A king is crowned? Bush says he does not consider himself bound to tell Congress how the Patriot Act's powers being used

[Harvey]

I wrote my state's Senators and others with the link to the story and this message:

What "height" must Geoge Bush's crimes reach, or how far amiss must his demeanor be, before we can remove this criminal President for his complete evisceration and betrayal of the U.S. and its Constitution?

If you think I'm pissed, you underestimate the depth of my disgust with der wannabe führer, George Adolf Bushler and his criminal gang. :|

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Somehow, the Whitehouse seems to think that they can alter a bill signed into law with a disclaimer... Just more of their "In Your Face!" attitude, you congressional biatches...

It's as if the Bushistas are daring the electorate to install a Democratic congress to impeach them out of office... and it just might work...

I come from a long line of Republicans and they are ALL so fed up with what is going on that if things don't change soon I believe they would even vote for Hillary come 2008. This Novemember is going to be a bellwether of what's to come.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Read much? What I said was: "Someone like Dean who caters to the most extreme parts of the leftwing of America's politics."
This is an accurate characterization of Dean. He did cater to the far left. Both he and Kucinich did. ...

Is that a fact? How so? Based on his track record as governor, he's pretty conservative fiscally. What are his specific positions and policies that offset this to make him not only left of center, but someone who "who caters to the most extreme parts of the leftwing of America's politics?" I assume you can provide credible sources demonstrating his support for full socialism, eliminating private industry, banning all firearms, legalizing all controlled substances, eliminating animal testing (and maybe even all meat products), etc., right?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Read much? What I said was: "Someone like Dean who caters to the most extreme parts of the leftwing of America's politics."
This is an accurate characterization of Dean. He did cater to the far left. Both he and Kucinich did. ...

Is that a fact? How so? Based on his track record as governor, he's pretty conservative fiscally. What are his specific positions and policies that offset this to make him not only left of center, but someone who "who caters to the most extreme parts of the leftwing of America's politics?" I assume you can provide credible sources demonstrating his support for full socialism, eliminating private industry, etc., right?

Ah yes, the prove-complete-extremism-or-go-home argument. Politics in a democracy is about appearances, not reality. It is about ideology, not experience. It is about affiliation, not education. It's about getting voters to vote for you, not actually living up to your campaign promises. Dean didn't lose the primaries in 2004 because of his track record. 99.99% of the voters were and still are completely unaware of his actual track record. He lost because he made a fool of himself on national TV and for no other reason. Any hope that he ever had in his entire life of acheiving the presidency died on that day. What part about this is so hard to understand?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Vic

I would hope that the Democrats would take some self-responsibility and finally begin to look inward at what actually went wrong instead of subscribing to conspiracy theories. If not, we're gonna have another Republican clown in office in 2009, and that would really piss me off.

Here's my tip: Clinton was moderate centrist who appealed even to people on the right side of the spectrum. Dems will always vote Dem, Pubs will always vote Pub. The votes in the middle are the ones that win elections.

Oh come on, there isn't anyone "in the middle" anymore.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Read much? What I said was: "Someone like Dean who caters to the most extreme parts of the leftwing of America's politics."
This is an accurate characterization of Dean. He did cater to the far left. Both he and Kucinich did. ...

Is that a fact? How so? Based on his track record as governor, he's pretty conservative fiscally. What are his specific positions and policies that offset this to make him not only left of center, but someone who "who caters to the most extreme parts of the leftwing of America's politics?" I assume you can provide credible sources demonstrating his support for full socialism, eliminating private industry, etc., right?

Ah yes, the prove-complete-extremism-or-go-home argument. Politics in a democracy is about appearances, not reality. It is about ideology, not experience. It is about affiliation, not education. It's about getting voters to vote for you, not actually living up to your campaign promises. Dean didn't lose the primaries in 2004 because of his track record. 99.99% of the voters were and still are completely unaware of his actual track record. He lost because he made a fool of himself on national TV and for no other reason. Any hope that he ever had in his entire life of acheiving the presidency died on that day. What part about this is so hard to understand?

Dean didn't make a fool of himself on national TV. That was a distorted view of his "Yeah!" scream. His mic had been isolated and crowd noise removed and it became the darling soundbite of the Limbaughs and Hannitys and spread like wildfire after that.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: conjur
Dean didn't make a fool of himself on national TV. That was a distorted view of his "Yeah!" scream. His mic had been isolated and crowd noise removed and it became the darling soundbite of the Limbaughs and Hannitys and spread like wildfire after that.

