BREAKING - Bush defies congressional subpoenas - Claims EXECUTIVEPRIVELEGE, of course

[Guest David Hartung]

booker wrote:

> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 14:10:17 -0500, David Hartung wrote:

>

>> booker wrote:

>>> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 08:33:50 -0500, David Hartung wrote:

>>>

>>>> It seems that refusals by the executive branch to honor congressional

>>>> subpoenas are not new.

>>>>

>>>> http://tinyurl.com/2h5jvw

>>>>

>>>> The above is for those who are quick to accuse the Bush Administration,

>>>> while ignoring similar actions by the Clinton Administration.

>>> I also remember all the conservatives screaming back then that the

>>> President has a duty to honor Congressional subpoenas.

>> It's called politics. Get used to it.

>

> No, it's called hypocrisy.

 

True, and both major parties engage in it.

[Guest David Hartung]

Mitchell Holman wrote:

> David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in

> news:zpadnYnoy7UqNxvbnZ2dnUVZ_j-dnZ2d@comcast.com:

>

>> Mitchell Holman wrote:

>>> David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in

>>> news:5qadnYB72fFdxhvbnZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d@comcast.com:

>>>

>>>> Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:

>>>>> Someone show me where the constitution mentions executive privilege.

>>>>>

>>>>> http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8Q1RB300&show_article=1

>>>>>

>>>>> White House Asserts Executive Privilege

>>>>> Jun 28 09:18 AM US/Eastern

>>>>> By TERENCE HUNT

>>>>> AP White House Correspondent

>>>>>

>>>>> WASHINGTON (AP) - The White House, moving toward a constitutional

>>>>> showdown with Congress, asserted executive privilege Thursday and

>>>>> rejected lawmakers' demands for documents that could shed light on the

>>>>> firings of federal prosecutors.

>>>>>

>>>>> President Bush's attorney told Congress the White House would not turn

>>>>> over subpoenaed documents for former presidential counsel Harriet

> Miers

>>>>> and former political director Sara Taylor.

>>>>>

>>>>> WASHINGTON (AP)

[Guest liberalhere@yahoo.com]

David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in

news:eNSdnX1ElL4ldhnbnZ2dnUVZ_vHinZ2d@comcast.com:

> Mitchell Holman wrote:

>> David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in news:1J-

>> dnf6aOcVA_BnbnZ2dnUVZ_qzinZ2d@comcast.com:

>>

>>> Deliri wrote:

>>>

>>>

>>>> IF GONZALES REFUSES TO SHOW UP FOR TESTIMONY UNDER THE

>>>> SUBPOENA, WHY COULDN'T THE COMMITTEE DISPATCH THE

>>>> SERGEANT AT ARMS WITH A COUPLE OF ASSISTANTS TO

>>>> FROG-MARCH HIM OVER TO THE COMMITTEE VENUE?

>>> Congress has no such authority.

>>>

>>

>>

>> Facts one, Hartung zero.

>>

>> "Contempt of Congress is the act of obstructing the work of

>> the United States Congress or one of its committees.

>> Following the refusal of a witness to produce documents or

>> to testify, the Committee is entitled to report a resolution

>> of contempt to its parent chamber. Following a contempt

>> citation, the person cited for contempt is arrested by the

>> Sergeant-at-Arms for the House or Senate, brought to the

>> floor of the chamber, held to answer charges by the

>> presiding officer, and then subject to punishment that the

>> House may dictate (usually imprisonment for punishment

>> reasons, imprisonment for coercive effect, or release from

>> the contempt citation.)"

>>

>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress

>

> I stand corrected.

>

 

If Gonzales is found to be in Contempt of Congress, should his

license to practice law be revoked? IIRC, there is a ethical and

moral to being granted a license; it's not simply passing the bar

exam.

[Guest liberalhere@yahoo.com]

"Docky Wocky" <mrchuck@lst.net> wrote in

news:XHahi.6$7k7.5@trnddc01:

> Wikipedia - thats one of those bigm fat legal tomes, ain't

> it?

>

> Bush merely stated besides having a good deal of contempt

> for congress, that in the coming shoot out with congress, he

> would try to have his troops not kill too many of them -

> after, of course, wiping out the ringleaders.

>

 

I believe you. Lucky you and Bush were both born in the US,

neither of you would pass the investigation to become naturalized

citizens.

