Gender: female Member Since: March 14, 2006 Last Signed In: December 11, 2007 Profile Views: 21277 Blog Views: 74765 Bond's record-setting baseball will go into the HOF with an asterisk. "distract, delude, amuse and insulate us." People trust the Democrats more than they trust Republicans. Are you smarter than the average American? Test your knowledge of the news.. Neo-Nazi's go after the Jena 6 Feds investigating Blackwater USA for weapons smuggling The death of the History of Civilization… The good General couldn't accomplish his first job in Iraq, why should we expect anything better out of his second stint there? Support Debra Bowen's decision regarding Diebold voting machines Coast Guard's Deepwater project price skyrockets June 06 July 06 August 06 September 06 October 06 November 06 December 06 January 07 February 07 March 07 April 07 May 07 June 07 July 07 August 07 September 07 October 07 November 07 December 07 January 08 February 08 March 08 April 08 May 08 June 08 July 08 August 08 September 08 October 08 Its My Right to be Left of the Center Bring it On! Sirens Chronicles 
RSS 2.0    Share!
|
|
|
Federal Agencies Ignore 30 Percent Of Laws Passed Last Year
From ThinkProgress:
Federal agencies ignored 30 percent of the laws Bush objected to in signing statements last year, according to a report released today by the Government Accountability Office. In 2006, President Bush issued signing statements for 11 out of the 12 appropriations bills passed by Congress, claiming a right to bypass a total of 160 provisions in them. In a sample set of 19 provisions, the GAO found that “10 provisions were executed as written, 6 were not, and 3 were not triggered and so there was no agency action to examine.” The report, which was requested by House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) and Senate President Pro Tempore Robert Byrd (D-WV), gives the first indication of the impact that President Bush’s signing statements have had on the enforcement of laws passed by Congress. Since taking office in 2001, President Bush has issued signing statements challenging over 1,100 laws, claiming that he has the right to bypass them if they interfere with his alleged presidential powers. Though signing statements have been utilized by most presidents, Bush has used them to object to more laws than all previous presidents combined. This man, that rules with an iron fist..either has big brass ones or listens to idiots looking to build a dictatorship. 92 comments from 13 users
posted by
robbwillis
on Jun 19, 2007 at 09:38 AM
Hammurabi only had 281 laws, but there were a lot less lawyers running around.
posted by
dusty1215
on Jun 19, 2007 at 09:47 AM
lol..thanks for that tidbit Robb :)
posted by
robbwillis
on Jun 19, 2007 at 09:51 AM
Thanks for not deleting me, Dusty. You're a real saint.
posted by
dusty1215
on Jun 19, 2007 at 09:53 AM
omg..Robb you are a treasure dear..seriously..my day wouldn't be the same without you and your humor. There are times I have felt kneehigh to a dog turd and you make me laugh like a hyena. Bless you my son :P
posted by
mattloch
on Jun 19, 2007 at 09:58 AM
Hey, if this were baseball, and someone was hitting .700, people would be cheering them.Seriously, if we have an Administration that doesn't believe that federal law applies to them, and have a political philosophy that says that government is bad, what else can we expect? At some point, Congress needs to haul every last one of these fang-leeches in front of them for some good ol' impeachment hearings. Criminal trials scheduled to start the very next day. Line them up against the wall and take each one of the guilty SOBs down. They can do it, no question. The question is, why aren't they? I think that the American public would love this to happen, and recent polls bear this out. posted by
robbwillis
on Jun 19, 2007 at 10:04 AM
"fang-leeches" ROFLMAO! posted by
dusty1215
on Jun 19, 2007 at 10:05 AM
Mattloch, your referring to the poll where Congress is trusted about as much as Bush to do a decent job I take it. The current administration loves big government..as long as THEY created it. Anyone else's idea is ignored or a signing statement slapped on to it. None of these people will be impeached. The Democrats want to keep them around until the next election..they make great pinata's. Trouble is..they are also farking up the world with each step or nonstep they take. The Dem's have shown us their ass and they are no better than the Repubs...all of them beholden to special interests and the next campaign financing shindig. What we need more than Impeachment, since it ain't gonna happen is an amendment to the Constitution to allow public financing of campaigns..that way we get ALL the farkwits out of office and get people who actually care about the citizens into office. posted by
mattloch
on Jun 19, 2007 at 10:14 AM
Dusty, the problem is that if Congress held nothing but impeachment investigations and hearings, and the DC circuit court had nothing on their docket but criminal cases against Administration officials, there would still be plenty left by the upcoming election. Congress can't slow play against an Administration playing rope-a-dope. They're playing precisely to their strength. This should be a no-brainer for Congress. Unfortunately, for them and for us, they don't even have that..... posted by
dusty1215
on Jun 19, 2007 at 10:16 AM
Like I said..they don't want to impeach anyone..they want to keep them around to insure the next President will be a Democrat. We are bitch-slapped daily with another moronic thing that is being done by BushCo. Dem's are not going to pull the plug on THAT show dude..be serious.