Originally posted by: Vic
Politics in a democracy is about appearances, not reality.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Oh come on, there isn't anyone "in the middle" anymore.

It doesn't matter how many are "in the middle." The simple fact is that they decide elections. You'd vote Dem if Hitler was running on the ticket. Pubs would vote Pub if Stalin was on their ticket. There's no point in parties catering to their own kind. They have to reach out to the middle and the other side in order to get the number of votes necessary to win. Hence, why Reagan was called "The Great Communicator" and why he won landslide elections.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: conjur
Dean didn't make a fool of himself on national TV. That was a distorted view of his "Yeah!" scream. His mic had been isolated and crowd noise removed and it became the darling soundbite of the Limbaughs and Hannitys and spread like wildfire after that.

Originally posted by: Vic
Politics in a democracy is about appearances, not reality.

It wasn't "appearances". It was propaganda spread by the GOP's catapaults and spread by the "liberal" media.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Oh come on, there isn't anyone "in the middle" anymore.

It doesn't matter how many are "in the middle." The simple fact is that they decide elections. You'd vote Dem if Hitler was running on the ticket. Pubs would vote Pub if Stalin was on their ticket. There's no point in parties catering to their own kind. They have to reach out to the middle and the other side in order to get the number of votes necessary to win. Hence, why Reagan was called "The Great Communicator" and why he won landslide elections.

Not true. I bash Democrats as well.

Just not as much because the Republicans are in total control of the demolition of this Country.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: conjur
Dean didn't make a fool of himself on national TV. That was a distorted view of his "Yeah!" scream. His mic had been isolated and crowd noise removed and it became the darling soundbite of the Limbaughs and Hannitys and spread like wildfire after that.

Originally posted by: Vic
Politics in a democracy is about appearances, not reality.

It wasn't "appearances". It was propaganda spread by the GOP's catapaults and spread by the "liberal" media.

There's a difference?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Read much? What I said was: "Someone like Dean who caters to the most extreme parts of the leftwing of America's politics."
This is an accurate characterization of Dean. He did cater to the far left. Both he and Kucinich did. ...

Is that a fact? How so? Based on his track record as governor, he's pretty conservative fiscally. What are his specific positions and policies that offset this to make him not only left of center, but someone who "who caters to the most extreme parts of the leftwing of America's politics?" I assume you can provide credible sources demonstrating his support for full socialism, eliminating private industry, etc., right?

Ah yes, the prove-complete-extremism-or-go-home argument.

Great, another one. Did you even bother to read what I was responding to? SoG asserts that Dean "caters to the most extreme parts of the leftwing of America's politics." I am simply demonstrating that SoG is FoS. "What about that is so hard to understand?"

:roll:

Politics in a democracy is about appearances, not reality. It is about ideology, not experience. It is about affiliation, not education. It's about getting voters to vote for you, not actually living up to your campaign promises. Dean didn't lose the primaries in 2004 because of his track record. 99.99% of the voters were and still are completely unaware of his actual track record. He lost because he made a fool of himself on national TV and for no other reason. Any hope that he ever had in his entire life of acheiving the presidency died on that day. What part about this is so hard to understand?

First, I'll assume you're directing your rebuttal to SoG since I made no claims about why Dean lost.

Second, no, Dean really didn't lose because "he made a fool of himself on national TV and for no other reason". He lost because he was a threat to the party establishment and because the so-called "liberal" media took an incredibly distorted clip and saturated the airwaves with it, painting him as a fool and trashing his credibility. That single example more clearly demolishes the myth of the "liberal" media than 100 scientific studies could.

 

[Jhhnn]

Nice dodge, Vic. I ask for specifics, and you deliberately avoid them, much like the Rightwing, offering instead the usual cryptic comments about "image" and about Bush being the wetdream prez if he were a Dem... putting it all in terms of "ideology". You offer that I should get back in touch with reality, then basically claim that there isn't any other than the alternate kind created in rightwing thinktanks.

Shades does no better, but then I wouldn't expect more than wash, rinse and repeat from that quarter. Dean's message was largely one of fiscal responsibility, deliberately obfuscated today by his detractors with the usual unsubstantiated raving about how he catered to leftists. No actual substantiation is ever offered, no specific issues, merely the usual smear...

I won't argue that modern politics is largely a matter of creating images, and that the truth in such can be missing entirely, at least to a point. OTOH, how can denial of congressional oversight of domestic snooping be spun into an image of freedom and liberty? Or of the often touted idea of bipartisanship, when it plays against the express wishes of his own party now running congress?

