|
|
|
how long do oranges last? You would think the President would talk to his choosen commander more than once
|
|
again when you are proved wrong. On Sep 30, 2:06 pm, Hollywood <
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
wrote: Zeb, Bull-fucking-shit. NO where did I say the President should not spend time on the war issues. On Sep 30, 12:20 pm, Zebnick <
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
wrote: You question word meaning because you are obsessed with minutia and because it avoids debating the subject at hand. Rather than addressing whether the President should spend his precious time getting more involved with the Olympic games or familiarizing himself with a war we are engaged in, you question the meaning of the word intimately. How very Clintonian of you. How very evasive. On Sep 30, 12:07 am, Hollywood <
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
wrote: Zeb, Ok amigo. I'll take your answer to the rather specifc question(s) I posed as duuuuuh......... I WILL question every word, every phrase as pleases me. I know exactly what you are trying to do, you're just not very good at it. On Sep 29, 10:57 pm, Zebnick <
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
wrote: The way you question the meaning of words is useless and merely evasive. Saying it depends on how you define intimately is as evasive as it depends on how you define 'is'. On Sep 29, 6:04 pm, Hollywood <
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
wrote: Zeb, The wording DEFINES the issue. Two leaders can be taking the exact same actions. One observer can describe the actions of one as obsessive micro-managing , another can describe the exact same actions taken by the other man as skillful over-sight or managing or some other term that carries a positive connotation. You've never read any Edward Bernays writings, total unaware of marketing, labeling, branding, public relations or advertising? Politicians refer to it a spinning . Words are important. Your fucking right I'm going to questions words and ther definitions. On Sep 29, 4:47 pm, Zebnick <
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
wrote: How long do you think you can avoid the issue at hand by questioning the definition of every other word? On Sep 29, 4:18 pm, Hollywood <
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
wrote: Zeb, Guess that all depends on how you might wish to define intimately, now wouldn't it? On Sep 29, 10:28 am, Zebnick <
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
wrote: Its probably better for the President to be intimately involved with the war in Afghanistan than it is for him to dally with the Olympics or appearances on Leno and Letterman. On Sep 28, 8:02 pm, Hollywood <
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
wrote: jgg, Good. A President is NOT micro-managing the on-site CO and letting him do his job. This is how it should be. President Obama does not have a military background, remember? On Sep 28, 5:06 pm, jgg1000a <
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
wrote: in 70 days... So much for giving the commander a direct uncensored access to the President... Seems to me, a leader would want to direct communication with such a key commander in Afghanistan... http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/back-story/2009/sep/28/us-comm... I’ve talked to the president, since I’ve been here, once on a VTC [video teleconference], Gen. Stanley McChrystal told CBS reporter David Martin in a television interview that aired Sunday. You’ve talked to him once in 70 days? Mr. Martin followed up. That is correct, the general replied.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
how long do oranges last? You would think the President would talk to his choosen commander more than once
|
|
The only part of that comment that is accurate it the uh. Its the President's decision. I know that Bush's massive abuse of Executive authority You are clueless and have little or no knowledge of history. Democrats are unlikely to block an additional troop deployment if it is authorized by the Obama AUTHORIZED by whom??? Your own post contradicts you. On Sep 30, 6:47 pm, LimboIndo <
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
wrote: Oh my... Nice red herring..You take getting out as soon as possible and turn it into right or wrong. I did not address the rightness or wrongness of either front. Are you suggesting Obama wants troops to remain in Afghanistan indefinately? He advocated immediate withdrawal from Iraq to send more troops to bolster the Afghan government against insurgents. You can't kill ideals , when would you say the war is won ? http://hubpages.com/hub/obamaandafghanistanwithdrawal
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
how long do oranges last? You would think the President would talk to his choosen commander more than once
|
|
My knowledge of history is actually quite extensive(although I wouldn't really qualify 2004 as such, perhaps modern history ). Are you saying that the powers of the Executive Branch did not increase under President Bush? (yes or no answer, not you are stupid, you suck, I had sex with your mom type answers) And yes the President authorizes troop deployments which must be approved by congress. Now you are splitting hairs. The whole premise of this post is that Obama makes this decisions soley so he should be better informed by lower ranking members on the ground. My argument is that Obama does not make these decisions arbitrarily. He has several steps in the CoC before Gen.McCrystal, he has councils of senior officials to advise on these measures, and after all congress (which is also informed by certain cabinets and committees) must approve these depolyments for them to happen. _base_d on available information and the reality of the situation I think it a misrepresentation to insinuate that the President is somehow not doing his job by not directly conversing with troop commanders. On Oct 1, 1:42 pm, Zebnick <
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
wrote: Uh yeah, congress. The only part of that comment that is accurate it the uh. Its the President's decision. I know that Bush's massive abuse of Executive authority You are clueless and have little or no knowledge of history. Democrats are unlikely to block an additional troop deployment if it is authorized by the Obama AUTHORIZED by whom??? Your own post contradicts you. On Sep 30, 6:47 pm, LimboIndo <
