Cheney Resignation Rumors Fly

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: DevilsAdvocate

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
yup, balancing the budget and creating the largest surplus in US history is pure luck. George Bush and his administration racking up the largest deficit in US history, not at all his fault. Sounds about right Pabster. your such a partisan hack.

I hate to quibble, but Congress is really to blame. They have the power of the purse.

And Bush has never vetoed a bill. Never, not one. Compare that to the 20-50 presidential vetoes in the last few presidents.

What's the record on vetos when the president and congress are the same political party affiliation?

Irrelevant . . . as President, you are ultimately responsible for every piece of legislation you sign into law. Congress has the power of the purse to the extent a President doesn't exercise veto authority. Bush CHOSE to sign off on the appropriations. Many of the "emergency" spending bills evolved directly from an Executive branch request (typically DOD). Bush certainly claims the tax cuts. The GOP Congress on balance has appropriated more than Bush has requested in WH budget proposals but the difference isn't even in the ballpark of the $460B in red ink for fiscal 2005.

No it's not irrelevant. If a comparison is made, let's compare like cases. And please stop using every comment people make as an excuse to go on yet another Bush bashing mission. I really don't care about your little beef with Bush and your reply does not answer my question.

What the hell is wrong with you? These aren't like cases; Bush has never vetod a single bill; he has threatened to veto another bill because it contains rules agaisnt torture.

There isn't any bush bashing in this; and you do definatly care about our beefs with the Bush Administration.

Ask a simple question, get BS in return. How typical.

Your comment was superficial. I wanted to compare Bush's veto record to similar cases instead of just "previous presidents."

Now why is that so hard for you and others to understand? Get down off your horse please. :roll:

Please provide the Google search parameters for 'similar cases'. We need concrete objective definitions so that we don't next wonder off on Chicken's 'that's not what I meant by similar'. How about a graft showing presidents against vetoes of 'similar kind' by number, an easy task, I am sure, for a man not riding a horse.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

If you are looking for trivia try Google.

Off the top of my head I would say Clinton (2 years), Carter, JFK, maybe Eisenhower, and part of FDR had the benefit of party dominance.

It's still irrelevant b/c responsibility lies BOTH with the legislators that draft the bills and the President that signs the bills. The sole exception would be a Congressional override.

As the President during a period of unprecedented US-caused strife and domestic fiscal mismanagement, what should Bush be getting kudos for? The only superlative he qualifies for is least qualified President in the past century. Granted, after he's finished in 2008, he will have solidified his claim to worst fiscal leader in modern history. If it makes you feel better, the Congress can accept the award with him.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

While you are Googling . . . riddle me this.

If many members of the current Congress were trolling those halls in the mid-late 90s, that means what has changed since then is the occupant of 1600PA (and policy). Yet another reason . . . it's definitely his fault.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
If you are looking for trivia try Google.

Off the top of my head I would say Clinton (2 years), Carter, JFK, maybe Eisenhower, and part of FDR had the benefit of party dominance.

It's still irrelevant b/c responsibility lies BOTH with the legislators that draft the bills and the President that signs the bills. The sole exception would be a Congressional override.

As the President during a period of unprecedented US-caused strife and domestic fiscal mismanagement, what should Bush be getting kudos for? The only superlative he qualifies for is least qualified President in the past century. Granted, after he's finished in 2008, he will have solidified his claim to worst fiscal leader in modern history. If it makes you feel better, the Congress can accept the award with him.

You seem to be imagining I'm giving Bush some kudos for his lack of vetos. I am not. I am merely posing a question - How does having a congressional majority of the same party as the president affect vetos? Surely it has an impact as it's no secret that vetos are often partisan in nature.

But somehow I'm not surprised that I can't get a straight answer to this question.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Dude, why should I answer your question that has no real relevance to Bush's bad governance?

If you think it's important . . . look it up!

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

The veto is partisan . . . wow . . . no way . . . it's hard to believe! Did you figure that out all by yourself?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Dude, why should I answer your question that has no real relevance to Bush's bad governance?

If you think it's important . . . look it up!

Why did you feel compelled to chime in in the first place then? If you wanted to drone on once again about Bush's "bad governance" you surely didn't need to respond to my question to do it.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
The veto is partisan . . . wow . . . no way . . . it's hard to believe! Did you figure that out all by yourself?

By the responses to my question you'd think nobody else had a clue that was the case, you included.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Dude, why should I answer your question that has no real relevance to Bush's bad governance?

If you think it's important . . . look it up!

Why did you feel compelled to chime in in the first place then? If you wanted to drone on once again about Bush's "bad governance" you surely didn't need to respond to my question to do it.

The problem is that you are always finding some way to excuse Bush's actions or inaction.. and then you try to tell us you are not condoning either one ..

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
If you are looking for trivia try Google.

Off the top of my head I would say Clinton (2 years), Carter, JFK, maybe Eisenhower, and part of FDR had the benefit of party dominance.

It's still irrelevant b/c responsibility lies BOTH with the legislators that draft the bills and the President that signs the bills. The sole exception would be a Congressional override.

As the President during a period of unprecedented US-caused strife and domestic fiscal mismanagement, what should Bush be getting kudos for? The only superlative he qualifies for is least qualified President in the past century. Granted, after he's finished in 2008, he will have solidified his claim to worst fiscal leader in modern history. If it makes you feel better, the Congress can accept the award with him.

You seem to be imagining I'm giving Bush some kudos for his lack of vetos. I am not. I am merely posing a question - How does having a congressional majority of the same party as the president affect vetos? Surely it has an impact as it's no secret that vetos are often partisan in nature.