 

[Aisengard]

I just wish the Democratic party leadership will vote correctly next time. They are as much to blame as anyone on the Right.

Come on delegates, why didn't you vote for who you really wanted?

 

[sandmanwake]

What do you guys think if we have a system where there is at least three parties and if one party has the majority in Congress, then they are barred from having anyone from their party run for President? We set the election years up so that there's never any Presidential election during the same year as Congressional election. Seems to me now that if one party controls both the Executive branch and the Legislative branch, then there can't be any real checks and balance between the two branches.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Nice dodge, Vic. I ask for specifics, and you deliberately avoid them, much like the Rightwing, offering instead the usual cryptic comments about "image" and about Bush being the wetdream prez if he were a Dem... putting it all in terms of "ideology". You offer that I should get back in touch with reality, then basically claim that there isn't any other than the alternate kind created in rightwing thinktanks.

Shades does no better, but then I wouldn't expect more than wash, rinse and repeat from that quarter. Dean's message was largely one of fiscal responsibility, deliberately obfuscated today by his detractors with the usual unsubstantiated raving about how he catered to leftists. No actual substantiation is ever offered, no specific issues, merely the usual smear...

I won't argue that modern politics is largely a matter of creating images, and that the truth in such can be missing entirely, at least to a point. OTOH, how can denial of congressional oversight of domestic snooping be spun into an image of freedom and liberty? Or of the often touted idea of bipartisanship, when it plays against the express wishes of his own party now running congress?

Your capacity for self-delusion is simply amazing. I imagine it's the only way you're able to see in your black-and-white world.
Most of what you claim I said is nothing that I actually said, and the reason I didn't answered your specific questions is because they were irrelevant and I am not your dog to beg at your command.

 

[Jhhnn]

From Vic-

"Go back to the center, Dems. If you don't, and if you continue to cater to the extremist left, your party will be dead by 2012."

From Jhhnn-

"So, uhh, if Dems are catering to the "extremist left", then there must be specific issues involved- what are they?"

From Vic-

"Try getting back "in touch" first. See reality, not your beliefs. Here's your first tip: if Bush was a Democrat, he would be their wet dream President."

And then this, from Vic-

"Politics in a democracy is about appearances, not reality."

First it's about reality, then it's about appearances- or are the two merely interchangeable terms, their usage controlled by circumstance?

And, much later, from Vic, after the question has been pressed-

"Your capacity for self-delusion is simply amazing. I imagine it's the only way you're able to see in your black-and-white world.
Most of what you claim I said is nothing that I actually said, and the reason I didn't answered your specific questions is because they were irrelevant and I am not your dog to beg at your command."

Basically, you believe what you believe, whatever that is, without feeling compelled to engage in any self examination or explanation of it whatsoever. The notion that Dems "cater to the extremist left" is true simply because you say so... and should be accepted by anybody reading it on that basis alone.

Perhaps you'd do well to apply your own insights to yourself, as you offered to Steeplerot-

"The first thing you should do, rot, is realize that "right" and "left" and "Democrat" and "Republican" are terms and ideas invented to control you. Like a Christian being born again, as soon as you accepted the ideology of the party, you sacrificed all need and desire to think for yourself again."

Might want to check on the status of your own burnt offerings...

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
From Vic-

"Go back to the center, Dems. If you don't, and if you continue to cater to the extremist left, your party will be dead by 2012."

From Jhhnn-

"So, uhh, if Dems are catering to the "extremist left", then there must be specific issues involved- what are they?"

From Vic-

"Try getting back "in touch" first. See reality, not your beliefs. Here's your first tip: if Bush was a Democrat, he would be their wet dream President."

And then this, from Vic-

"Politics in a democracy is about appearances, not reality."

First it's about reality, then it's about appearances- or are the two merely interchangeable terms, their usage controlled by circumstance?

And, much later, from Vic, after the question has been pressed-

"Your capacity for self-delusion is simply amazing. I imagine it's the only way you're able to see in your black-and-white world.
Most of what you claim I said is nothing that I actually said, and the reason I didn't answered your specific questions is because they were irrelevant and I am not your dog to beg at your command."

Basically, you believe what you believe, whatever that is, without feeling compelled to engage in any self examination or explanation of it whatsoever. The notion that Dems "cater to the extremist left" is true simply because you say so... and should be accepted by anybody reading it on that basis alone.

