Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, May 9, 2007.
I think the Dems will get around to seriously challenging Bush somewhere around 2011. Until then it will all be non-binding declarations and statements saying things like "We believe the President has overreached his authority in suspending the 2008 elections and will be forming a committee to look into possible responses. Such behavior cannot be allowed to continue. What if tries to do this again in 2012? Our democracy will be in serious trouble."
“A republican stands up in congress and says 'I GOT A REALLY BAD IDEA!!' and the democrat stands up after him and says 'AND I CAN MAKE IT WORSE!!'”
It might be easier to get the votes to overturn the veto.
Is this a facetious statement?
they won't be wanting to appear too harsh with our uniter-in-chief...
Jawohl, mein Fuhrer!
While I think Pelosi should try it anyway (should these circumstances come about), good luck with a lawsuit with five of Bush's friends sitting on the Supreme Court.
That quote, though, is truly frightening. Bush is now declaring what is and isn't constitutional? Is he gonna declare martial law next so he can cancel the 2008 election?
Would you be all that surprised?
who bush naw, he'd never do that.
At this point, no. But I'd like to see him try. Really, I'd love to see him try.
Kinda thinking he just wants out at this point, about as much as we do.
I do think that was definitely being considered. Nixon commissioned Rand to give an opinion of how the American public would respond to canceling an election, if the incumbent President was in a state of national emergency. The story was leaked, and the findings were never publicly presented (as far as I know).
If the republicans had won either the house, or senate, we could be looking at constitutional challenge of whether the president could declare the war on terrorism was too threatening to allow presidential/gongressional vote. If someone thinks this too far fetched, I suggest they read about the basic rights of habeas corpus having been eliminated. This Country is not out of the woods yet. But, I see signs that people are starting waken.
We need to establish a long-term democratic rule to reverse the incredible damage that has been done.
It was already done. That's why first Reagan and then the Republican majority were elected. It took years to undo what Tip O'Neal and the rest of the bunch did. Too bad the true conservatives either lost focus or ran out of steam.
Wow- or maybe their policies just sucked.
Yeah! Damn Tip O'Neal for spending hundreds of billions on vanity wars! I hope he gets poked in the butt by devils for each person he ordered thrown into detention without legal representation to be tortured for information. And the Devil will surely make Tip his plaything because of his blatant use of fear and propaganda in keeping the people of America convinced that they could die AT ANY MOMENT if he was no longer Speaker.
Not any more. The nuking of America aside, a Jericho-like military takeover of the United States is no longer the far-fetched idea that it once was.
Believe it not, I remember that. I also remember thinking, "You've gotta be ____ing kidding!" But no, they were actually considering it.
I agree that we need long-term Democratic rule...but we also need Democrats to start acting like liberals again. If they can't do that, then we need a whole new genuine liberal party in the United States. The Democrats have in the past been centrist wimps, and the Republicans are so far off to the right they're a more serious threat to this country than al-Qaeda.
Bush is in trouble an he knows it.
Subpoenas are piling up and ready to fly if Bush doesn't want to play along.
One way or another Congress will force him to yield eventually.
You must have missed posts 2 and 6.
Look me in the eye and tell me that the Democrats are gonna actually do something meaningful.
That's a depressing thought. . . I think I'll go get me an extra dose of prozac.
Yeah, it only took them a couple of years before they became even more corrupt and incompetent as the Dems at the time, who took decades. They also raised the deficit. And about a billion others things that had made them the minority they are today. And continue to become.
Can you really say things have been better under neocon rule, because if so, I'll have some of whatever you're taking.
Well, remember when Cheney (IIRC) asked, with fake innocence, what would happen if there were a terrorist attack and we had to cancel the 2004 election?
It's scary when wackos start floating ideas like that.
Yeah I know what you mean, but using threat of Indictment or Impeachment
might be enough to get some results.
If you listen to Bush lately, it's clear that something is going on in the background and all of that old reliable support he had is heading for the hills.
When you say "things" being better, if you mean my personal life, financial well being, etc. then yes. Seems that personal satisfaction rule of measure is the coin of the realm these days for both sides, so I can't complain.
Oh, I would disagree about that! There is much more of a "we're all in this together" attitude on the Democratic side. It may be stronger with the voters than it is with the dudes in Washington, but unless I'm horribly mistaken, we all feel that this country is not doing well until we're all doing well.
Exactly- what the right never gets is that fact that it benefits them when everyone is at least doing OK. After all, what good is having a product to sell if no one can afford the product? The housing market is going to get the answer to that question very soon.
Congress needs to reel in the signing statement parts that allows a president to abuse this authority as Bush Jr has done. In fact he has more signing statements then all of our past presidents put together. By signing statements he is in essence making his own laws as he goes. Who needs a congress if you can do this?