There is a lot going on, let us hear what you think
Friday, October 06, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Obama Higher Taxes Failed Stimulus Fewer Jobs Change we can vote out
What will happen in November
Search This Blog
About Me
Posts
Blog Archive
All the Links you will ever need
- Google News
- Wisconsin Political Blog Search Engine
- Hotmail
- Drudge Report
- NewsMax
- Steve Czaben
- Rush Limbaugh
- Glenn Beck
- Ann Coulter
- The Savage Nation
- Bill O'Reilly
- The Weather Channel
- Expose the Left
- Fact Check
- Freedom Eden blog
- Folkbum's rambles and rants
- GOP bloggers
- Kubasiak Corner
- Liberal jackass quote of the day
- News Busters blog
- Media Research Center
- Michelle Malkin blog
- Ol' broads ramblings
- Radio equalizer blog
- Real America blog
- Realdebatewis blog
- Right is Right blog
- Tammy Bruce
- Thoughtful conservative blog
- 21st Century Republican
- This day in history
- Villains Vanquished blog
Followers
Labels
- "change" (1)
- "change" in america (3)
- 2008 (1)
- 2008 election (61)
- 2008 primaries (14)
- 9-11 (1)
- a-rod (1)
- abortion (11)
- abstinence (1)
- ACLU (4)
- ACORN (2)
- activist judges (1)
- affirmative action (3)
- african american (1)
- aging (1)
- AIG (1)
- air america (2)
- al frankin (5)
- algore (11)
- american idol (5)
- americans hate health care bill (5)
- americans turn on obama (1)
- angie (1)
- ann coulter (21)
- arizona immigration law (1)
- ayers (1)
- bailouts (3)
- barrett (2)
- baseball (2)
- BHO (1)
- biden (2)
- black leaders (3)
- blame america first (2)
- blame bush (1)
- bon jovi (2)
- bonds (2)
- border fence (1)
- box office (11)
- breastfeeding (1)
- brewers (12)
- Bush (2)
- busing (2)
- cable ratings (8)
- cap and tax (4)
- capitalism (1)
- car industry (2)
- cartoons (2)
- charter schools (1)
- cheney (2)
- child abuse (2)
- china (2)
- chineese money (1)
- choice schools (1)
- christmas (4)
- chuck norris (1)
- Clinton (32)
- CNN (2)
- common sense (1)
- communism (8)
- comprehensive sex education (1)
- comrade obama (1)
- conan o'brien (3)
- conservative principles in the inner city (6)
- conservatives win (2)
- country over party (1)
- crime (3)
- criminals for obama (2)
- culture war (1)
- current events (23)
- dailykos (1)
- DANE (2)
- death of america (1)
- death penalty (2)
- death tax (1)
- deficit (1)
- dem destruction 2010 (3)
- dem take over (4)
- demcratic affairs (1)
- democrat approval rating (1)
- democrat base (1)
- democrats (10)
- democrats and fees (1)
- democrats losing jobs (4)
- democrats protect criminals (2)
- democrats raise taxes (11)
- dems are stupid (1)
- dick morris (1)
- doyle (15)
- drill for oil (6)
- economy (14)
- education (48)
- empty suit obama (2)
- entitlement (3)
- environmentalists (27)
- ethanol (3)
- europe on obama (1)
- facebook (1)
- failed liberalism (124)
- fairness doctrine (3)
- fantasy football (3)
- favre (3)
- feel good story (1)
- feingold (2)
- fischer (2)
- FNC (1)
- food tax (1)
- football (1)
- free for all (8)
- free speech (6)
- freedom (1)
- gangs (1)
- gas prices (4)
- gitmo (1)
- global warming (69)
- GOP (2)
- government takeover (3)
- green energy (1)
- gun control (3)
- gwen moore (1)
- haditha (1)
- handouts don't work (1)
- hardball (1)
- harley-davidson (5)
- hawaii (7)
- health care (12)
- healthy wisconsin (1)
- higher education (1)
- hillary (10)
- history (1)
- Hollywood (3)
- how liberalism hurts us (2)
- huckabee (2)
- illegal immigration (61)
- inflation (1)
- inner city behavior (51)