posted by
randomfactor
on Jun 19, 2007 at 10:16 AM
Priority #1 has to be to keep the idiots in the White House from screwing up the country even further. That, in my opinion, is where the Democrats' main failing lies. . My motto: Impeachment January 2009. posted by
dusty1215
on Jun 19, 2007 at 10:18 AM
Can criminal charges be brought against Bush and his cronies after they leave office? Like the wiretapping extravaganza? Or the torture? Or god knows how many other high crimes and misdemeanors?
posted by
randomfactor
on Jun 19, 2007 at 10:24 AM
I think yes, but I'd be inclined to forego prosecution on the wiretapping (but impeach on those grounds) in favor of a war-crimes trial for Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld.
posted by
dusty1215
on Jun 19, 2007 at 10:26 AM
I would toast a war-crimes trial...but they will never impeach these suckers..too much comic relief for the Dem's..or so they think..this could backfire on them.
posted by
randomfactor
on Jun 19, 2007 at 10:41 AM
Impeachment in January 2009 would serve both purposes. Tie Bush and his insane war around the Republicans' necks, *AND* get it on the record that the US does not approve. Plus, it makes it harder for pardons if the impeachment takes up the last few weeks of the Administration.
posted by
ProgressivePete2
on Jun 19, 2007 at 10:51 AM
It already is backfiring on them. Their approval rating will continue to tank and could go even lower than Bush's if they keep sitting on their hands afraid to do anything. I imagine if the voters thought they were electing a bunch of fradey cats they would have voted for independent candidates. It seems like they're trying to take baby steps and hoping they can get him to quit it instead of putting a stop to this nonsense.
posted by
dusty1215
on Jun 19, 2007 at 10:56 AM
Your assuming the Dem's will take the WH RF..I ain't so sure lately..all their bluster and bs yet they have done little except hold hearings up the wazoo.
posted by
dusty1215
on Jun 19, 2007 at 10:56 AM
Pete!!!! Hey sweetie..how ya doin?
posted by
ProgressivePete2
on Jun 19, 2007 at 10:59 AM
Pretty good dusty, Thanks. New Job = Happier Progressive Pete. I've been lurking and posting anon for a while. Heck, I'm probably the reason anon posting is getting banned (not really). I think I'm sufficiently pissed off enough again to start commenting. It's not hard these days. posted by
dusty1215
on Jun 19, 2007 at 11:03 AM
lol..well, welcome back m'dear..you have been missed. Congrats on the job..its hard to find one that you look forward to every day.
posted by
ProgressivePete2
on Jun 19, 2007 at 11:18 AM
I wouldn't call it a dream (it's still work), but I'm treated way better, and I can listen to whatever music I want. ( :Thanks for the nice words. posted by
jasonsperber
on Jun 19, 2007 at 11:18 AM
Pete, it ain't you, buddy, trust me. :) And I was wondering about the increased frequency of your posts, was worried that the job was boring already. Heh. (Like the new profile pic, btw.) posted by
ProgressivePete2
on Jun 19, 2007 at 11:20 AM
I know it wasn't me Jason. Just being silly. Yep it's boring already, but most things are. It's just slow right now.
