Quote:
Originally Posted by scout
It takes 60 votes to get something passed in the Senate, can you name something they democrats actually stopped rather than name something they failed to pass? If it takes shutting down the government to prevent any further losses of our constitutional rights don't you think it would be worth it? I think the Democrats failed to grasp it wasn't an anti-war vote in 2006 that allowed them to take control of both houses but rather a anti-Patriot Act and a gluttonous out of control Republican party that gave the majority to the Democrats. Instead of at least attempting to impeach Bush for lying about Iraq and locking the government down for a couple years until we could get real change in the oval office they attempted a bunch of anti-war and other crap that didn't fly and became really confused as to what the hell we sent them there for. They are still confused and spewing two year old rhetoric. Here's a clue, Americans want real change and not business as usual. Most Americans prefer the war to be fought across the pond rather than in our back yard. Most Americans want an economic package that includes some good paying manufacturing and high tech jobs. Most Americans are bewildered at the size of our governments debt load and we don't want to be taxed to death to pay it down. If that means downsizing the government and giving up a few government gimmes so be it. We realize there has to be taxes and we just want everyone to pay their fair share, no more no less. We don't want to have to prop up the economy by swapping houses and being able to get loans we can't afford. We want clean reusable energy and if that means we inconvenience, not obliterate, a few bugs, bats and other mammals in the process so be it. We gotta do what we have to do to decrease our dependence on foreign oil. Most Americans are Christians and we would like a little morality in our government and by everyone in public places. Like it or not this country was founded by Christians on Christian values and most Americans like it that way. What you do in your own home we really don't give a damn but please quit trying to push this free for all do anything you want where ever you want way far left twist down our throats. And most of all we want our personal freedoms back and a check on big brother and if that means locking down government for a year or two until we get it back so be it. I could go on and on but I won't, it's useless.
Now you all can slam me and post your thousand links to disprove everything I've said and I don't care. Which ever party finally figures it out and gets their collective heads out of their asses before November will probably be the one that takes the oval office this year.
|
Regardless if we agree on specifics your point is on target.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
ace....correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds to me like you support the Gonzales interpretation of the Constitution....that Article 2 of the Constitution gives the President the sole Constitutional authority to determine the power of the Executive Branch under that same Article 2.
|
That is not my view.
Quote:
Sorry, but the Constitution does not have a bias to the Executive Branch. "The buck stops at the Executive Branch" is not a Constitutional provision or mandate, but simply a folksy saying by a former president...
|
Yea, that is correct. And I agree that folksy sayings have no Constitutional value.
Quote:
I will look forward to your support of Hillary if/when her EOP staff destroy millions of WH e-mails (including some that might be potentially incriminating of a criminal action), withholds documents and prohibits EOP staff from testifying under oath at Congressional oversight investigations on dubious claims of executive privilege, orders the Secret Service to classify WH visitor logs to keep the public from knowing when criminals (ie Jack Abaramoff) visit, issues more signing statements than the last 10 presidents combined in order to alter the intent of laws enacted by Congress, interprets other US laws and treaty obligations rather than leaving it to the Judiciary.......
|
I respect the fact that a President has to make tough decisions under tough circumstances. Presidents will make mistakes. I have no problem with any President making a mistake when they are acting in the best interest of the country. I would support a Ms. Clinton under those circumstances. However, my original point is that you really won't find much difference in her approach to the Executive office and Executive power than Bush.