- internet (1)
- iran (3)
- Iraq (52)
- israel (4)
- jesus (1)
- kagan (2)
- kevin fischer (1)
- lake delton (1)
- lena taylor (2)
- libby (1)
- liberal "acceptance" (2)
- liberal bias (12)
- liberal emotionalism (6)
- liberal failure (30)
- liberal hypocracy (91)
- liberal hypocricy (34)
- liberal hypocrisy (8)
- liberal intolerance (17)
- liberal judges (2)
- liberal lies (43)
- liberal media (87)
- liberal mental disorder (5)
- liberal spending (21)
- liberal tactics (1)
- liberal talk radio (1)
- liberal teachers (3)
- liberal thought (122)
- liberal unintended consequences (1)
- liberal voters (1)
- liberals hate america (1)
- liberals on the military (21)
- liberals pretending to be conservative (5)
- liberals running the military (6)
- Lieberman (1)
- limbaugh (3)
- low expectations (1)
- marijuana (1)
- mccain (17)
- mccainvsobama (2)
- mcgee (11)
- media (1)
- media bias (93)
- medicine (1)
- Michael Vick (1)
- mid term elections 2012 (1)
- middle east (2)
- military (3)
- military schools (2)
- milwaukee (3)
- milwaukee county (1)
- milwaukee county parks (1)
- monopoly money (2)
- moveon.org (1)
- movies (2)
- MPS (60)
- MPS bradley tech (3)
- murder (1)
- murtha (2)
- muslim intolerance (8)
- myspace (1)
- NASA (1)
- national security (1)
- NBA (4)
- NCAA (2)
- ned yost (1)
- NFL (21)
- november 2010 (20)
- november 2012 (1)
- nuclear energy (6)
- nuclear weapons (1)
- ob (1)
- obama (128)
- obama accomplishes nothing (2)
- obama and terror (1)
- obama approval rating (7)
- obama birth certificate (1)
- obama breaks campaign promises (1)
- obama care (1)
- obama destroying economy (6)
- obama economy (3)
- obama fixes nothing (2)
- obama flip flopper (2)
- obama gaffes (7)
- obama hates american (5)
- obama is stupid (23)
- obama is weak (3)
- obama lies (3)
- obama not a citizen (1)
- obama not ready for prime time (3)
- obama policies same as bush (2)
- obama popularity (1)
- obama radical friends (1)
- obama says nothing (3)
- obama scandal (2)
- obama snob (4)
- obama talk to much (1)
- obama talks to terrorists (1)
- obama the cheater (1)
- obama the failure (41)
- obama the joke (4)
- obama the liar (16)
- obama the moderate? (1)
- obama the racist (12)
- obama the socialist (21)
- obama understands nothing (1)
- obama unprofessionalism (1)
- obama..politics as usual (22)
- obama's cabinet (2)
- obama's lack of professionalism (1)
- obamacare (4)
- obesity (1)
- oil (10)
- oil prices (9)
- oil solutions (4)
- olympics (2)
- Packers (8)
- palin (5)
- parenting (6)
- patriotism (2)
- paul ryan (2)
- pay your way (1)
- PC (27)
- pelosi (2)
- perez hilton (1)
- petraeus (2)
- phony liberal outrage (2)
- physical education (1)
- pirates (2)
- police (1)
- political ads (2)
- politics (1)
- polls (8)
- poverty (1)
- president obama (1)
- president teleprompter (4)
- presidential debate 2008 (3)
- Presidents (1)
- pro bowl (6)
- pro choice (2)
- profiling (1)
- progress in iraq (2)
- public schools (1)
- race card (45)
- racism (28)
- radical islam (6)
- raising children (1)
- recession (5)
- religion (5)
- RNC (3)
- rudy (1)
- scandals (1)
- school shootings (1)
- schools (4)
- scientific studies (1)
- security (1)
- self esteem (1)
- separation of church and state (1)
- sex education (1)
- sex offenders (1)
- sin taxes (1)
- single mothers (1)
- slander (1)
- smoking (3)
- SNL (2)
- soc (1)
- soccer (1)
- social networks (1)
- socialism (27)
- socialized health care (39)
- society (5)
- sotomayor (2)
- south park (1)
- spending (1)