[Guest liberalhere@yahoo.com]

"Biscuits and Books" <Cheney_did_Barney@earthlink.net> wrote in

news:vjghi.2290$tj6.484@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net:

> "David Johnston" <david@block.net> wrote in message

> news:4lta835efpd8tft9jbe4lldn5hirk70t13@4ax.com...

>> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 20:36:27 GMT, bw@barrk.net (Blackwater)

>> wrote:

>>

>>>On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 23:12:23 GMT, David Johnston

>>><david@block.net> wrote:

>>>

>>>>On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 22:27:44 GMT, bw@barrk.net (Blackwater)

>>>>wrote:

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> Being somewhat unpopular, if "W" was a pushover the

>>>>> power and purpose of his office would be nullified,

>>>>> giving the congress a double-dose of authority.

>>>>

>>>>As it stands, the power and purpose of Congress has been

>>>>nullified.

>>>

>>> No, not at all. IF 2/3rds said "Enough is enough !" then

>>> that would be it. They could stop the war, they could

>>> impeach "W" and Cheney, they could probably have the

>>> hides of Halliburtons board too.

>>>

>>> But, so far, things have not become bad enough to

>>> overcome the partisanship barrier. However, relative

>>> to the war, it's beginning to look as if that

>>> particular barrier may indeed be breeched.

>>

>> By the time there are that many Senate votes in opposition

>> to Bush he'll be gone anyway.

>

> That's OK, we'll have enough votes to remove five Supreme

> Court clowns who lied their way to the Senate onto the Court.

>

 

Unfortunately, I don't think any outright lied. Thomas may be the

single exception.

[Guest liberalhere@yahoo.com]

Blackwater <bw@barrk.net> wrote in

news:quvd83l6vffp0oka6ias5bacmdf0dskivr@4ax.com:

> David Johnston <david@block.net> wrote:

>

>>On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 20:36:27 GMT, bw@barrk.net (Blackwater)

>>wrote:

>>

>>>On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 23:12:23 GMT, David Johnston

>>><david@block.net> wrote:

>>>

>>>>On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 22:27:44 GMT, bw@barrk.net (Blackwater)

>>>>wrote:

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> Being somewhat unpopular, if "W" was a pushover the

>>>>> power and purpose of his office would be nullified,

>>>>> giving the congress a double-dose of authority.

>>>>

>>>>As it stands, the power and purpose of Congress has been

>>>>nullified.

>>>

>>> No, not at all. IF 2/3rds said "Enough is enough !" then

>>> that would be it. They could stop the war, they could

>>> impeach "W" and Cheney, they could probably have the

>>> hides of Halliburtons board too.

>>>

>>> But, so far, things have not become bad enough to

>>> overcome the partisanship barrier. However, relative

>>> to the war, it's beginning to look as if that

>>> particular barrier may indeed be breeched.

>>

>>By the time there are that many Senate votes in opposition to

>>Bush he'll be gone anyway.

>

> At this point, yes. That's the way the ball bounces. If

> things had gone horribly wrong in Iraq much sooner then we

> may have seen a different scenerio. But, they didn't. The

> situation evoloved slowly and potential solutions always

> seemed tantalizingly close. If we got Hussein, things

> would be solved. If we had elections, things would be

> solved. If we could get this or that insurgent or al-Qaida

> leader, things would be solved. If we could get the new

> govt in session, things would be solved. If we could only

> 'surge' enough troops into Baghdad, things would be solved

> - and so on and so forth. That's been the most annoying

> aspect of this campaign, that the big fix always seems

> ALMOST within reach. The level of resistance is never THAT

> great, just ever so slightly above the threshold of chaos.

> It SEEMS do-able. It SEEMS hopeful.

>

> So, partisanship prevailed. Wouldn't it be embarassing to

> betray "your" president only to see him win the fight ?

> You'd be spit upon by your own party and look the fool

> to everyone else. The Dems might welcome a 'traitor' that

> was vindicated, but even they'd reject one who was

> proven wrong.

>

>

>>>If so,

>>> the congress WILL be able to exert its constituional

>>> authority and overrule the executive branch.

>>>

>>> In short, the system is working exactly the way it

>>> is supposed to. It was NOT designed to allow a few,

>>> or even a simple majority, of malcontents to

>>> short-circuit the authority of the executive or

>>> judicial branches. Each branch gets it's special

>>> "territory" and that authority can only be

>>> usurped in the most extreme circumstances.