posted by
dusty1215
on Jun 19, 2007 at 11:24 AM
Jason, did Perezoso 'leave us'? I couldn't find his blog when I looked recently.
posted by
jasonsperber
on Jun 19, 2007 at 11:33 AM
I'll put it this way, Dusty--blogs can be disabled and accounts can be suspended, and either one of those things can result in a blog becoming inactive and inaccessible. (The developers also implemented a way for long-dormant blogs to be rendered inactive as well, but I'm not too clear yet on the time parameters of that.) Also, when a user asks us to "totally delete" their account, technically, there's no way to do that, so what we do is suspend the account, which has the same effect--user can't get in, readers can't see what was previously posted.
posted by
dusty1215
on Jun 19, 2007 at 11:43 AM
Thanks..and btw..my ability to edit comments is still screwed up. Its been disabled by someone imho. If its not happening to others.
posted by
Hardliner4freedom
on Jun 19, 2007 at 11:47 AM
I've never had the ability to edit other people's comments, if that's what you have in mind. And pls check your email. posted by
dusty1215
on Jun 19, 2007 at 11:51 AM
I have been checking my email..every couple of minutes..nada sweetie. You can't edit people's comments on your own blog?
posted by
Hardliner4freedom
on Jun 19, 2007 at 11:52 AM
Strange. I'll re-send. No, I've never been able to edit other people's comments on my own blog. Re-sent. Maybe it's landing in your Spam folder. posted by
dusty1215
on Jun 19, 2007 at 12:13 PM
I got the second one..and answered it m'dear....just now :)
posted by
dusty1215
on Jun 19, 2007 at 12:14 PM
Wow..I used to be able to..until recently..I have to lay down for a bit..later folks.
posted by
jasonsperber
on Jun 19, 2007 at 12:17 PM
Dusty, please don't see conspiracies where there are none. No one is "disabling" your ability to delete comments on your blog, selectively and on purpose, for one reason because that capability wasn't built into the software (to selectively disable a user's ability to do that, that is). Remember how we were unable to get a screenshot/screen capture of what exactly you see happening when you try to delete a comment? Can you try that again, or on another computer, or a different browser, and send it directly to me? H4F, when you are logged in, on your own blog (posts by you), you should see a <Delete> tag next to each comment made by other users on your post (next to the "posted by"), as well as next to your own comments on others' posts. If you don't see that, can you send me a screenshot of one of your own posts (with the part of the screen that shows you're logged in), plus the usual info about what you're using? Thanks. posted by
Neverleft
on Jun 19, 2007 at 12:25 PM
Everyone talks about the Bush approval rating. Why no mention of the Democratic Congress approval rating. I have only seen it mentioned once (see Pete above). With each day the Dems. continue to self destruct..Hopefully they will elect more like their leader form Calif. and dingbat Reid...
posted by
TomW
on Jun 19, 2007 at 12:33 PM
You're right on that, Neverleft. If they'd just start the impeachment process and bring the troops home, they'd be looking at supermajorities over the horizon.
posted by
jfrancais
on Jun 19, 2007 at 12:37 PM
That's a good point, Neverleft. What is their approval rating, anyway? I think Pelosi has been giving a lot of lip service. She's a talking head.
posted by
dusty1215
on Jun 19, 2007 at 01:28 PM
Then apparently you don't get around much Neverleft, we have discussed it prior around here. The Dem's deserve their rating just like BushCo deserves their's. As for a talking head, Pelosi doesn't dictate policy..Georgie does that, with the help of all those advisor's. Nice of you two neocons to stop by with your .02 cents worth. Now, you might try to explain why the Surge is sucking so bad when the Congress gave Bush everything he asked for. I am with Tom..we need to impeach the moron cowboy and bring the troops home..then the Dem's would be guaranteed a majority next election cycle. posted by
Hardliner4freedom
on Jun 19, 2007 at 01:32 PM
Waaaaalll.. Neverleft is no neocon. As far as I can tell, he's more of the classical conservative that is an endangered species today. . Jason, I see the Delete tag just fine. I thought Dusty was talking about an Edit tag also appearing by other people's comments. I see the Edit and Delete for my own comments, and only the Delete for other people's comments.