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
wrote: Oh my... Nice red herring..You take getting out as soon as possible and turn it into right or wrong. I did not address the rightness or wrongness of either front. Are you suggesting Obama wants troops to remain in Afghanistan indefinately? He advocated immediate withdrawal from Iraq to send more troops to bolster the Afghan government against insurgents. You can't kill ideals , when would you say the war is won ? http://hubpages.com/hub/obamaandafghanistanwithdrawal
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
how long do oranges last? You would think the President would talk to his choosen commander more than once
|
|
These are isolated incedents. Not permanent expansion to executive power. You are comparing apples and oranges. Cheney's office has taken the lead in challenging many of these laws, officials said, because they run counter to an expansive view of executive power that Cheney has cultivated for the past 30 years. Under the theory, Congress cannot pass laws that place restrictions or requirements on how the president runs the military and spy agencies. Nor can it pass laws giving government officials the power or responsibility to act independently of the president. Mainstream legal scholars across the political spectrum reject Cheney's expansive view of presidential authority, saying the Constitution gives Congress the power to make all rules and regulations for the military and the executive branch and the Supreme Court has consistently upheld laws giving bureaucrats and certain prosecutors the power to act independently of the president. After an unprecedented number of signing statements, the White House laid low for a while. But Cheney finally couldn't contain himself any longer, apparently. And here's the first Bush signing statement in three months , quietly filed away two weeks ago in response to the deeply threatening Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2005 . The law, sponsored by five Republicans from both houses, and passed by unanimous consent in the Senate and by voice vote in the House, directs the Secretary of the Interior to report to Congress on the creation of digital maps of the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System units and other protected areas under a digital mapping pilot project. But here's what Bush's signing statement says: Section 3(c)(2) and section 4(c)(3)(C) and (D) purport to require executive branch officials to submit legislative recommendations to the Congress. The executive branch shall construe such provisions in a manner consistent with the Constitution's commitment to the President of the authority to submit for the consideration of the Congress such measures as the President judges necessary and expedient and to supervise the unitary executive branch. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2006/06/06/BL200606... http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-06-05-power-play_x.htm Congress, courts push back against Bush's assertions of presidential power etc etc And in response to your second statement, yes they have tried it before. Bush: Congress can't stop troop increase http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/14/bush.60.minutes/ WASHINGTON (CNN) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
how long do oranges last? You would think the President would talk to his choosen commander more than once
|
|
power. You are comparing apples and oranges. Cheney's office has taken the lead in challenging many of these laws, officials said, because they run counter to an expansive view of executive power that Cheney has cultivated for the past 30 years. Under the theory, Congress cannot pass laws that place restrictions or requirements on how the president runs the military and spy agencies. Nor can it pass laws giving government officials the power or responsibility to act independently of the president. Mainstream legal scholars across the political spectrum reject Cheney's expansive view of presidential authority, saying the Constitution gives Congress the power to make all rules and regulations for the military and the executive branch and the Supreme Court has consistently upheld laws giving bureaucrats and certain prosecutors the power to act independently of the president. After an unprecedented number of signing statements, the White House laid low for a while. But Cheney finally couldn't contain himself any longer, apparently. And here's the first Bush signing statement in three months , quietly filed away two weeks ago in response to the deeply threatening Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2005 . The law, sponsored by five Republicans from both houses, and passed by unanimous consent in the Senate and by voice vote in the House, directs the Secretary of the Interior to report to Congress on the creation of digital maps of the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System units and other protected areas under a digital mapping pilot project. But here's what Bush's signing statement says: Section 3(c)(2) and section 4(c)(3)(C) and (D) purport to require executive branch officials to submit legislative recommendations to the Congress. The executive branch shall construe such provisions in a manner consistent with the Constitution's commitment to the President of the authority to submit for the consideration of the Congress such measures as the President judges necessary and expedient and to supervise the unitary executive branch. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2006/06/06/BL200606... http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-06-05-power-play_x.htm Congress, courts push back against Bush's assertions of presidential power etc etc And in response to your second statement, yes they have tried it before. Bush: Congress can't stop troop increasehttp://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/14/bush.60.minutes/ WASHINGTON (CNN)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
how long do oranges last? You would think the President would talk to his choosen commander more than once
|
|
|
Mainstream legal scholars across the political spectrum reject Cheney's expansive view of presidential authority,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
Stop Smoking !
Just quit !
Favoured: 0
