|
|
| Posted: 09 Jan 2010 21:58 |
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 123
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
Anyone who bothers to read the Constitution knows that not all the power lies with the President.
Checks And Balances are spread equally throughout the White House, Senate, and House of Representatives. However, seeing that at any one time, we have only ONE President and over 500 members of Congress, who do you think is more likely to force public policy through? Once our corrupt Congress overrides the President's veto of an unconstitutional law, only the Supreme Court can strike it down!
So, do you democrats still want to blame all the nonworking policies of our government on President Bush? The reason that happened so often is because no one actually watches C-SPAN(not even me) to see what congress is doing, they just saw President Bush on network news, and anyone on their camera becomes an easy target, so that's where the press and people aimed their venom.
The worst part is that the Constitution gives the people no course through the legal system to remove a corrupt President like the one we have now. Even scarier, a president becoming too powerful was seen by the Constitutional Convention as reason to remove him by armed force. THAT'S WHY THE BILL OF RIGHTS ALLOWS US TO BEAR ARMS! Thank God we've never had to do so in over 230 years, and we should all pray that that fool Obama does not give us reason to break that record. It would be easier to use the truth to attack him in the media, and eventually force him to resign.
A Lesson In Common Sense by
GOParty
__________________Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain. And most fools do! - Benjamin Franklin  |
| Posted: 10 Jan 2010 03:49 Last Edited By: pakratmak |
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 3839
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
You should really list off all the things you think Bush is being accused of that he's not responsible for. There's probably a long list of executive orders you're not taking into account. You're not offering facts here, just a reverse accusation.
Second, if you really want to go this route of automatic deniability by the checks and balances, explain why that applies to Bush and not Obama.
It's not that you're wrong that all of our government's power does not reside completely with the president(at least it's not supposed to). It is wrong to try and use this to give one a free pass and ignore it to nail the other, just because you like one over the other.
Here's a link to the list of all of Bush's executive orders. 290 things he specifically did himself that didn't go through the check and balance process. Let me know what you find.
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/wbush.html
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 10 Jan 2010 21:59 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 3839
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
|
Quote:
You should really list off all the things you think Bush is being accused of that he's not responsible for.
Quote:
Second, if you really want to go this route of automatic deniability by the checks and balances, explain why that applies to Bush and not Obama.
You said you had hard facts- share some?
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 11 Jan 2010 16:50 |
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4166
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
I thinks it is basically simple. Bush is better than Obama, Reagan was better than both Bushes. The more conservative a President the more I like him. Obama is a commie. That part is true. He may not be lining people up behind walls with machine guns yet, but still he's lining up the country for communistic thinking. Bigger government over power of the people.
Bush did have some socialistic leanings at times with his spending, but Obama's healthcare stuff beats anything Bush ever did or dreamed up.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 11 Jan 2010 19:52 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 123
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
|
Quote:
You said you had hard facts- share some?
The Hard Facts I spoke of are about Presidential power to stop flawed policy as opposed to Congress's power to force it through. It's all in the Constitution, you can look it up thanks to the Freedom Of Information Act. I just wish we could silence the media with a FREEDOM FROM FALSE INFORMATION Act!
GOParty
__________________Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain. And most fools do! - Benjamin Franklin |
| Posted: 11 Jan 2010 20:24 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 193
Join Date: Nov 2009
|
So exactly, how many congretional veto overrides were there during the Bush Administration (I can't remember any off the top of my head myself).
I can't even remember any pocket vetos in the GW Bush administration.
While it is certainly true that the republican congress and later the democratic congress which served under Bush had more hands on power with determining the direction of the nation, it's hard to argue that the Preisdent in a party system is seperated from his party in the actions they take, be that pressing through legislation when they control the congress or blocking legislation when in the minority.
This holds equally true for GW Bush as for BH Obama. In both cases they had a similar party in control of congress in the begining of their terms, we have yet to see if BH Obama maintains a democratic congress in 2012 (unemployment numbers will likely make the determination something neither the president nor congress has much if any controll over).
Saying GW Bush is not responsible is kind of like saying, Harry Ried, or Trent Lott is not responsible. All Three men held positions of high authority and had considerable influence on the laws passed under their terms, even if it took the entirty of congress and the white house to pass the laws in question.
Where GW Bush fails most spectacularly and where BH Obama has so far made attempts to be conservative is in budgeting. The Bush tax cuts, and unfunded spending increases have caused a great deal of problems for our nation, and it's hard to argue that Bush was not directly responsible for both items. Obama has at least tenatively called for fiscal restraint on some new spending, but at the same time, short term deficits are necessary during a recessionary climate to prevent depression.
Had Bush been more fiscally responsible, Obama might be able to do far more at this time, which may seem like a good thing to conservatives. Of Course if Bush had been more fiscally responsible, there is a chance Obama wouldn't even be President right now.
So in handing out blame, I am sure GW Bush deserves his share, no matter what side of the divide you fall.
|
| Posted: 11 Jan 2010 20:36 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 3839
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
|
Quote:
The Hard Facts I spoke of are about Presidential power to stop flawed policy as opposed to Congress's power to force it through.
You've got no more of a pro or con with any President over another with just this one fact. With 'hard facts' I was hoping you meant exact statistics or a recount of events to support you.
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
|