posted by
dusty1215
on Jun 19, 2007 at 01:37 PM
Your entitled to your opinion H4F as I am mine. Anyone that opens up with the line he did isn't a traditionalist..he is looking for an argument. Unless you considered it a friendly 'hello'...which I did not.
posted by
Hardliner4freedom
on Jun 19, 2007 at 01:44 PM
Of course people with many liberal views have been taught to hate liberals... It's the effect that 15 years of one-sided right-wing slant in the media can have. And you're still a doll. posted by
dusty1215
on Jun 19, 2007 at 01:49 PM
lol..people who step into a convo with the line about Dem's self destructing on a leftwing blog aren't looking to make friends H4F. Thats how neocons 'roll'. And your still a shot for sore eyes :) posted by
randomfactor
on Jun 19, 2007 at 01:51 PM
But they *ARE* self-destructing, by failing to end the bloody damned war. I generally agree with 'em, and ask for their help in getting the Rethugs in Congress out of the way. . Spam code MRBLU. That's me. posted by
Charlie
on Jun 19, 2007 at 01:56 PM
Several months back when I had the audacity to suggest that in their own way the Dem's are no better than the Repubs and that they had no intention doing any of the things that all of you here were demanding, I was attacked repeatedly and accused of being everything from a Neo-con to the devil incarnate. It would seem that many of you have come to see the truthyness of my statements. Apologies accepted. You see dear ones while we the American people have been blindly wallowing in our freedoms, wealth, and self centered pursuit of own personal happiness the politicians and bureaucrats have stolen our country and are using it for their own personal gain.
posted by
dusty1215
on Jun 19, 2007 at 01:58 PM
lol..great spam code Random. I don't think someone that calls Reid a dingbat will help you with that.
posted by
randomfactor
on Jun 19, 2007 at 01:59 PM
I'm not apologizing. The Democrats sent a timetable bill to Bush along with the requested funding. Bush vetoed it. I'm not happy with their follow-up (or their strategy) but if the Repubs had controlled Congress more fully we wouldn't be getting the info we are now. . But I'll accept your help. I'll write Costa and you write McCarthy, and we can try to get this idiotic war stopped the way we both want. Deal? posted by
randomfactor
on Jun 19, 2007 at 02:01 PM
Looks like JulieAndrews is worried about the ISG revelation: http://electioncentral.tpmc... Wonder which of his Republican opponents leaked it. posted by
dusty1215
on Jun 19, 2007 at 02:06 PM
I write Kevin on a regular basis..I am sure his handlers love my emails..in fact..I sent him one today RF :)
posted by
randomfactor
on Jun 19, 2007 at 02:08 PM
I got in on one of his conference calls--too late to ask a question, but you better believe I left a comment at the end. posted by
dusty1215
on Jun 19, 2007 at 02:09 PM
Someone leaked it..it didn't fall out there on its own. Rudy is pedaling furiously on this one no?
posted by
dusty1215
on Jun 19, 2007 at 02:11 PM
I got to ask a question..he side stepped it very nicely..it was his first call around..but ..lol..they called for my husband..the registered republican..not moi :) The ball and chain asked me if I wanted to talk to him..I said SURE! :P
posted by
randomfactor
on Jun 19, 2007 at 02:13 PM
Guess they had an old list that still showed Spouse#2 to be Republican. Like her former theism, she got better. . Rudy's claiming he didn't want his candidate status to taint the process. But when he accepted the post he was already talking about running. posted by
dusty1215
on Jun 19, 2007 at 02:16 PM
I read the TPM post you linked to..Rudy is in some hot water now...tsk tsk. His history shows he does very little than grandstanding..leaving the heavy lifting to others and then taking the credit RF.
Our readers recommend: |
