The Greatest President of Our Time

[nuke'em ttg]

Don't hit the panic button yet...........i think Rome comes outta the basement monday..........

[SheikYerbuti]

I saw a very funny bumper sticker yesterday at the movies (Harry Potter - 3 1/2 start BTW):

 

"Will someone please give Bush a b**wjob so we can impeach him already??"

[skylive5]

You know, it's actually getting harder and harder to keep that grip. Nearly every day I am reminded of the fact that our president is leading perhaps the most corrupt and vile administration in the world. As I said before, once upon a time, when you picked up the world section of the paper and read about some corrupt dictator in some random country, you could just shake your head. Honestly, the bragging rights are dwindling quickly. We used to make fun at the former USSR and how everything was so controlled. That nobody was allowed to speak out against the government. Well, what do you call it when the administration puts a gag order on the Surgeon General? National Security? I mean, that rationale that the cowards lap up as reasons why the POTUS can do what ever the hell he wants, whenever he wants to. Is the nation at danger is the Surgeon General speaks out against second hand smoke or gives his scientific opinion on stem-cell research?

 

W has abused the notion of patriotism to demand carte blanche from the US people. He has taken that carte blanche and made a mockery of this great nation and has caused situations that we will be paying dearly for, for years and years. Thus, I feel he is a traitor to nearly everyone in the US. This is why I feel those who actively support him (about 30% of the US) are traitors right along side him. I also think they are cowards because they have allowed their freedoms to be mortgaged in favor an illusion of safety.

 

You bandy those words (traitor/coward) to encompass everyone in this country that backs the President. However you fail to take into consideration those that have no choice in the matter. But then I would guess that I am right in assuming that you have never served the country you are so happily bashing..... (and if you did you probably weren't very good at it) so I am going to just give you a break and ignore you from now on. The ignoring is based on the fact that you have no clue about oaths, rules, or honor, and I have no desire to come here and be trashed, or see men and women of the military being trashed, by clueless bumpkins with nothing better to do than cause hate and discontent.

 

You want to amend your statements to reflect civilians only... I will take that into consideration.

[detlef]

You bandy those words (traitor/coward) to encompass everyone in this country that backs the President. However you fail to take into consideration those that have no choice in the matter. But then I would guess that I am right in assuming that you have never served the country you are so happily bashing..... (and if you did you probably weren't very good at it) so I am going to just give you a break and ignore you from now on. The ignoring is based on the fact that you have no clue about oaths, rules, or honor, and I have no desire to come here and be trashed, or see men and women of the military being trashed, by clueless bumpkins with nothing better to do than cause hate and discontent.

 

You want to amend your statements to reflect civilians only... I will take that into consideration.

I thought I made it clear with my last statement when I referred to the 30%. That is people, if asked their honest feelings of Bush, say they approve of his actions. I certainly am not implying that those duty bound through oath to support the president simply honoring that oath are traitors or cowards.

 

If you insist on getting hung up on syntax, be my guest. Though I think I've made it abundantly clear that anyone not outraged by Bush and Co. actions... You are, of course, welcome to ignore what I have said, and I will ignore your implication that I am bashing this country simply because I am outraged that our president is making a mockery of our laws.

[Sgt. Ryan]

Reagan

[BLIND HOMER]

Reagan

i hope u meen Nancy

[Kid Cid]

Strong words detlef and while your sentiments on this adminitration may be spot on, by sky has a pretty good point. Civilians can drop the traitor label whenever they want with relative impunity. To the men and women serving this country in either the military or in government service, the charge of treason is exceptionally serious and is punishable by many means, up to and including death. Merely pointing that charge at an individual carries a stigma larger than a civilian charged with rape carries.

 

Calling individuals lame, vapid, unthinking cows, unwilling and unable to access the true state of things because of the complete and total disregard of the Constitution by our current government is entirely called for. Calling individuals traitors is not.

[Yukon Cornelius]

Strong words detlef and while your sentiments on this adminitration may be spot on, by sky has a pretty good point. Civilians can drop the traitor label whenever they want with relative impunity. To the men and women serving this country in either the military or in government service, the charge of treason is exceptionally serious and is punishable by many means, up to and including death. Merely pointing that charge at an individual carries a stigma larger than a civilian charged with rape carries.

 

Calling individuals lame, vapid, unthinking cows, unwilling and unable to access the true state of things because of the complete and total disregard of the Constitution by our current government is entirely called for. Calling individuals traitors is not.

my uncles and father in law called him and still call him a traitor... they all served in another conflict that turned bad...

[The Holy Roller]

Reagan

 

I liked Ronnie very much.

[detlef]

Strong words detlef and while your sentiments on this adminitration may be spot on, by sky has a pretty good point. Civilians can drop the traitor label whenever they want with relative impunity. To the men and women serving this country in either the military or in government service, the charge of treason is exceptionally serious and is punishable by many means, up to and including death. Merely pointing that charge at an individual carries a stigma larger than a civilian charged with rape carries.

 

Calling individuals lame, vapid, unthinking cows, unwilling and unable to access the true state of things because of the complete and total disregard of the Constitution by our current government is entirely called for. Calling individuals traitors is not.

Those who back W are often quick to claim that those who are not willing to lap up whatever he sends our way are not patriotic. It is because of this that I have chosen both those words. I understand what sky has said and have made it clear that I do not intend to question the patriotism or faith in our country that those who are simply honoring their oath to serve this country and it's president. I will not, however, back down in my claims that this administration is willingly damaging this country and it's core values to serve itself and few others. Thus, if you do not find this outrageous...OK, I'll add stupid to the mix. You are either stupid, a coward, or a traitor. Fair enough, I'll add stupid to the list. That is not a hangable offense.

[Randall]

 

 

Sarah Taylor saying she took an oath to the president instead of an oath to the Constitution.

[Bill Swerski]

I saw a very funny bumper sticker yesterday at the movies (Harry Potter - 3 1/2 start BTW):

 

"Will someone please give Bush a b**wjob so we can impeach him already??"

 

I see bumper stickers like this all of the time where I live. And it doesn't make me want to vote for a Democrat.

 

There's nothing wrong with criticizing a sitting President. But if you're going to do it, act like an adult and show a little class.

Edited July 12, 2007 by Bill Swerski

[WaterMan]

 

Sarah Taylor saying she took an oath to the president instead of an oath to the Constitution.

 

Of course, God over country.

[WaterMan]

Appointment of U.S. Attorneys and the 2005 Patriot Act reauthorization

 

The appointment process for U.S. Attorneys

The President of the United States has the authority to appoint U.S. Attorneys, with the consent of the Senate, and the President may remove U.S. Attorneys from office.[51] In the event of a vacancy, the United States Attorney General is authorized to appoint an interim U.S. Attorney. Before March 9, 2006, such interim appointments expired after 120 days, if a Presidential appointment had not been approved by the Senate. Vacancies that persisted beyond 120 days were filled through interim appointments made by the Federal District Court for the district of the vacant office.[52]

 

Senate-confirmed appointments to the Department of Justice (DOJ) offices, particularly U.S. Attorneys, are political in nature. Appointments to U.S. Attorney positions are often made in consultation with individual senators of the same party as the President. Appointment are sometimes made to reward party loyalists.

 

For further information:

Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy#Law references

United States Attorney#History of interim U.S. Attorney appointments

 

Revised interim appointment process in March 2006

The USA PATRIOT Act Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005, signed into law March 9, 2006, amended the law for the interim appointment of U.S. Attorneys by deleting two provisions: (a) the 120-day maximum term for the Attorney General's interim appointees, and (B ) the subsequent interim appointment authority of Federal District Courts. (See Law references for the text to the statute (28 U.S.C. § 546), and its amendments.) With the revision, an interim appointee can potentially serve indefinitely (though still removable by the President), if the President declines to nominate a U.S. Attorney for a vacancy, or the Senate either fails to act on a Presidential nomination, or rejects a nominee that is different than the interim appointee.

 

The change was written into the bill by Republican Senator Arlen Specter when the bill was modified in joint conference committee, reconciling the Senate and House versions of the bill.[53] During Senate hearings on February 6, 2007, Senator Specter stated that Brett Tolman, a committee staffer, had inserted the clause on behalf of the Department of Justice.[54] Specter stated that the change in the law had been partly to address separation of powers concerns expressed by a number of court districts, the issue being the interim appointments of U.S. Attorneys (executive branch) by the courts (judicial branch).[54] The courts had appointed U.S. Attorneys for over a hundred years, however.[55] The Department of Justice had been seeking a way to appoint U.S. Attorneys without Senate approval prior to 2005.[56]

 

On March 20, 2007, the Senate voted 94-2 to re-instate the 120-day term limit on interim attorneys appointed by the Attorney General.[57] On March 26, the U.S. House overturned it as well, by a vote of 329-78.[58] The bill was passed in identical form by both houses in May 2007 and was signed into law by the President on June 14, 2007.[28][59]

Edited July 12, 2007 by WaterMan

[H8tank]

I support the president. I do not support everything he does.

 

Is the surgeon general elected, or is he hired by the president? So who does he answer to?

 

Bush Derangement syndrome is a funny thing. You whiney little kids need a wake up call. It is sad we will likely be getting one soon.

[Jimmy Neutron]

It is sad we will likely be getting one soon.

 

This much I agree with. I think the war on terror will become much more real to a lot of folks within the next year or so.

[detlef]

Is the surgeon general elected, or is he hired by the president? So who does he answer to?

 

Bush Derangement syndrome is a funny thing. You whiney little kids need a wake up call. It is sad we will likely be getting one soon.

Surely you are not implying that, simply because the Surgeon General is not elected he is not there to serve the people of the US. If the head government scientists have evidence regarding something like stem cell research it is to the detriment of the US people that it be withheld.

 

I understand that the abortion implications are very disagreeable to many in this country and, thus, they oppose that research. However, there is always a tipping point. Perhaps if the people knew the extent to which something like that could help our society, people who are marginally opposed for moral reasons would decide to support it. Honestly, I don't know where that line is. However, without this debate, nobody will know and the country will be held hostage in favor of pandering to an extreme faction of society. To do this is disgraceful and not something that should be within the rights of the president.

 

If you don't realize this or are such a pathetic coward that it doesn't bother you... Well, you owe the rest of your countrymen an apology.

[Randall]

Of course, God over country.

 

 

God loves war.

[Hugh 0ne]

Any correlation between a Chinese Restaurant owner, the Chinese poisoning our children and our food and our animals, and the Chinese destroying our manufacturing industry among other things? Methinks Detlef's the real traitor here.

[Hugh 0ne]

Dorey sleeping late or something?

[wiegie]

The president appointed Maura Harty to be the Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs. That fact alone makes him one of the worst presidents ever.