- spitzer (2)
- sports (35)
- sportsmanship (1)
- STDs (1)
- steroids (3)
- stimulus (12)
- summ (1)
- summerfest (97)
- summerfest 2010 (24)
- superbowl (4)
- supporting the troops (1)
- supreme court (4)
- talk radio (2)
- tax the rich (4)
- taxes (43)
- tea party (1)
- technology (1)
- terrorism (8)
- terrorists love obama (3)
- terrorists support dems (2)
- tolerance (1)
- tommy thompson (1)
- tony snow (1)
- treason (2)
- true conservatism (1)
- TV (15)
- tv ratings (4)
- twilight (1)
- twitter (1)
- unhinged (1)
- union (4)
- universal health care (4)
- useful idiots (4)
- vaccine (1)
- voter fraud (32)
- voter ID (2)
- voucher schools (1)
- walker (2)
- war on terror (35)
- wasting money (1)
- weather (1)
- wellfare state (3)
- what is obama hiding (6)
- wisconsin dells (1)
- wisconsin state fair (87)
- WWE (2)
29 comments:
Finally, some Liberal Democrats are facing charges for illegally diverting funds from the Gloria Wise Boys & Girls club to Air America. Here a link to a post on Right Voices, http://rightvoices.com/2006/10/05/gloria-wise-donation-to-air-america-nets-criminal-charges/
I'm sure Radio Equalizer has more direct links.
Where there's public money, you'll find Democrats trying to "divert" it to Democrat causes and pockets, most of the time illegally.
Brian, over at Iowa Voice, has a post up about why the Left doesn't like photo voter ID laws. He cites an article about all the voter fraud the Liberal group ACORN has committed. ACORN openly supported Democrats. Here's the link to Brian's post, http://www.iowavoice.com/index.php?/archives/2801-This-Is-Why-The-Left-Doesnt-Like-The-Idea-Of-Photo-IDs.html
Even George Soros is getting on TV to rant and rave when caught being a hypocrite.
http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDQ0YWI4ZGUzMGIyNGIxMzA0MTY1MTcxNDQ1MzhmZTA=
Well, Dedanna, this enough cites for you? Come to think of it, Dedanna, I never see a cite from you. Maybe you ought to look in the mirror when you criticize others, especially when you are being accurately described.
Oh, just one more blast from the past for Dedanna. Dedanna, who couldn't remember that there were any other Clinton scandals other than Monica, certainly won't remember Hazel "trips" O'Leary. The Clinton cabinet member who rented Madonna's jet using taxpayer money and who bought into a security firm who the Clinton Admin. hired to guard Los Alimitos (so I can't spell). Bill Richardson didn't remove the firm until the loss of nuclear secrets was discovered and ownership of the firm traced back to O'Leary.
After lying about her intentions, Pelosi finally admitted her agenda and priority is to raise taxes and spending.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061006/ap_on_el_ge/pelosi_time_1
Dude, did you see Carroll is going to be playing BBall against the BADGERS, in Madison? Have they completely lost it?
wow...I did not see that...it will be a slaughter
pcd...look at your links later
Game,
I'll be out of town for a week. Going to SoCal on business. Will miss the Packer game in favor of seeing my LA based daughter and celebrating my 50th B-day with her.
I know the libs wiil try to run roughshod with half(and that is being charitable)-truths, but remember the light of truth and publicity shone on them makes them scurry away like cockroaches.
If truth is light to pcd, he's been in pitch darkness for a long, long time....
Game,
Found another cool link for ya -- you may or may not have seen it already.Google's Codesearch.