>>

>>Congress's power is to make laws, and the President can

>>nullify that power by use of vetos and signing statements as

>>long as he has 41 votes in the Senate.

>

> Congress has more powers than that, as does the executive

> branch. A president is more than a bill-signing machine

> attached to a random number generator and congress is more

> than a gaggle of pen-waving lawyers.

>

> There's an intricate weave of powers described in the

> constitution. It was written by VERY clever men who'd had

> a lot of time to think about how to construct the

> "perfect" government - and had many BAD governments to use

> as reference material. Other powers and protocols evolved

> over time too. These also respected the "territory" of

> each branch, or they'd never have become law.

>

> Congress DOES have one very formidible power - the power

> over the BUDGET. Sans partisanship, they could have

> starved the war to death in no time flat and there's

> nothing the executive could have done about it beyond

> propaganda tricks, making its death as painful as

> possible.

>

>

 

Sans partisanship? No, with thugs like you out there, no matter

how bad Iraq was/is/will become you'll soon be jumping all over

the democrats just for the erotic joy of it. Even now you're

getting your "it's all those commie democrats' fault" talking

points ready.

 

Pity you didn't tell your children how they should enlist for the

sake of Bush and Cheney's war plans. But then you're too smart

for that. Social darwinism: a republican family value!

[Guest liberalhere@yahoo.com]

bw@barrk.net (Blackwater) wrote in

news:46869313.114403@news.east.earthlink.net:

> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 04:27:20 GMT, "Docky Wocky"

> <mrchuck@lst.net> wrote:

>

>>blackwater sez:

>>

>>"Congress DOES have one very formidible power - the power

>>over

>> the BUDGET..."

>>_____________________________________

>>Congress is too damn corrupt to do anything other than what

>>they do best..

>

>

> Agreed.

 

well, clearly the rethug side. One demcrat versus....jees, I've

clean run out'o fingers.

 

 

>

>

>>I hear they are getting an automatic raise. Up to around

>>$170,000 for doing nothing.

>

>

> Meanwhile, many local governments are freezing wages,

> rolling-back wages, firing people, not filling vacancies,

> slashing health plans and generally freaking out because

> the property boom "bubble" burst. The locals are screaming

> bloody murder about assessments made during the artificial

> price spike and demand serious tax cuts.

>

> Meanwhile, American industry sinks further and further

> into the toilet as jobs are outsourced to the far east

> and/or Mexico. It would take an act of congress to slow,

> halt or reverse this trend - but will congress DO anything

> ? No. Hell no.

>

> So, you won't be able to get a paramedic or cop when you

> need one at home, you and your kids won't find good jobs.

> Meanwhile, congress enjoys its raise - but then we know

> full well that their salaries aren't but a tiny fraction

> of the money they "earn".

 

The answer here is: tax shield.

 

Bet you can't see the point.

 

A business simulation would demonstrate my point.

 

>

>>Pretty sweet. You more excitable types need to toss some

>>bombs their way to wake them up

>

> At this point, the "Throw the bastards out" movement

> might indeed be revived, with a vengence. Neither GOP

> or DNC is the answer to our problems. Clean house.

 

Your judgement on the better replacements is, like every rethug,

obviously piss poor.

 

>

> Of course that's no guarentee that the new guys won't

> be just as corrupt as the old guys within a few years.

>

> There's something about politics that takes the best

> of intentions and twists them into greedy self-interest

> practically overnight. Seems to have always been that

> way. Maybe it's the nature of politics ... meaning

> it's something about OUR nature, human nature ?

 

Well gee, did a light dawn?

 

The empowering element is the lack of public financing of

campaigns. Ya see, when yer buying a politician, you have'ta pay

more for an honest one.

 

>

> This MAY be as good as it gets. Mull THAT bitter

> possibility for awhile ...

>

>

[Guest liberalhere@yahoo.com]

David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in

news:zpadnY7oy7UENxvbnZ2dnUVZ_j-dnZ2d@comcast.com:

> booker wrote:

>> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 08:33:50 -0500, David Hartung wrote:

>>

>>> It seems that refusals by the executive branch to honor

>>> congressional subpoenas are not new.

>>>

>>> http://tinyurl.com/2h5jvw

>>>

>>> The above is for those who are quick to accuse the Bush

>>> Administration, while ignoring similar actions by the

>>> Clinton Administration.

