretation of the Executive's actions with the Executive's intent (required to lie). You're making a point, but not the one you said you were making.
  14. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
       #34  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    But my point is that EVERYONE in gov't swears that. So to the extent that they don't always agree on anything, you're calling them liars.
    I understand that, but is what I am saying, is that not everyone creates policy that runs askew of the constitution.

    Quote Originally Posted by KRaumsauer
    You're confusing your interpretation of the Executive's actions with the Executive's intent (required to lie). You're making a point, but not the one you said you were making.
    But, what if I felt he had this planned before he took office?
  15. #35  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Hear, hear!
    Hear what?
  16. #36  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    I understand that, but is what I am saying, is that not everyone creates policy that runs askew of the constitution.
    Or carefully crafts policy in order to circumvent the constitution, as if it were simply an impediment to his will.
  17. #37  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    I understand that, but is what I am saying, is that not everyone creates policy that runs askew of the constitution.
    In your opinion. That is my point: you're presenting your opinion as fact. Just because you ask a question before hand, doesn't mean what you say next is true.

    I don't think George W. Bush believes he has run askew of the consitution. I think he believes he is 100% in line with the document and the wishes of its framers. You have a different opinion. That is the point of this thread, not "Did Bush Lie? After all, he has been willingly violating the constitution left and right."
  18. #38  
    Before I saw the Darkside Frontline documentary, I would have said he lied his *** off. That is to say, more than most president's do, but now it seems more and more W is just along for the ride.
  19. #39  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Before I saw the Darkside Frontline documentary...
    Still haven't seen it. Maybe I'll watch it on my treo during my next plane trip. :-)
  20. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #40  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...lines-politics
    Micael, your eye rolling puzzles me. The person lashing out at Bush on the misleading Congress story is not the LA Times but conservative republican congressman Peter Hoekstra, one of the administration's biggest cheerleaders, recently teaming up with Fox news and Rick Santorum to promote misleading information about finding WMDs.

    http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...,813044.column

    If there is any bias with Hoekstra, it is strongly in favor of the administration. That just makes his accusations all the more plausible. In the same spirit of hiding things from the public, it would not surprise me that the Bush administration is also hiding things from Congress, but to be fair we need to hear the Bush admistration's take on this before casting judgement.

    However, either way, I would say it does not look good for Bush. If this is real, then this could represent a new milestone in this administration's abuse of executive power, if this is not real, this just shows how eroded President Bush's ability to function is, when his own cheerleaders are now turning against him politically.
    Of course theres bias in Hoekstra. He's a politician. This isn't a partisan scuffle, but one between the branches.

    And what's misleading about the WMD's that they found in Iraq? Wouldn't you say that "there were no WMD's in Iraq" is now the misleading mantra? Or is this going to fall into one of the infamous "gray areas" liberals like to paint.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions