"You need to have a president who understands you can't win this war with legal papers. We've got to use every asset at our disposal." --May 13, 2003, ABC News' Nightline.
"GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions" of the Patriot Act "could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.
"'I don’t give a goddamn,' Bush retorted. 'I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.'
"'Mr. President,' one aide in the meeting said. 'There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.'
"'Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,' Bush screamed back. 'It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!'"
Bush has declared himself to be the sole judge of the limits of his powers--a claim that violates Bush's oath of office to uphold the US Constitution. Bush has set aside the Bill of Rights by detaining people indefinitely without charges, by kidnapping and torturing people, and by spying on Americans without warrants. These are actions that are illegal under law as well as unconstitutional. All of these violations of law and the Constitution are serious impeachable offenses.
So what's your point Dim?
Or were you using Bush's example to argue against Pohi and I...lol.
These are the people that make religion into such a "bad" thing. They understand what the shit means, but they will take it to the absolute extreme retarded literal interpretation possible, if it helps them make a point.
Yes, I know religion has nothing to do with this, it's just the same stupid-ass thinking.
I was aware of what he was saying, it was just funny that he thought he was making a point about it when discussing this with Pohi and I, considering I'm pretty sure we'd like to see Bush impeached as well.
Basically, you made it about parties and we belong to neither.
The thing is, (although I admit all I really know about the situation is what I read in a few articles this week) he lately seems to be completely ignoring the opposition and governing by fiat, with the whole, "Screw you guys, I'll come up with some economic stimulus when I feel like it eh!" (sorry, it's still funny once in a while). "Oh, but don't worry, you can still help out by giving up all your funding."
At that point, what's the effective difference between a majority government and a plurality government? And for that matter, isn't the possibility that a minority government could piss off the opposition parties enough for them to form a coalition part of what's supposed to "keep it in check" in the first place? If a coalition turns out to be impossible (because the G.G says so or because the people decide it's not democratic enough), then doesn't that take away a lot of the power that opposition parties are supposed to have?
If only because I could shit on him more easily.