>>

>> I also remember all the conservatives screaming back then

>> that the President has a duty to honor Congressional

>> subpoenas.

>

> It's called politics. Get used to it.

>

 

Unfortunately it requires a minimum level of maturity to see the

difference between the Bush and Clinton administrations and the

reason for the subpoenas. Here's a hint: Bob Barr announced his

intention to impeach Clinton before Clinton took the oath of

office.

[Guest liberalhere@yahoo.com]

David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in

news:GMadnd8YV5OlWhvbnZ2dnUVZ_j-dnZ2d@comcast.com:

> Mitchell Holman wrote:

>> David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in

>> news:zpadnYnoy7UqNxvbnZ2dnUVZ_j-dnZ2d@comcast.com:

>>

>>> Mitchell Holman wrote:

>>>> David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in

>>>> news:5qadnYB72fFdxhvbnZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d@comcast.com:

>>>>

>>>>> Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:

>>>>>> Someone show me where the constitution mentions

>>>>>> executive privilege.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8Q1RB300&show_ar

>>>>>> ticle=1

>>>>>>

>>>>>> White House Asserts Executive Privilege

>>>>>> Jun 28 09:18 AM US/Eastern

>>>>>> By TERENCE HUNT

>>>>>> AP White House Correspondent

>>>>>>

>>>>>> WASHINGTON (AP) - The White House, moving toward a

>>>>>> constitutional showdown with Congress, asserted

>>>>>> executive privilege Thursday and rejected lawmakers'

>>>>>> demands for documents that could shed light on the

>>>>>> firings of federal prosecutors.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> President Bush's attorney told Congress the White House

>>>>>> would not turn over subpoenaed documents for former

>>>>>> presidential counsel Harriet

>> Miers

>>>>>> and former political director Sara Taylor.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> WASHINGTON (AP)

[Guest David Hartung]

liberalhere@yahoo.com wrote:

> David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in

> news:eNSdnX1ElL4ldhnbnZ2dnUVZ_vHinZ2d@comcast.com:

>

>> Mitchell Holman wrote:

>>> David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in news:1J-

>>> dnf6aOcVA_BnbnZ2dnUVZ_qzinZ2d@comcast.com:

>>>

>>>> Deliri wrote:

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>> IF GONZALES REFUSES TO SHOW UP FOR TESTIMONY UNDER THE

>>>>> SUBPOENA, WHY COULDN'T THE COMMITTEE DISPATCH THE

>>>>> SERGEANT AT ARMS WITH A COUPLE OF ASSISTANTS TO

>>>>> FROG-MARCH HIM OVER TO THE COMMITTEE VENUE?

>>>> Congress has no such authority.

>>>>

>>>

>>> Facts one, Hartung zero.

>>>

>>> "Contempt of Congress is the act of obstructing the work of

>>> the United States Congress or one of its committees.

>>> Following the refusal of a witness to produce documents or

>>> to testify, the Committee is entitled to report a resolution

>>> of contempt to its parent chamber. Following a contempt

>>> citation, the person cited for contempt is arrested by the

>>> Sergeant-at-Arms for the House or Senate, brought to the

>>> floor of the chamber, held to answer charges by the

>>> presiding officer, and then subject to punishment that the

>>> House may dictate (usually imprisonment for punishment

>>> reasons, imprisonment for coercive effect, or release from

>>> the contempt citation.)"

>>>

>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress

>> I stand corrected.

>>

>

> If Gonzales is found to be in Contempt of Congress, should his

> license to practice law be revoked? IIRC, there is a ethical and

> moral to being granted a license; it's not simply passing the bar

> exam.

 

Given the partisan nature of the current Congress, probably not.

[Guest Phlip]

> If Gonzales is found to be in Contempt of Congress, should his license to

> practice law be revoked? IIRC, there is a ethical and moral to being

> granted a license; it's not simply passing the bar exam.

 

The longer Gonzo stays, the lower his job prospects once he leaves. The guy

will stay until Bush tells him to go. The guy's loyalty to Bush knows no

bounds; he will end his career rather than do anything Bush tells him not to

do.

 

I sure wish I had a lawyer like that!

