I would expect future presidents to

1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User

Welcome to IWETHEY!

Post #285,898 by boxley 5/30/07 8:04:34 PM Reply	I would expect future presidents to actively avoid congressional oversight, its the nature of the position. Just like reagan ignored congress meddling in his foreign affairs found a way to get money to the contras. An executive who is the rolling buttplug for congress is useless in my opinion. thanx, bill Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep reach me at [link\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
Post #285,909 by inthane-chan 5/30/07 11:09:30 PM Reply	And vis a vis a Congress that is a rubber stamp for... ...the Imperial President is worthless as well. Odoru aho ni miru aho! Onaji aho nara odoranya son son!
Post #285,931 by boxley 5/31/07 9:29:05 AM Reply	yup, strong beleiver in tight gridlock Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep reach me at [link\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]

Democrats Trusted More Than Republicans on 10 Key Issues - (lincoln) - (88) - May 28, 2007, 08:54:25 PM EDT

sounds like the sheeple are truly stupid - (boxley) - (87) - May 28, 2007, 09:53:35 PM EDT

Sure they are; they voted for Bush AGAIN in '04. - (CRConrad) - (86) - May 29, 2007, 03:06:28 AM EDT

read me in my posts suomi boy :-) -NT - (boxley) - (85) - May 29, 2007, 09:47:18 AM EDT

I did. You keep defending him. That *scares* me. -NT - (CRConrad) - (84) - May 29, 2007, 10:36:11 AM EDT

go back further, I explicitely stated who I would vote for - (boxley) - (83) - May 29, 2007, 11:00:48 AM EDT

What,you saying you *don't* defend him at every opportunity? - (CRConrad) - (82) - May 29, 2007, 03:38:22 PM EDT

I dislike the " I's hates bush so It must be impeachable" - (boxley) - (81) - May 29, 2007, 03:44:10 PM EDT

Good nutshell -NT - (bepatient) - May 29, 2007, 04:04:43 PM EDT

Not speaking for anyone else, but I think GWB has committed - (Seamus) - (79) - May 29, 2007, 06:35:32 PM EDT

of course the idiot is impeachable - (boxley) - (71) - May 29, 2007, 06:50:56 PM EDT

Actually if you read the document - (Seamus) - (68) - May 29, 2007, 08:10:41 PM EDT

wrong on both counts - (boxley) - (57) - May 29, 2007, 08:21:34 PM EDT

No not wrong. - (Seamus) - (56) - May 29, 2007, 08:56:24 PM EDT

again, I said Jackson vs supreme court - (boxley) - (55) - May 30, 2007, 09:56:05 AM EDT

Yes you did but it is less relevant to this than you think - (Seamus) - (53) - May 30, 2007, 05:03:42 PM EDT

I can name quite a few presidents who did more harm to this - (boxley) - (52) - May 30, 2007, 05:53:54 PM EDT

Oh Well, Then - - - - (Ashton) - (2) - May 30, 2007, 06:09:38 PM EDT

re-read my post - (boxley) - (1) - May 30, 2007, 06:43:18 PM EDT

Everyone does Bill - (Seamus) - May 30, 2007, 06:56:30 PM EDT

Where to begin - (Seamus) - (48) - May 30, 2007, 06:49:42 PM EDT

nope, there is a laundry list of impeachable items - (boxley) - (47) - May 30, 2007, 07:12:24 PM EDT

We have been over this - (Seamus) - (46) - May 30, 2007, 07:24:56 PM EDT

Im curious about your stance on signing statements - (boxley) - (45) - May 30, 2007, 07:33:34 PM EDT

In his signings statements he has basically said he isn't - (Seamus) - (44) - May 30, 2007, 07:55:18 PM EDT

I beleive you as I have read the same - (boxley) - (43) - May 30, 2007, 07:58:37 PM EDT

Impeachment isn't the first response but I added them - (Seamus) - (42) - May 30, 2007, 08:38:34 PM EDT

the democrats are too concerned about getting the whole hog - (boxley) - May 30, 2007, 08:44:06 PM EDT

Signing statements go back to Monroe - (bepatient) - (40) - May 30, 2007, 09:10:36 PM EDT

Minor nit - (Simon_Jester) - (4) - May 30, 2007, 10:19:29 PM EDT

John Dean had an interesting commentary on them. - (Another Scott) - (3) - May 30, 2007, 10:31:44 PM EDT

GWB has taken this... - (bepatient) - May 31, 2007, 05:56:00 AM EDT

Rats and constitutional law dont exactly go together -NT - (boxley) - (1) - May 31, 2007, 09:21:11 AM EDT

Shooting the messenger (Dean) doesn't help the argument... -NT - (Another Scott) - May 31, 2007, 09:28:27 AM EDT

There is a line item veto. - (hnick) - (34) - May 31, 2007, 07:27:32 AM EDT

2 things - (bepatient) - (33) - May 31, 2007, 08:09:43 AM EDT

Heh! - (hnick) - (3) - May 31, 2007, 12:18:15 PM EDT

as a country we have survived worse -NT - (boxley) - (2) - May 31, 2007, 01:00:27 PM EDT

Think Hookes modulus - (hnick) - (1) - May 31, 2007, 06:32:11 PM EDT

+5 Originality - an apt scienterrific application of Hooke! - (Ashton) - May 31, 2007, 06:52:37 PM EDT

Signing statements - (Seamus) - (27) - May 31, 2007, 05:26:23 PM EDT

another rat reference, why is he an authority on anything? -NT - (boxley) - (26) - May 31, 2007, 05:40:08 PM EDT

