0
   

President Bush: Is He a Liar?

 
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jun, 2006 05:01 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
mm, Your lack of knowledge about how our government is supposed to work just shows how ignorant you really are.

The Founding Fathers, the framers of the Constitution, wanted to form a government that did not allow one person to have too much authority or control. While under the rule of the British king they learned that this could be a bad system. Yet government under the Articles of Confederation taught them that there was a need for a strong centralized government.

With this in mind the framers wrote the Constitution to provide for a separation of powers, or three separate branches of government. Each has its own responsibilities and at the same time they work together to make the country run smoothly and to assure that the rights of citizens are not ignored or disallowed. This is done through checks and balances. A branch may use its powers to check the powers of the other two in order to maintain a balance of power among the three branches of government.

The three branches of the U.S. Government are the legislative, executive, and judicial. A complete diagram of the branches of the U.S. Government may be found in the U.S. Government Manual (PDF, 9.7k).


As I've said earlier, our government has failed in its responsibilities, because the administration, congress and supreme court are controlled by one party. They have failed their responsibility to check the powers of the president.


And you are assuming that you know more then I do,about anything.

I am well aware of the system of checks and balances,and how the govt works.
BTW,you didnt seem to mind when the Dems controlled all 3 branches.

BUT,the statement was made by Parados that it is the job of Congress to "oversee the govt".

Now,in Article 1,section 8 of the Constitution,it spells out EXACTLY what the powers and the job of congress is.

For your education,here it is...

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec8

Now,please show me anyplace that says Congress has the job to "oversee the govt".

Congress is PART of the govt,the Legislative branch,to be exact.
They are NOT the whole govt,and to use your words...
Quote:
This is done through checks and balances. A branch may use its powers to check the powers of the other two in order to maintain a balance of power among the three branches of government.


So,the Executive and the Judicial branches can exercise their ability to check the power of the Congress.

You seem to think that Congress cant be controlled that way.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jun, 2006 05:28 pm
mm wrote:
I am well aware of the system of checks and balances,and how the govt works.
BTW,you didnt seem to mind when the Dems controlled all 3 branches.

Here you go making stupid assumptions; I'm not a democrat, so what's your point? I'll repeat, the congresss and supreme court have failed their check and balance responsibilities by letting Bush 1) perform illegal wiretaps, 2) start the Iraq war on innuendos and false information, 3) torture of prisoners, and 4) misuse of government funds.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jun, 2006 05:35 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
mm wrote:
I am well aware of the system of checks and balances,and how the govt works.
BTW,you didnt seem to mind when the Dems controlled all 3 branches.

Here you go making stupid assumptions; I'm not a democrat, so what's your point? I'll repeat, the congresss and supreme court have failed their check and balance responsibilities by letting Bush 1) perform illegal wiretaps, 2) start the Iraq war on innuendos and false information, 3) torture of prisoners, and 4) misuse of government funds.


OR,the Executive and Judicial branches have used their responsibility by blocking the congress.

Why do you refuse to even admit that possibility?
Those are two sides of the same coin.

And you dont have to be a Dem to prefer them,remember.
Since you believe every conservative is a republican,it seems logical to assume that every liberal is a democrat.
After all,that seems to be the assumption made about all conservatives.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jun, 2006 05:42 pm
I don't have to admit anything I don't agree with.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jun, 2006 05:44 pm
mm wrote:
And you dont have to be a Dem to prefer them,remember.
Since you believe every conservative is a republican,it seems logical to assume that every liberal is a democrat.
After all,that seems to be the assumption made about all conservatives.

Another stupid statement!
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jun, 2006 08:43 pm
parados wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
Quote:
okie, The fact that congress and the supreme court have failed their duties to uphold the Constitution is the failure of our government; not the laws of our country.


According to you.
You refuse to accept the fact that maybe they have looked at the "evidence",and see it differently then you.

Why is that a "failure of our Govt",if the people whose job it is to uphold the laws dont see it the same way you do?


When did they hold hearings? I must have been out of the country during that 5 month period.

The job of the Congress it to oversee the government. Just claiming they "looked at it" doesn't really meet the standard of oversight in my mind.


No hearings that I know of were held, because there is no reason to hold any. The supposed crimes talked about on this forum are fictitious plain and simple. If anything held any water, they would be on it, you could bet on it. The Democrats need to wake up and decide what they really stand for. They need to run on something more than sniping at Bush. That gets old. Or maybe they know what they believe but are afraid to say it because that will not win elections?
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jun, 2006 02:21 am
Okie- I think it is disappointing when Mr. Imposter does not bring evidence to the post and merely bloviates. He says Congress and the Supreme Court have failed their "check and balance" responsibilities by letting Bush l)perform illegal wiretaps(REALLY/ WHO SAID THEY WERE ILLEGAL) 2.Start the Iraq war on Innuendos and false information(YES, CERTAINLY, THE GERMAN, FRENCH AND BRITISH INTELLIGENCE SERVICES AGREED THAT IRAQ HAD WMD'S BUT ONLY BECAUSE OF INNUENDOS) 3.Torture of Prisoners( WHICH COURT HAS CHARGED THE TROOPS? HAVE THEY BEEN PUNISHED?) and 4. Misuse of Government Funds( POOR MR. IMPOSTER DOES NOT KNOW THAT ALL MONEY BILLS BEGIN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES)
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jun, 2006 09:15 am
Bernard, the Democrats, liberals, and the liberal press have been looking for a chink in Bush's armour ever since he ran for office. How many great scandals have they harped on, only to find it did not amount to a hill of beans, then to go onto the next one, ever since the phony national guard story. They keep looking for something, anything, that will gain traction big time. None of the stuff mentioned by cicerone has any depth of substance and that is why the issues never go anywhere. The closest they've come it seems for liberals is that Bush lied over WMD, which is another phony story in a long line of trumped up positions. All of the potshots over time have take some toll, there is no doubt, but most of what has taken Bush down in the polls has been self inflicted by losing some of his own base because of spending like a drunken sailor, lousy border policy, and a few other things. Frankly, it is surprising that the poll numbers for Bush have been as resilient as they have, considering the barrage thrown at him. I think many people see the president as a principled politician among the scores that are not, and they respect it. We may not all agree with all of his policies, but at least we know where he stands, and we know he attempts to stay the course with his policies. Far better than the wishy washy opposition.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jun, 2006 09:29 am
Quote:
Bernard, the Democrats, liberals, and the liberal press have been looking for a chink in Bush's armour ever since he ran for office.