 

--

Phlip

[Guest David Johnston]

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 18:50:58 -0400, "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>David Johnston wrote:

>> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 20:36:27 GMT, bw@barrk.net (Blackwater) wrote:

>>

>>> On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 23:12:23 GMT, David Johnston <david@block.net>

>>> wrote:

>>>

>>>> On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 22:27:44 GMT, bw@barrk.net (Blackwater) wrote:

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> Being somewhat unpopular, if "W" was a pushover the power

>>>>> and purpose of his office would be nullified, giving the

>>>>> congress a double-dose of authority.

>>>>

>>>> As it stands, the power and purpose of Congress has been nullified.

>>>

>>> No, not at all. IF 2/3rds said "Enough is enough !" then

>>> that would be it. They could stop the war, they could

>>> impeach "W" and Cheney, they could probably have the

>>> hides of Halliburtons board too.

>>>

>>> But, so far, things have not become bad enough to

>>> overcome the partisanship barrier. However, relative

>>> to the war, it's beginning to look as if that

>>> particular barrier may indeed be breeched.

>>

>> By the time there are that many Senate votes in opposition to Bush

>> he'll be gone anyway.

>>

>> If so,

>>> the congress WILL be able to exert its constituional

>>> authority and overrule the executive branch.

>>>

>>> In short, the system is working exactly the way it

>>> is supposed to. It was NOT designed to allow a few,

>>> or even a simple majority, of malcontents to

>>> short-circuit the authority of the executive or

>>> judicial branches. Each branch gets it's special

>>> "territory" and that authority can only be

>>> usurped in the most extreme circumstances.

>>

>> Congress's power is to make laws, and the President can nullify that

>> power by use of vetos and signing statements as long as he has 41

>> votes in the Senate.

>

>

>"Signing statements" are not law.....

>

>Signing statements may violate

>the intent of congress.....

>

>No executive has that power...

 

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/examples_of_the_presidents_signing_statements/

 

One example:

 

Dec. 23, 2004: Forbids US troops in Colombia from participating in any

combat against rebels, except in cases of self-defense. Caps the

number of US troops allowed in Colombia at 800.

 

Bush's signing statement: Only the president, as commander in chief,

can place restrictions on the use of US armed forces, so the executive

branch will construe the law ''as advisory in nature."

[Guest Sid9]

David Johnston wrote:

> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 18:50:58 -0400, "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>

>> David Johnston wrote:

>>> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 20:36:27 GMT, bw@barrk.net (Blackwater) wrote:

>>>

>>>> On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 23:12:23 GMT, David Johnston <david@block.net>

>>>> wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 22:27:44 GMT, bw@barrk.net (Blackwater) wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Being somewhat unpopular, if "W" was a pushover the power

>>>>>> and purpose of his office would be nullified, giving the

>>>>>> congress a double-dose of authority.

>>>>>

>>>>> As it stands, the power and purpose of Congress has been

>>>>> nullified.

>>>>

>>>> No, not at all. IF 2/3rds said "Enough is enough !" then

>>>> that would be it. They could stop the war, they could

>>>> impeach "W" and Cheney, they could probably have the

>>>> hides of Halliburtons board too.

>>>>

>>>> But, so far, things have not become bad enough to

>>>> overcome the partisanship barrier. However, relative

>>>> to the war, it's beginning to look as if that

>>>> particular barrier may indeed be breeched.

>>>

>>> By the time there are that many Senate votes in opposition to Bush

>>> he'll be gone anyway.

>>>

>>> If so,

>>>> the congress WILL be able to exert its constituional

>>>> authority and overrule the executive branch.

>>>>

>>>> In short, the system is working exactly the way it

>>>> is supposed to. It was NOT designed to allow a few,

>>>> or even a simple majority, of malcontents to

>>>> short-circuit the authority of the executive or

>>>> judicial branches. Each branch gets it's special

>>>> "territory" and that authority can only be

>>>> usurped in the most extreme circumstances.

>>>

>>> Congress's power is to make laws, and the President can nullify that

>>> power by use of vetos and signing statements as long as he has 41

>>> votes in the Senate.

>>

>>

>> "Signing statements" are not law.....

>>

>> Signing statements may violate

>> the intent of congress.....

>>

>> No executive has that power...

>

> http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/examples_of_the_presidents_signing_statements/

>

> One example:

>

> Dec. 23, 2004: Forbids US troops in Colombia from participating in any

> combat against rebels, except in cases of self-defense. Caps the

> number of US troops allowed in Colombia at 800.