Why is he a rat? Because he felt a greater loyalty to the - (Seamus) - (25) - May 31, 2007, 05:53:18 PM EDT

yeah, right. He had a greater loyalty to his - (boxley) - (24) - May 31, 2007, 06:00:58 PM EDT

So there is nothing he has done since then to redeem himself - (Seamus) - (23) - May 31, 2007, 06:08:36 PM EDT

what has he done? - (boxley) - (22) - May 31, 2007, 06:37:05 PM EDT

So he shouldn't have told the truth? -NT - (Another Scott) - (14) - May 31, 2007, 06:51:55 PM EDT

he should have been building a case to get all of them - (boxley) - (13) - May 31, 2007, 08:01:40 PM EDT

Has anyone else in the US government ever done that? - (Another Scott) - (11) - May 31, 2007, 08:42:23 PM EDT

scooter did the right thing - (boxley) - (10) - May 31, 2007, 08:54:41 PM EDT

Scooter lied to FBI, obstructed justice, comitted perjury. - (Another Scott) - May 31, 2007, 09:35:44 PM EDT

"The courage of their convictions, even if they are wrong"? - (CRConrad) - (8) - June 1, 2007, 09:34:25 AM EDT

principled!=good in any case - (boxley) - (7) - June 1, 2007, 10:50:58 AM EDT

Because you, and people like you, get to vote over there. - (CRConrad) - (6) - June 2, 2007, 07:33:48 PM EDT

Given that the Ohio elections were probably rigged . . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (5) - June 2, 2007, 07:48:18 PM EDT

Sorry, not good enough; shouldn't have been even close. - (CRConrad) - (4) - June 2, 2007, 08:27:54 PM EDT

yer saying it was better in the old days? - (boxley) - (3) - June 3, 2007, 10:28:23 AM EDT

WTF are you gibbering about? Yes, of course it was! In... - (CRConrad) - (2) - June 3, 2007, 11:21:10 AM EDT

clinton didnt trample the WHAT! - (boxley) - (1) - June 3, 2007, 01:29:28 PM EDT

OK, so read it as "Clinton didn't *shatter* it" in stead. - (CRConrad) - June 3, 2007, 04:45:37 PM EDT

No you tell everything you know and take the consequences - (Seamus) - June 1, 2007, 06:22:56 AM EDT

What I see in this analysis is - - (Ashton) - (2) - May 31, 2007, 07:04:02 PM EDT

so a trained lawyer is no better than a street punk? - (boxley) - May 31, 2007, 08:00:03 PM EDT

We were talking about RATS - (Ashton) - May 31, 2007, 09:45:21 PM EDT

Liddy was/is psycho - (Seamus) - (3) - May 31, 2007, 07:09:02 PM EDT

why dont you read a real constitutional scholar - (boxley) - (2) - May 31, 2007, 07:58:38 PM EDT

Constitutional scholars - (Seamus) - (1) - June 1, 2007, 06:17:32 AM EDT

just for grins, what decade of life are you in? - (boxley) - June 1, 2007, 09:12:00 AM EDT

duplicate -NT - (Seamus) - May 31, 2007, 05:27:10 PM EDT

The pre-impeachment hearings re Nixon - (Ashton) - May 30, 2007, 05:03:55 PM EDT

Just to be clear - (Seamus) - (9) - May 29, 2007, 09:00:27 PM EDT

the inteligence estimates need to be publicised - (boxley) - (8) - May 30, 2007, 10:00:13 AM EDT

There is a lot to the intelligence side than just the PDB - (Seamus) - (7) - May 30, 2007, 05:45:49 PM EDT

absolutely, you just pointed out the problem - (boxley) - (6) - May 30, 2007, 05:56:40 PM EDT

Yes he can - (Seamus) - (5) - May 30, 2007, 06:58:29 PM EDT

not without evidence you cant -NT - (boxley) - (4) - May 30, 2007, 07:14:44 PM EDT

This is the crux of the matter - (Seamus) - (3) - May 30, 2007, 07:52:12 PM EDT

I would expect future presidents to - (boxley) - (2) - May 30, 2007, 08:04:34 PM EDT

And vis a vis a Congress that is a rubber stamp for... - (inthane-chan) - (1) - May 30, 2007, 11:09:30 PM EDT

yup, strong beleiver in tight gridlock -NT - (boxley) - May 31, 2007, 09:29:05 AM EDT

He is exactly who he was when he was elected -NT - (Seamus) - May 29, 2007, 08:16:15 PM EDT

The "not for"s are bs. - (Silverlock) - May 29, 2007, 08:23:05 PM EDT

He's impeachable...but he won't be impeached. - (Simon_Jester) - (3) - May 29, 2007, 06:52:23 PM EDT

Sure! - (jb4) - (2) - May 30, 2007, 09:10:45 AM EDT

s /Al Gonzales/Jeb Bush/ :-/ -NT - (Another Scott) - (1) - May 30, 2007, 09:34:48 AM EDT

Jeb ain't **that** stupid! -NT - (jb4) - May 30, 2007, 09:35:35 AM EDT

one other thing, there isnt 60 votes so by your definition - (boxley) - (2) - May 29, 2007, 07:44:10 PM EDT

Not yet there isn't, but there's still time - (Seamus) - May 29, 2007, 08:14:41 PM EDT

Technically speaking - (Simon_Jester) - May 30, 2007, 08:21:47 AM EDT

iwethey.org

Get the cool shoeshine.
191 ms