Hey look, a ****!Follow

Neither is the current interpretation of "a well ordered militia", but I don't have much of a problem with that one, either.

And I knew what you meant as soon as you clarified. No need for a book.


I'm sure you've made your share of sleazy, perverse moves, but you don't see many people complaining about those, so why don't you sit down with a nice big cup of shut the f'uck up and don't interrupt when men are talking, lady.

There you go mistaking yourself for a man again. tsk tsk.

Forgive us for holding the president of the United ******* States to a higher standard than an Asylumite?

Please?

Sure. But it's something that has been done repeatedly by pretty much every single president we've ever had. You can argue "spirit of the law", but one has to wonder why it's suddenly a grave violation of the spirit of the constitution when GWB does it today, but it wasn't that big of a deal the last few thousand times it was done by other presidents in the past...



It's only sleazy because A: You heard about it, and B: because you don't like the person doing it. I'm reasonably certain that neither A nor B would have occured if we had a democrat president using a recess appointment to get someone he wanted to appoint past an obstructing congress controlled by the other party.


I think what a lot of people are forgetting in all this is that the system of government we use is adversarial. It's designed to have two (or more) "sides" to a position and has a set of rules and structures in place for those sides to kinda "duke it out". In an ideal setting the two sides would agree not to use the more "sleazy" techniques to slip things past the other side. An in those times, a Republican president would make an effort not to annoy the Democrat congress by doing something like a recess appointment during a 1 week recess. But that's a nicety, not a requirement within the rules.

I think it's more then unfair to demand that the Republican president play with kid gloves while the Democrats in congress are systematically doing everything they can and using (and arguably misusing) every rule, system, and process that they can bend to give them an advantage politically. It's certainly absurd to make huge hay out of a recess appointment to belgium the week after the House and Senate played silly politics with troop funding.

As I asked Joph earlier (and he managed to ignore), what Bush did doesn't violate any rules. What Congress wrote into their bill(s) is arguably a violation of the separation of powers. They can set funding rates over time if they want, but they cant condition funding based on actions by the president. Not according to any interpretation of the constitution I'm aware of.



Heh. I just find the blinderized political view on this board amusing. Yes. Let's ignore the *massive* amount of pork in the Dems bill(s). Let's ignore the *massive* tax increases they're pushing through now (after they insisted they woudn't do that during the election). Let's ignore the likely constitutionally violating language in their bills. Let's ignore the fact that they've been effectively undermining a military operation from day one (an annoying excersize of free speach for joe random person, borderline treason for a member of Congress IMO).

Let's ignore all that stuff and instead worry about Bush's end run tactics to appoint an amasador to Belgium... You're kidding, right?

I was talking about the second part Joph. The part where the Bill(s) written and passed by the Democrats violates separation of powers.

against vague assertions that, according to you and your reading of the document, Congress is being naughty.

Stop being silly. I know you meant "What Limbaugh told you it said".

I was pointing out the hypocrisy at hand. You know. When you're all focused on Bush doing something kinda sleezy that's not a violation of the constitution, while the Dems in Congress are doing something equally sleezy, that *is* a violation of the constitution.

I wasn't aware we could arbitrarily decide things like what was unconstitutional in lieu of the courts.

In that case what Bush did was a felony punishable by death by a crocodile gnawing off his genitals.

Prove that it isn't, yo.

I don't know about you, but I certainly can decide that something violates the constitution without needing the courts to tell me so. See. I do this thing called "reading"...

Also "cutting" and "pasting"

What we're all eagerly awaiting is for you to do this thing called "comprehending"

Personally, I'm not holding my breath.

You're kidding, right? Congress has the power to limit and cut off funding for military operations they don't agree with. They did so in Vietnam. They did so in Somalia & Rwanda. They attempted to do so in Kosovo and Haiti. They're doing so here. Hell, they even provided timetables for the funding to be cut in both Somalia and Rwanda if troops hadn't been withdrawn by certain dates. Congress has manipulated administration policy via the power of the purse in Asia, Central America and the Middle East. Congress set troop levels in Vietnam and stipulated allowable troop types in Rwanda and Kosovo. You know why none of those incidents resulted in a massive hue and cry over the Constitutionality of the action? Because Congress is allowed to do those things with their funding.One of us has a grasp on what the Constitution allows and one of us goes on lengthy screeds about how evil Congress is because they don't have a clue?Really, I was just laughing at you for bringing it up within the context of separation of powers. As I said initially, I don't really care that this happened. Personally, I think it shows the lame duck impotence of Bush right now that the best he can do is sneak in recess appointments for the ambassador to Belgium and so the whole thing gave me a good chuckle.

Edited, Apr 7th 2007 12:18am by Jophiel

Which in turn leads to what?

Whether the actions of troop deployment are agreed upon by members of congress and the presidency is irrelevant. To take away funding from these troops because you disagree with why they were sent there is down right dirty.

"We disagree with why you were sent to (insert country here). Unfortunately we cannot take you out..so you know that $4.35/hour (give or take a few cents) that you make currently? Well, we're taking that down to about $3.75/hour and will not provide you with more arms to protect yourselves while you are there."

Yeah, great idea congress. ***** the troops to get back at a President you have an agenda against. You dislike actions the President does? Find ways to ***** him over, don't play politics with the welfare and lives of our brave men and women who are fighting overseas.

Vietnam war funding cuts? Democratic controlled congress
Iraq war funding cuts? Democratic controlled congress
Somalia military action funding cuts? Democratic controlled congress
Rwanda? Democratic controlled congress

I see a pattern emerging, don't you? Consistently they ***** over our soldiers to get back at the residing President (Dem or Repub).

As far as the OP goes...

At least he doesn't get paid right? :-)

Is the man qualified? Yes, he contributed funds to swift boat and "pro republican" ideals, but is he qualified for this position?
Perhaps he was rejected by the dems due to partisan politics?

So far, the only argument I've heard is that he is not qualified because he made controbutions to the swift boat campaign and pro-republican ideals. That's all I've ever heard from anybody on why he is not qualified.

If that is the case, then surely nobody is qualified at anything if they contribute to anything that supports an ideal of any kind (unless of course, you agree with it, then it's perfectly acceptable)

I'm not very familiar with the complete history of Sam Fox. So my question is legitimate and does not contain any type of sarcasm. I am seriously asking... why he is not qualified? If reasons given to that questions are above and beyond "because he gave money to swift boat veteran campaign for "truth", then I will change my stance and agree with you that what Bush did was sleazy. However, if Sam Fox is indeed qualified and perfectly capable of holding Ambassadorship over Belgium, and the only reason he is not "qualified" was because of his $50,000 contribution... then I'm inclined to think an appropriate appointment was made and was only being blocked by partisan politics... in which case I will ask you to question why an appointment of a qualified person is a "sleazy" move.. when it was blocked due to partisan politics (a sleazy move in and of itself).

Edited, Apr 8th 2007 2:43am by borntolandhard

To take away funding from these troops because you disagree with why they were sent there is down right dirty.

Hi. When you submit a bill funding the troops and someone Vetos it, you didn't take away funding, they did.

Is that near Poland?