>

> Bush's signing statement: Only the president, as commander in chief,

> can place restrictions on the use of US armed forces, so the executive

> branch will construe the law ''as advisory in nature."

 

 

Meaningless unless tested in court.

[Guest Blackwater]

"liberalhere@yahoo.com" <liberalhere@yahoo.com> wrote:

>bw@barrk.net (Blackwater) wrote in

>news:46869313.114403@news.east.earthlink.net:

>

>> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 04:27:20 GMT, "Docky Wocky"

>> <mrchuck@lst.net> wrote:

>>

>>>blackwater sez:

>>>

>>>"Congress DOES have one very formidible power - the power

>>>over

>>> the BUDGET..."

>>>_____________________________________

>>>Congress is too damn corrupt to do anything other than what

>>>they do best..

>>

>>

>> Agreed.

>

>well, clearly the rethug side. One demcrat versus....jees, I've

>clean run out'o fingers.

>

>

>

>>

>>

>>>I hear they are getting an automatic raise. Up to around

>>>$170,000 for doing nothing.

>>

>>

>> Meanwhile, many local governments are freezing wages,

>> rolling-back wages, firing people, not filling vacancies,

>> slashing health plans and generally freaking out because

>> the property boom "bubble" burst. The locals are screaming

>> bloody murder about assessments made during the artificial

>> price spike and demand serious tax cuts.

>>

>> Meanwhile, American industry sinks further and further

>> into the toilet as jobs are outsourced to the far east

>> and/or Mexico. It would take an act of congress to slow,

>> halt or reverse this trend - but will congress DO anything

>> ? No. Hell no.

>>

>> So, you won't be able to get a paramedic or cop when you

>> need one at home, you and your kids won't find good jobs.

>> Meanwhile, congress enjoys its raise - but then we know

>> full well that their salaries aren't but a tiny fraction

>> of the money they "earn".

>

>The answer here is: tax shield.

>

>Bet you can't see the point.

>

>A business simulation would demonstrate my point.

 

 

Tax shields aren't a general solution. The money to

run the govt and stuff its friends with pork has to

come from somewhere. If not business, then YOU.

 

Tax shields CAN be useful if you use them very

selectively to build-up specific sectors of

business you suspect will return large amounts

of revenue later on. A variant would be something

like the way the Japanese government invests

money in certain technology companies, hoping

it will allow them to develop the next iPhone

and dominate the world market. Sometimes it pays

off, sometimes it doesn't.

 

>>>Pretty sweet. You more excitable types need to toss some

>>>bombs their way to wake them up

>>

>> At this point, the "Throw the bastards out" movement

>> might indeed be revived, with a vengence. Neither GOP

>> or DNC is the answer to our problems. Clean house.

>

>Your judgement on the better replacements is, like every rethug,

>obviously piss poor.

 

The "replacements" ARE the main problem. They'd be a bunch

of know-nothings at the beginning ... and where do they COME

from anyway ? Get GOP/DNC certified candidates and you'll

just be getting more of the same.

>> Of course that's no guarentee that the new guys won't

>> be just as corrupt as the old guys within a few years.

>>

>> There's something about politics that takes the best

>> of intentions and twists them into greedy self-interest

>> practically overnight. Seems to have always been that

>> way. Maybe it's the nature of politics ... meaning

>> it's something about OUR nature, human nature ?

>

>Well gee, did a light dawn?

 

Gee, I've know this stuff for 40 years ... how long

did it take you to catch on ? Oh wait, maybe you

haven't. I'll bet you still think Democrats are

somehow "better" ... :-)

>The empowering element is the lack of public financing of

>campaigns. Ya see, when yer buying a politician, you have'ta pay

>more for an honest one.

 

Campaigns are just the tip of the proverbial iceberg ... and

even then "special interest" money can be slipped into the

pouch marked "public funding" or simply left in a brown paper

bag under a bridge at midnight. Face it, the wealthy interests

will ALWAYS be able to buy or bully politicians. One way or

another, they'll reel them in and make them serve.

 

As Churchill observed, 'democracy' is the worst system of

government imaginible - except for all the others. The

'democratic' system can be corrupted in SO many ways, bent

to SO many purposes, that it's simply impossible to cope

with. Perhaps it's best to quit whining about the corruption

you can't fix and instead learn how to use the existing system ?