This is categorically untrue.

During the first 6 months of the Bush presidency, there were hardly any negative news items about Bush at all.

During the 9/11 event, Bush enjoyed record high approval numbers, and held on to them for some time after; this included many Democrats approving of Bush as well as Republicans for his numbers to be in the high 80's and 90's.

During the attack on Afghanistan, Bush was lauded and hailed as a 'strong leader' by most of the country.

It wasn't until Bush proved uninterested in catching OBL that he began to lose popularity, and it wasn't until after the Iraq war started going south that he really began to lose popularity.

You can blame this on Liberals 'trying to get Bush' since the beginning of his presidency, but that's just plain untrue.

Here's a pic displaying this:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/blogphotos/Blog_Bush_Approval_May_2004.jpg

What has brought Bush down in the polls is his inability to properly handle the military challenges he has faced; sure, we can roll over armies 1/100th of our size with ease, but can we accomplish the objective? Still haven't caught OBL. Still haven't gotten rid of the Taliban. Still haven't pacified Iraq. Still haven't stopped AQ, not in the slightest.

Once Bush drops below 50% in approval ratings, it isn't Liberals or independents who are abandoning him, but Conservatives. The 33-35% who remain are loyalists who wouldn't disaprove of Bush no matter what he did, because they have so much emotionally invested in him that they are literally unable to do so without admitting to themselves just what fools they were for trusting the man. Sound familiar?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jun, 2006 12:32 am
Cyclopitchorn- Your post ends at 5/2004. Why?? It seems that according to your own figures, President Bush was below 50% on 5/2004. YET HE WON THE ELECTION BY 3,000,000 VOTES.

Polls are meaningless. The only polls that count were:

l. Nov. 2000- Bush elected President

2. Nov. 2002- GOP, defying tradition, actually GAIN seats in the House and Senate

3.Nov. 2004- Bush elected President
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jun, 2006 09:11 am
You want current? You got it!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v97/imposter222/Approval_27267_image001.gif
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jun, 2006 02:06 am
I don't know what the chart is supposed to mean.

l. Does it mean that the President will lose his bid for re-election?
( He can't be re-elected)

2. Does it mean that the poll is definitive and measures the presidency of George W. Bush in a meaningful way even though he still has 28 months left in his term?

3. Does it mean that the polls in June will affect the elections in November even though the President is not running in November?

The answer to all three of those is NO but the colors in the graph are pretty!
'
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jun, 2006 08:50 am
Bernard, I'm not sure what the intense love affair or obsession is with polls. As an aside, I remember Clinton had his staff take a poll to decide where he went on vacation. That time, it ended up being Jackson Hole, WY. That one was humorous.

I guess the libs or Democrats now want to do everything by poll. If a poll says wage war one day, send in the troops, if the next day the poll says no, order them out, and on the 3rd day if the pollster frames the question a bit differently and it says yes, its war, send them in again.

If a poll says give every man, woman, and child a roof over their head, 2 cars for every family, and a minimum wage of $20.00/hr., then lets do it. Write a check for everybody. Hey, I am beginning to like the concept Bernard.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jun, 2006 08:56 am
BernardR and okie, There's a wise Chinese saying "picture worth a thousand words." You guys just don't know how to read. Wink

Here, I'll make it simple for you. It means Bush's approval rating has dropped from a high of 90 percent to below 30 percent since 9-11. Those that voted for him are saying, Bush is a failure. Got it?

You can continue to ignore the opinions of the majority of Americans and remain dumb to the current realities. Bush's ship is sinking, and you guys keep trying to keep it afloat; it's really funny!
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jun, 2006 09:16 am
cicerone, the people elected Bush, not themselves. I care what the people think, but frankly I care more about what Bush thinks. When the election rolls around again, then thats the only poll that counts. And if I could ask the questions the way I wanted to ask them, I might take the polls more seriously. As it is, they are nothing more than a passing curiosity, mainly to predict what the next election might determine.

The people that make the decisions for us are in office now. So show me polls about how they are voting in congress. That would mean more. The last poll about troops in Iraq, it was a landslide in favor.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jun, 2006 09:18 am
Polls do not predict the next election.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jun, 2006 09:20 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
Polls do not predict the next election.


cicerone, you've just admitted polls are unreliable. Case closed.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jun, 2006 09:21 am
Polls only tell us how Americans are feeling at any one period. When polls are taken on the president of the US, it tells us how Americans are feeling about the president now - not when they voted two years ago; they are two separate issues. That's the reason why when looked at all presidents, they were voted into office, but that doesn't mean their performance was good or acceptable as president.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jun, 2006 10:00 am
Pertinent to the subject of this thread, one of the favorite lying accusations against Bush is about WMD in Iraq. So check this out:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jun, 2006 10:06 am
okie wrote:
Pertinent to the subject of this thread, one of the favorite lying accusations against Bush is about WMD in Iraq. So check this out:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html

From above link:
Quote:
Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.

"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 11/28/2024 at 06:43:07