Perhaps you'd do well to apply your own insights to yourself, as you offered to Steeplerot-

"The first thing you should do, rot, is realize that "right" and "left" and "Democrat" and "Republican" are terms and ideas invented to control you. Like a Christian being born again, as soon as you accepted the ideology of the party, you sacrificed all need and desire to think for yourself again."

Might want to check on the status of your own burnt offerings...

Your conclusions are all wrong. It's not that I feel no compulsion for self-examination or explanation. Quite the opposite, I know the issue and it ties in. Others here have apparently gotten it, and I just feel no desire to explain myself to you over and over again simply because you don't want to get it. For one thing, you are invariably rude, pompous, and full of it. For another, I like watching you squirm. Now please, go back to your circle jerk at your leftists-only club. Keep telling yourself it's "the issues" that separates you from those evil Pubs, and not just the partisan labels.

 

[Jhhnn]

Bravo, Vic! Excellent performance, in the haughty style of Limbaugh and O'Reilly. When cornered, attack, smear, and dismiss!

As for the rest of it, your assessment that others "get it" is way off base- they've simply settled for the belief that your offerings to the discussion are merely contradictory and incomprehensible, apparently even to you.

Rude? If politely questioning a sweeping, inflammatory, and unsubtantiated generalization is rude, then I'm guilty. If pointing out that you've conveniently dodged that question is rude, then I'm guilty again. I don't mind the characterization, at all, particularly since it, like the original generalization, is merely a convenient defense against reason, and against reasonable discourse itself.

Which brings us back around to the original topic, Bush's "signing statements", and the meaning of that peculiar methodology. I suppose that if Congress outlawed capital punishment, he'd feel free to execute people anyway, if he'd made a "signing statement" while passing the measure into law... It would satisfy the requirements of doublespeak and image-based politics rather neatly, allowing the faithful to believe in law-based society and a unitary Executive all at the same time...

 

[Uhtrinity]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Vic

I would hope that the Democrats would take some self-responsibility and finally begin to look inward at what actually went wrong instead of subscribing to conspiracy theories. If not, we're gonna have another Republican clown in office in 2009, and that would really piss me off.

Here's my tip: Clinton was moderate centrist who appealed even to people on the right side of the spectrum. Dems will always vote Dem, Pubs will always vote Pub. The votes in the middle are the ones that win elections.

Oh come on, there isn't anyone "in the middle" anymore.

I agree, they have all been labled Liberal terrists who hate America

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Bravo, Vic! Excellent performance, in the haughty style of Limbaugh and O'Reilly. When cornered, attack, smear, and dismiss!

As for the rest of it, your assessment that others "get it" is way off base- they've simply settled for the belief that your offerings to the discussion are merely contradictory and incomprehensible, apparently even to you.

Rude? If politely questioning a sweeping, inflammatory, and unsubtantiated generalization is rude, then I'm guilty. If pointing out that you've conveniently dodged that question is rude, then I'm guilty again. I don't mind the characterization, at all, particularly since it, like the original generalization, is merely a convenient defense against reason, and against reasonable discourse itself.

Which brings us back around to the original topic, Bush's "signing statements", and the meaning of that peculiar methodology. I suppose that if Congress outlawed capital punishment, he'd feel free to execute people anyway, if he'd made a "signing statement" while passing the measure into law... It would satisfy the requirements of doublespeak and image-based politics rather neatly, allowing the faithful to believe in law-based society and a unitary Executive all at the same time...

I'm sorry, it was late last night. What I meant to say is that you are tedious. Unbelievably and intentionally tedious. Your only method of debate is to change the subject and then steadfastly insist that you didn't. And if I do humor you and answer your questions, you pretend that I didn't. Pray tell, why should I bother with you?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Uhtrinity

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Vic

I would hope that the Democrats would take some self-responsibility and finally begin to look inward at what actually went wrong instead of subscribing to conspiracy theories. If not, we're gonna have another Republican clown in office in 2009, and that would really piss me off.

Here's my tip: Clinton was moderate centrist who appealed even to people on the right side of the spectrum. Dems will always vote Dem, Pubs will always vote Pub. The votes in the middle are the ones that win elections.

Oh come on, there isn't anyone "in the middle" anymore.

I agree, they have all been labled Liberal terrists who hate America

The funniest thing about this statement is that as soon as Bush said "You're either with me or you're with the terrorists," it was the Dems who circled their wagons.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Read much? What I said was: "Someone like Dean who caters to the most extreme parts of the leftwing of America's politics."
This is an accurate characterization of Dean. He did cater to the far left. Both he and Kucinich did. ...