The reason I say you might have seen it already, is I saw it on Technorati just today, and I know it's been out for a bit.
Da Bearss.
How about a discussion of Bush's use of signing statements?
You guys OK with them?
don't know what you are talking about...but unlike you, who will NEVER say anything bad about any liberal...I am honest and open
Bullshit again. I've been critical about Clinton, both of them. And what has that got to do with my question?
If you don't know what I'm talking about when I bring up signing statements, you are severely unaware.
A signing statement is what George W. Bush does when Congress passes a law and he wants to tell them to go fuck themselves.
Read this and become informed.
See, he doesn't ever veto any bills (except once). He simply says he's not going to pay any attention to them.
So, what's new, Jim? Nothing new there, the 750 law thing has been around for what almost 2 years now?
I could say the same for both parties. I think they've done enough to screw things up. I know of things on both sides that would make the hairs on your chest stand up.
Those who are not partisan & not toting the party line can see objectively.
Game: Check it out. An issue very close to you.
Is he "ignoring" whole laws? or just parts of them...
I don't see anything wrong with testing the lines between branches...if he is wrong, then the judicial branch will keep him in check
De, anybody with any sense of honesty knows that it is not a Democrat or Republic issue when it comes to abuse of power. Given the opportunity, those in power will abuse it. The Dems did it when they were in power and the Republics have done it when they were in power as they are doing it now.
The problem lies in the lack of checks and balances existing when one party controls the executive and the Congress. And together they are putting judges on the court who will abdicate to the will of those who appoint them.
Game says, "I don't see anything wrong with testing the lines between branches...if he is wrong, then the judicial branch will keep him in check".
That doesn't doesn't happen when the branches are all in the hands of one party. Even those Republics in the Senate who APPEAR to go against the president turn out to be phonies when they cave in to the president on torture and habeas corpus.
It's not Republics per se. It's just that they are the ones in power and they are the ones that are degrading this country's status as a super power. The Democrats could not possibly do worse.
Jim, if you had left off that very last sentence, I'd believe you're not toting party line here.
See, this is what I'm talking about. We have an issue. The issue being of what the current administration is/isn't doing, and what is/isn't going to do.
How can we say that the Dems couldn't do worse when Dukakis was a womanizing loose form of man himself (among others)?
How can we say that the Dems couldn't do worse, when they've allowed, and I do mean allowed themselves to creep down to the level they have today? They've done very little (if anything) to stand up to the bullshit going on, from the Iraq war on up and down -- look at Lieberman, who's just another Iraqi war advocate, a former Dem who's basically rolled over.
When we have no concrete plan from the Dems for the country's future,
We just can't tote the Dem line, son, we can't. We can sit back and say that we, as human beings, don't like what's going on (and I think that's the only thing honestly that the Repugs would respect enough to listen to), we can devise our own ideas at this point in the country's history of what should be done, but who's doing it? Who's coming up with anything that's feasible? I don't see it from anyone. Yes, the Repubs are pointing fingers at each other, but what is that solving? Not a damned thing. Not a one of them has come up with anything that's better than what we got -- as a matter of fact, they're deep in what we got already. I have yet to see a Dem who honestly isn't either.
Are we gonna whine and moan about the Repugs, or are we gonna do something about the state of affairs here and abroad that they've called into being?
Think about it. I may not be finding the exact words I need here, but at least I'm on the track to explaining myself.
Okay, let me put it to you like this:
If you had said "no one could do any worse", I'd believe you.
And I do believe that. Whole-heartedly.
All I have to do is look at the bullshit coming from all angles, from this blog, to a whole host of hundreds of others, from news stories to music, etc. to believe that.
All I have to do is see that each side, right here, is consistently using the same buzz-words on each other to put each other down, to know that it's all bullshit. "Your party lies". "Neocons blah-blah-blah". "Liberals blah-blah-blah."
They both call each other the exact same thing, using the exact same words on each other. Even Ron uses them at his blog -- the exact same buzz words the Repubs use.