But somehow I'm not surprised that I can't get a straight answer to this question.

Your question had no revalance to the orginal comment made by BaliBabyDoc
. It has nothing to due what's being discussed at hand either, it's another Strawman Fallacy.

Please show me some "evidence" for the part that is underlined.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Cheney to resign, eh? Good . . . I wonder if Sam Brownback will take the slot in exchange for supporting the Miers nomination?

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Cheney to resign, eh? Good . . . I wonder if Sam Brownback will take the slot in exchange for supporting the Miers nomination?

He would be an incredible choice. It would put him in the frontrunning for the GOP nomination in '08.

He is one of the few real Republicans in congress right now with guts. Do you think the GOP will trust Frist after that Gang of 14 debacle?

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
What's the record on vetos when the president and congress are the same political party affiliation?

Clinton did not have a single veto in his first 2 years under a Democratic congress.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Dude, why should I answer your question that has no real relevance to Bush's bad governance?

If you think it's important . . . look it up!

Why did you feel compelled to chime in in the first place then? If you wanted to drone on once again about Bush's "bad governance" you surely didn't need to respond to my question to do it.

The problem is that you are always finding some way to excuse Bush's actions or inaction.. and then you try to tell us you are not condoning either one ..

He just wants to train the left to think by showing them how easily they are distracted by absurd arguments. A fused cannon isn't a problem if there's no powder in it.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
What's the record on vetos when the president and congress are the same political party affiliation?

Clinton did not have a single veto in his first 2 years under a Democratic congress.

And?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: zendari

He would be an incredible choice. It would put him in the frontrunning for the GOP nomination in '08.

He is one of the few real Republicans in congress right now with guts. Do you think the GOP will trust Frist after that Gang of 14 debacle?

Sam Brownback is too much of a holy roller for most Americans IMO. He's a member of Opus Dei, and lives in a huge townhouse in DC with several other Congressmen, paid for by a secretive religious group called "the Fellowship." He apparently washed the feet of his former staffers when he left Brownback's office. Also, he has deep financial connections to Jack Abramoff, which is not a great credential nowadays.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

And?

If the Democrats take back the House and Senate as some of this forum desire Bush will be pricking his fingers for red ink.

 

[TheSlamma]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

And?

If the Democrats take back the House and Senate as some of this forum desire Bush will be pricking his fingers for red ink.

It's not a good idea for either party to control the whole place, wether it's democrat or republican.

There is this thing called Checks and Balances, you should educate yourself on it.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: TheSlamma

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

And?

If the Democrats take back the House and Senate as some of this forum desire Bush will be pricking his fingers for red ink.

It's not a good idea for either party to control the whole place, wether it's democrat or republican.

There is this thing called Checks and Balances, you should educate yourself on it.

Yup, because the best legislation comes out of deadlock.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: TheSlamma

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

And?

If the Democrats take back the House and Senate as some of this forum desire Bush will be pricking his fingers for red ink.

It's not a good idea for either party to control the whole place, wether it's democrat or republican.

There is this thing called Checks and Balances, you should educate yourself on it.

Yup, because the best legislation comes out of deadlock.

I agree 100%. I'd like to see the Repubs control either the House or the Senate and the Democrats control the opposite.

I definately don't want a Republican president, unless they can run a candidate who isn't a PNAC appointee.

 

[TheSlamma]

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
If you are looking for trivia try Google.

Off the top of my head I would say Clinton (2 years), Carter, JFK, maybe Eisenhower, and part of FDR had the benefit of party dominance.

It's still irrelevant b/c responsibility lies BOTH with the legislators that draft the bills and the President that signs the bills. The sole exception would be a Congressional override.

As the President during a period of unprecedented US-caused strife and domestic fiscal mismanagement, what should Bush be getting kudos for? The only superlative he qualifies for is least qualified President in the past century. Granted, after he's finished in 2008, he will have solidified his claim to worst fiscal leader in modern history. If it makes you feel better, the Congress can accept the award with him.

You seem to be imagining I'm giving Bush some kudos for his lack of vetos. I am not. I am merely posing a question - How does having a congressional majority of the same party as the president affect vetos? Surely it has an impact as it's no secret that vetos are often partisan in nature.

But somehow I'm not surprised that I can't get a straight answer to this question.

Your question had no revalance to the orginal comment made by BaliBabyDoc
. It has nothing to due what's being discussed at hand either, it's another Strawman Fallacy.

Please show me some "evidence" for the part that is underlined.

Erm...read back a bit. Todd33 made the comment about Bush not vetoing any bills thus far. That's what my comment was in regards to. BBD decided to chime in as an excuse to go on yet another of his Bush bashing excursions.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
What's the record on vetos when the president and congress are the same political party affiliation?

Clinton did not have a single veto in his first 2 years under a Democratic congress.

Thanks. At least someone in here can provide an answer without going into "OMG! You Bush apologist!" knee-jerk mode..

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: TheSlamma

It's not a good idea for either party to control the whole place, wether it's democrat or republican.

There is this thing called Checks and Balances, you should educate yourself on it.

Yes, it refers to branches of government, not political parties.

If the Democrats would come back to mainstream America they would win some elections. That guy Casey from PA is an example of it.

 

[slyedog]

Originally posted by: techs
And today Condi is going in front of Congress to shore up support for Iraq.

The Condi candidacy has to worry some Republicans due to the rumours about her lack of romantic involvements with men.

condi and hilliary would make a good race

condi- lack of romantic involvement with men

hilliary-has a bigger tool than most men on forum