A disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person would wade into.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
you realize my wife is eact coast Jewish, right?

Echt coast jewish?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
recruit Wonk to speak. he'll amuse everyone with anecdotes of who he wants dead.

"Go fuck yourself!"

[Tyrone Slothrop]

How many soldiers will die to get Bush a five-point bump in the polls?

NBC News:

• Interestingly enough, one administration official admitted to us today that this surge option is more of a political decision than a military one because the American people have run out of patience and President Bush is running out of time to achieve some kind of success in Iraq.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
How many soldiers will die to get Bush a five-point bump in the polls?

How many Democrats were bitching about troop levels being too low, just before Bush announced he was raising troop levels?

I'm guessing the answer is similar to the one for "How many Democrats were crying about voter machine fraud, just before the won back the House and Senate?"

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Given that the President has fairly broad discretion in executing the laws enacted, it seems of minor importance that he makes a statement in conjunction with signing a bill as to how he intends to execute them.

Say he doesn't make the signing statement, but goes ahead and opens mail according to his plan. Someone either sues or doesn't sue. If someone sues, he argues the exigent circumstances justify the warrantless search. Plaintiff counters that bill says he can't do that. Bush says two things: 1) constitution trumps legislation anyway, and 2) wasn't my understanding, see signing statement.

So it's only when you've gotten that far down the chain of events the signing statement really matters.

This is absolutely correct -- IF you assume that Bush, and the Executive Branch under him, would think "I don't like this law, therefore I won't follow it."

I was giving Bush and the Executive Branch the benefit of the doubt, and assuming that their thought process would be "I don't like this law -- is there some basis for me to claim an exception?".

If the latter is their thought process, then the signing statement makes a difference -- in an extra-legal, anti-Constitutional, un-American way.

If the former is their thought process -- in other words, if you are saying that Bush and those he appoints are simply criminals with no regard for law -- then, yes, the signing statement functions as a warning of their intent to violate the law.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
How many Democrats were bitching about troop levels being too low, just before Bush announced he was raising troop levels?

I'm guessing the answer is similar to the one for "How many Democrats were crying about voter machine fraud, just before the won back the House and Senate?"

In general, I think Dems were criticizing Bush for failing to start with enough troops.

That criticism doesn't equal support for the idea that the pooch can be unscrewed 3.5 years after the fact.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
In general, I think Dems were criticizing Bush for failing to start with enough troops.
.

"In general" is not a term that can be used when describing Democrats. Their criticisms of Bush run all over the place. If they could come up with a unified criticism and solution, then their criticisms might be less ripe, but they never have done that and never will.

They don't offer an alternate course of action, they just offer a bunch of contradictory criticisms.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
"In general" is not a term that can be used when describing Democrats. Their criticisms of Bush run all over the place. If they could come up with a unified criticism and solution, then their criticisms might be less ripe, but they never have done that and never will.

They don't offer an alternate course of action, they just offer a bunch of contradictory criticisms.

(a) That is arguably better than unified and cohesive stupidity, in that the latter has a better chance to become damaging policy; and

(b) I would have thought you'd appreciate the menu of criticism/options for our President to consider in his newly found spirit of bipartisan cooperation.

S_A_M

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
(a) That is arguably better than unified and cohesive stupidity, in that the latter has a better chance to become damaging policy;
S_A_M

Right. Instead it leads to lack of a policy, and allowing Osama to fully control a country and train 20000 jihadis.

To-may-to to-ma-toe.

[Hank Chinaski]

anyone know what Jewish congressmen have "sworn on" in the past? bible/torah?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
"In general" is not a term that can be used when describing Democrats. Their criticisms of Bush run all over the place. If they could come up with a unified criticism and solution, then their criticisms might be less ripe, but they never have done that and never will.

They don't offer an alternate course of action, they just offer a bunch of contradictory criticisms.

Whereas in the free market of ideas, the Republicans offer central planning.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
anyone know what Jewish congressmen have "sworn on" in the past? bible/torah?

Rep. Schultz used a Tanakh (the Hebrew Bible, apparently) during her swearing-in ceremony in 2005.

I read somewhere that for his swearing-in, Ellison got and will use the copy of the Koran that was once owned by Thomas Jefferson. Clever.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
(a) That is arguably better than unified and cohesive stupidity, in that the latter has a better chance to become damaging policy; and

Is it? Having a plan and sticking to it, even if it has a small chance of success, is better than having no plan and simply reacting to daily events.

In any event, if Bush's plan was clearly "stupid" then the alternative would have been obvious, and the Democrats would be unified around that alternative. But that is clearly not the case.

If the Bush administration's approach to the war has been "stupid' then the array of contradcitory criticisms coming from the Democrats has been beyond moronic.

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man (b) I would have thought you'd appreciate the menu of criticism/options for our President to consider in his newly found spirit of bipartisan cooperation.

S_A_M

I want the president to consider all alternatives presented by reasonable and thoughtful people. That would exclude almost all Democrat members of congress.

[nononono]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Rep. Schultz used a Tanakh (the Hebrew Bible, apparently) during her swearing-in ceremony in 2005.

I read somewhere that for his swearing-in, Ellison got and will use the copy of the Koran that was once owned by Thomas Jefferson. Clever.

Yes, Virgil Goode is probably less than thrilled.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Right. Instead it leads to lack of a policy, and allowing Osama to fully control a country and train 20000 jihadis.

To-may-to to-ma-toe.

Please point me to the GOP geniuses -- including Chinaski -- talking about what we should do in and to Afghanistan pre-9/11.

This is self-serving, revisionist history and crap.

S_A_M