 

>> This MAY be as good as it gets. Mull THAT bitter

>> possibility for awhile ...

[Guest Docky Wocky]

"Contempt of Congress is the act of obstructing the work of the United

States Congress or one of its committees..."

______________________________

Now, that's funny.

 

Especially using the word "work" in the same sentence as Congress.

 

How many people have contempt of congress?

[Guest Sid9]

Docky Wocky wrote:

> "Contempt of Congress is the act of obstructing the work of the United

> States Congress or one of its committees..."

> ______________________________

> Now, that's funny.

>

> Especially using the word "work" in the same sentence as Congress.

>

> How many people have contempt of congress?

 

 

Fool.

[Guest David Johnston]

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 22:15:48 -0400, "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>>> No executive has that power...

>>

>> http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/examples_of_the_presidents_signing_statements/

>>

>> One example:

>>

>> Dec. 23, 2004: Forbids US troops in Colombia from participating in any

>> combat against rebels, except in cases of self-defense. Caps the

>> number of US troops allowed in Colombia at 800.

>>

>> Bush's signing statement: Only the president, as commander in chief,

>> can place restrictions on the use of US armed forces, so the executive

>> branch will construe the law ''as advisory in nature."

>

>

>Meaningless unless tested in court.

>

 

Who chose the last two justices? The fact is, I doubt they'd dare

test it in court right now, for fear of getting a ruling that would

entrench their powerlessness.

[Guest Sid9]

David Johnston wrote:

> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 22:15:48 -0400, "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>

>>>> No executive has that power...

>>>

>>> http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/examples_of_the_presidents_signing_statements/

>>>

>>> One example:

>>>

>>> Dec. 23, 2004: Forbids US troops in Colombia from participating in

>>> any combat against rebels, except in cases of self-defense. Caps the

>>> number of US troops allowed in Colombia at 800.

>>>

>>> Bush's signing statement: Only the president, as commander in chief,

>>> can place restrictions on the use of US armed forces, so the

>>> executive branch will construe the law ''as advisory in nature."

>>

>>

>> Meaningless unless tested in court.

>>

>

> Who chose the last two justices? The fact is, I doubt they'd dare

> test it in court right now, for fear of getting a ruling that would

> entrench their powerlessness.

 

 

Not to swift an outcome!

 

If it establishes a precedent

the next (Democrat) president

will have the same power.

 

Sane Republican will think

long and hard before they

let this happen.

[Guest Mitchell Holman]

David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in

news:GMadnd8YV5OlWhvbnZ2dnUVZ_j-dnZ2d@comcast.com:

> Mitchell Holman wrote:

>> David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in

>> news:zpadnYnoy7UqNxvbnZ2dnUVZ_j-dnZ2d@comcast.com:

>>

>>> Mitchell Holman wrote:

>>>> David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in

>>>> news:5qadnYB72fFdxhvbnZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d@comcast.com:

>>>>

>>>>> Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:

>>>>>> Someone show me where the constitution mentions executive

>>>>>> privilege.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8Q1RB300&show_article=1

>>>>>>

>>>>>> White House Asserts Executive Privilege

>>>>>> Jun 28 09:18 AM US/Eastern

>>>>>> By TERENCE HUNT

>>>>>> AP White House Correspondent

>>>>>>

>>>>>> WASHINGTON (AP) - The White House, moving toward a constitutional

>>>>>> showdown with Congress, asserted executive privilege Thursday and

>>>>>> rejected lawmakers' demands for documents that could shed light on

>>>>>> the firings of federal prosecutors.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> President Bush's attorney told Congress the White House would not

>>>>>> turn over subpoenaed documents for former presidential counsel

>>>>>> Harriet

>> Miers

>>>>>> and former political director Sara Taylor.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> WASHINGTON (AP)

[Guest Docky Wocky]

liberalhere sez:

 

"I believe you. Lucky you and Bush were both born in the US,

neither of you would pass the investigation to become naturalized

citizens..."

_________________________________

Yea, Lib, I can imagine the kind of test a leftie like you would dream up,

but you boys just want to do away with the concept of "naturalized citizen"

and replace it with "automatic citizen," if one can crawl, run, or jump over

a border as the main test.

 

As for me passing a test, remember, you can always find a liberal who will

take a bribe.

