Hey look, a ****!Follow

Or a bush, whatever.I do try not to hate him but could he be more...sleazy please?



Nice.

Nexa

Oh why did you even tell me? You know I can't help but look...and now I've passed irritation to depression.

Gross.

Nexa

What's wrong with Sam Fox?

You did mean this Sam Fox right?

NSFW

I can't wait to see how gbaji will excuse this.



Hopefully it will be under three pages long.

Remember that time the Democrats won the House and Senate and Bush was all like "I'll go down on you, lets just play nice" and most of you were all like 'aww he is not really a bad guy, look he is trying to bridge the gap and distance himself from the neo-cons that held his leash'. Remember when I was like 'the guy is a slimy **** that will say whatever it takes to throw you off then do something sneaky and underhanded the minute you are not looking'

Yeah, that was great.

Actually, Smash said something similar, but we all know he's a sucker.

Nexa

Let's be fair though. "Working with" typically requires some effort from both sides. It's not like the Dems have spent any effort to work with Bush on anything, so it's a bit silly to assume that Bush should keep bending over and letting them do anything they want.

They did only win *one* branch of the government folks. Now I know that many Libs out there like to assume that the branch of government that they are typically able to take and hold consistently should be empowered to run everything, sadly, the framers of the Constitution actually did create three and did require that each have separate powers from the others that requires that they work together.

Ms Pelosi and her cronies have done nothing but create division since they took power in Congress (ok. The House in this specific case). Passing bill after bill designed not to actually accomplish anything, but to ensure as much gridlock as possible and to use as ammunition for the next election cycle. I suppose we're perfectly ok with the recent military funding bill in which they effectively put 20B (yes, that's Billion with a "B") dollars in bribe money to get the votes to do nothing but make a statement that they know will be vetoed, purely so they can tell their hardliners that they "did something" is supposed to be viewed as "working together" with the Bush administration to solve the problems in Iraq? That's a strange way of working with someone. Ultimatums (and especially silly and dangerously stupid ones) don't really qualify.

Cooperation works both way people. How about we look at the other side for a change?

Edited, Apr 4th 2007 6:17pm by gbaji

Okay, my bad.

Yeah, the President suggests appointees and the Senate approves them.

Or not, in this case. Great to have a president who holds the Constitution in such high esteem, huh?

Technically Iraq is not a warzone. Also the congress didn't declare war legally.

GONZALES: There was not a war declaration, either in connection with Al Qaida or in Iraq. It was an authorization to use military force

Then you have Article 1 Section 8.

Maybe I'm just not smart like you, Joph, but I hardly see your point, either. You make it sound like he did something contrary to the constitution by making a recess appointment. What has he done here that leads you to make your statement?

See? I'm not as smart as you.

Yeah, this is what's known as "using the letter of the law to violate the spirit of the law."

The ability of the president to make appointments while Congress is in recess was built in so that necessary posts didn't go unfilled for an unduly long length of time, not so that they president could use it to side-step the approval process on appointees whom he knows don't have a chance in hell of ever being approved.

It's a sleazy move that perverts the process.