Is that a fact? How so? Based on his track record as governor, he's pretty conservative fiscally. What are his specific positions and policies that offset this to make him not only left of center, but someone who "who caters to the most extreme parts of the leftwing of America's politics?" I assume you can provide credible sources demonstrating his support for full socialism, eliminating private industry, banning all firearms, legalizing all controlled substances, eliminating animal testing (and maybe even all meat products), etc., right?

He may have been what barely passes for "Conservative" fiscally in the NE, but during and after his Presidential run he definately has catered to the extreme parts of the leftwing of American politics.
Nice strawmen you have there. :laugh:
Try these on:
"I hate Republicans and everything they stand for." Mainstream Democrats feel this way?
"John Ashcroft is not a patriot, John Ashcroft is a descendant of Joseph McCarthy." Mainstream Democrats think this?
"The way we're going to win elections in this country is not to become Republican lite. The way we're going to win elections in this country is to stand up for what we believe in." This is Moderate? Sounds like a call to arms for the fervent left.
"This country was the moral leader of the world until George Bush became president." Moderate Democrats think this? Everything changed the day Bush stepped into office?
"This president is not interested in being a good president. He's interested in some complicated psychological situation that he has with his father." Not catering to the fringe conspiracy/delusional crowd in this one.

"You think people can work all day and then pick up their kids at child care or wherever and get home and still manage to sandwich in an eight-hour vote? Well Republicans, I guess can do that. Because a lot of them have never made an honest living in their lives." - A sentiment embraced by Mainstream democrats?

I guess you are right, he is everything mainstream Democrats are. It's not extreme to hate everything about the other side, it's not extreme to suggest Bush ruined everything from day one, it's not extreme to claim an entire party has never made an honest living - those are solidly aimed at the mainstream Democrat.
:roll:

 

[senseamp]

I guess the DOJ is the new USSC as the arbiter of what's legal and what's not.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Read much? What I said was: "Someone like Dean who caters to the most extreme parts of the leftwing of America's politics."
This is an accurate characterization of Dean. He did cater to the far left. Both he and Kucinich did. ...

Is that a fact? How so? Based on his track record as governor, he's pretty conservative fiscally. What are his specific positions and policies that offset this to make him not only left of center, but someone who "who caters to the most extreme parts of the leftwing of America's politics?" I assume you can provide credible sources demonstrating his support for full socialism, eliminating private industry, banning all firearms, legalizing all controlled substances, eliminating animal testing (and maybe even all meat products), etc., right?

He may have been what barely passes for "Conservative" fiscally in the NE, but during and after his Presidential run he definately has catered to the extreme parts of the leftwing of American politics.
Nice strawmen you have there. :laugh:
Try these on:
"I hate Republicans and everything they stand for." Mainstream Democrats feel this way?

Yes, that's why his approval among democrats is 10% or less

"John Ashcroft is not a patriot, John Ashcroft is a descendant of Joseph McCarthy." Mainstream Democrats think this?

Yep. Ashcroft lost to a corpse too.

"The way we're going to win elections in this country is not to become Republican lite. The way we're going to win elections in this country is to stand up for what we believe in." This is Moderate? Sounds like a call to arms for the fervent left.

Standing up for what you believe in is only an attribute of the fervent left. Thanks for the compliment.

"This country was the moral leader of the world until George Bush became president." Moderate Democrats think this? Everything changed the day Bush stepped into office?

Absolutely. We have no credibility left in the world. Bush cried wolf too many times. If you think he is a leader of the world, how come the world didn't follow him into Iraq? Or he's a leader with no followers?

"This president is not interested in being a good president. He's interested in some complicated psychological situation that he has with his father." Not catering to the fringe conspiracy/delusional crowd in this one.

Whether he is or is not interested in being a good president, he sure isn't one

"You think people can work all day and then pick up their kids at child care or wherever and get home and still manage to sandwich in an eight-hour vote? Well Republicans, I guess can do that. Because a lot of them have never made an honest living in their lives." - A sentiment embraced by Mainstream democrats?

That a lot of Republicans haven't made an honest living in their lives? Absolutely.

I guess you are right, he is everything mainstream Democrats are. It's not extreme to hate everything about the other side, it's not extreme to suggest Bush ruined everything from day one, it's not extreme to claim an entire party has never made an honest living - those are solidly aimed at the mainstream Democrat.
:roll:

Bush didn't ruin everything on day one. He started to. It took him a few years.