They both belong in the propaganda machine, cuz none of them are getting anywhere with me.
Marshall, game, everyone, you need to go here, and bookmark the page.
I bookmarked it, Dedanna. I hope I can make heads or tails of it.
As to signing statements, I've tried to research this and found a lot of lib sites crapping on Bush for his use of them. Some were kind enough to admit that it's nothing new for presidents to use them, but it seems the amount W's used them is what hacks libs off. Finally I found a conserv sight that mentioned that the method used to count the incidents of Bush's use of signing statements inflates the actual amount. (What a surprise.) In any event, charges that he uses them to skirt the law also impunes the other presidents who used signing statements. (In other words, all of them.) Some, like Jim, seem to get hung up on differences of opinions, such as, the arguments surrounding alleged torture by our interrogators. The dif of opinion lies in the fact that Bush doesn't agree with what has been charged by the left. So many of the signing statements speak to whether or not the bill even has the authority to order anything on a given issue. Sometimes it's a matter of whether the bill is Constitutional. So all in all, unless there's a specific incident involving Bush's use of a signing statement, I have no problem with the concept. The use of them is no problem legally, so Jim must have something specific in mind.
Dedanna, I have never heard of nor found ANY reference to Dukakis being a womanizer. Sounds like libel to me.
What is your source for that?
(I guess I'm not done.)
The notion that there is somehow an automatic abuse of power when Bush uses signing statements is a baseless assumption. Jim likes to believe there is no checks and balances concept in play due to one party in control of the White House, Congress and Senate. This is not true, particularly with the judiciary still in play. Despite your moanings to the contrary, there has not been any evidence that the SCOTUS nominations by Bush have been party hacks in any sense of the word. In fact, Bush has selected, and will select again should the need arise, someone who has shown a clear knowledge of Constitutional law and applies it as written, without the typical "insights" we've seen by lib justices. As such, we now have a more sturdy check on abuse than we did before Roberts and Alito were confirmed. Both the House and Senate are still a check in that they need to have majorities to pass anything, and a good argument will persuade anyone. That they are comprised mostly of Republicans doesn't mean they will automatically side with Bush. One example has been the House's immigration bill being more strict than what Bush has tried to suggest. It's pretty easy to sit back and say that because the GOP has majorities and the last two justices confirmed were Bush's that there will be some grand and evil overtaking. This pretty much sums up the Democratic argument for their campaigns. But it simply isn't the case.
Oh and BTW. Dems WILL do worse. A more precise statement is: They couldn't do as well.
The use of them is no problem legally? The American Bar Association apparently disagrees with you on that.
If Congress passes a law that says the director of FEMA must have at least 6 years of emergency services management experience and the president signs it into law and then says NOPE to the six year requirement, that's OK with you?
At least Marshall, I give you credit for actually reading about it and looking into it.
If the president doesn't like a bill, he should veto it. What he is doing is essentially creating his own line item veto. The Supreme Court has previously ruled that the line item veto is unconstitutional.
So there is a problem legally.
There's a difference in a signing statement that says "this is what I understand this law to mean and will act accordingly", and a signing statement that says "I am the president and I'm not going to adhere to this LAW that I have just signed."
So it's an explanation when you agree with it, and a problem when you don't. Bush is not the first to use this as I learned. It is used to specify when the legislation is appropriate, or rather, when the prez feels it might not be. In other words, it might not apply to every situation, and a signing statement is often used in this case. The ABA is free to offer their opinion, but I believe it's the Supremes who interpret legality. And even then, I believe it would be focussed on a specific statement and not signing statements in general.
Sorry, Jim, I was thinking of Gary Hart. I got them confused from the Colorado tie-in.
The point, actually, was not specifically who. It was that the Dem party has a history of womanizers, but then, so do they all I guess. Just seems that it's worse on the Dem side.
If this is what you zeroed in on, Jim, you completely missed the point of what I was trying to say in that post. Quit over-analyzing words; you miss the point of what they're saying if you do.
Post a Comment