[Guest liberalhere@yahoo.com]

"Docky Wocky" <mrchuck@lst.net> wrote in

news:ojFhi.1849$Of2.1488@trnddc06:

> liberalhere sez:

>

> "I believe you. Lucky you and Bush were both born in the US,

> neither of you would pass the investigation to become

> naturalized citizens..."

> _________________________________

> Yea, Lib, I can imagine the kind of test a leftie like you

> would dream up, but you boys just want to do away with the

> concept of "naturalized citizen" and replace it with

> "automatic citizen," if one can crawl, run, or jump over a

> border as the main test.

 

Umm, fuckhead...???? Hello??? I suggest you look for another post

of mine today dealing with the question of illegal aliens.

 

I've also posted many times that the answer to illegal aliens is

to reward anyone who turns in an employer of an illegal with a

$25,000 reward...paid for by the employer, and the one receiving

the reward can be an illegal working for that employer. The

employer also pays first class transportation back to their home

country for every illegal in their employ plus the illegals'

family.

 

Your imagination is as limited as your IQ.

 

Oh, I know, you don't have time to read a substantive cross-

section of posts...just being an idiot is a full time job for

you.

>

> As for me passing a test, remember, you can always find a

> liberal who will take a bribe.

>

>

>

[Guest liberalhere@yahoo.com]

Blackwater <bw@barrk.net> wrote in

news:a9kg83hoc9gvfa7cjl0q74incuhpk515dj@4ax.com:

> "liberalhere@yahoo.com" <liberalhere@yahoo.com> wrote:

>

>>bw@barrk.net (Blackwater) wrote in

>>news:46869313.114403@news.east.earthlink.net:

>>

>>> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 04:27:20 GMT, "Docky Wocky"

>>> <mrchuck@lst.net> wrote:

>>>

>>>>blackwater sez:

>>>>

>>>>"Congress DOES have one very formidible power - the power

>>>>over

>>>> the BUDGET..."

>>>>_____________________________________

>>>>Congress is too damn corrupt to do anything other than what

>>>>they do best..

>>>

>>>

>>> Agreed.

>>

>>well, clearly the rethug side. One demcrat versus....jees,

>>I've clean run out'o fingers.

>>

>>

>>

>>>

>>>

>>>>I hear they are getting an automatic raise. Up to around

>>>>$170,000 for doing nothing.

>>>

>>>

>>> Meanwhile, many local governments are freezing wages,

>>> rolling-back wages, firing people, not filling

>>> vacancies, slashing health plans and generally freaking

>>> out because the property boom "bubble" burst. The locals

>>> are screaming bloody murder about assessments made

>>> during the artificial price spike and demand serious tax

>>> cuts.

>>>

>>> Meanwhile, American industry sinks further and further

>>> into the toilet as jobs are outsourced to the far east

>>> and/or Mexico. It would take an act of congress to slow,

>>> halt or reverse this trend - but will congress DO

>>> anything ? No. Hell no.

>>>

>>> So, you won't be able to get a paramedic or cop when you

>>> need one at home, you and your kids won't find good

>>> jobs. Meanwhile, congress enjoys its raise - but then we

>>> know full well that their salaries aren't but a tiny

>>> fraction of the money they "earn".

>>

>>The answer here is: tax shield.

>>

>>Bet you can't see the point.

>>

>>A business simulation would demonstrate my point.

>

>

> Tax shields aren't a general solution. The money to

> run the govt and stuff its friends with pork has to

> come from somewhere. If not business, then YOU.

>

> Tax shields CAN be useful if you use them very

> selectively to build-up specific sectors of

> business you suspect will return large amounts

> of revenue later on. A variant would be something

> like the way the Japanese government invests

> money in certain technology companies, hoping

> it will allow them to develop the next iPhone

> and dominate the world market. Sometimes it pays

> off, sometimes it doesn't.

 

Son of a gun...you are bright enough!!! Pity your emotional

maturity is so limited that you think animal abuse is good if it

"annoys" a liberal. Child abuse "annoys" me too...go rape a kid

in your neighborhood in order to piss me off.

 

The reason we're in the economic situation we're in is precisely

due to the tax shield effect....more specifically, tax rates are

too low and economically useful deductions so few that companies

find it profitable to outsource and screw their remaining

employees. Higher expected value and all that.

 

Reagan started this mess with his cut taxes and deduction

argument. I doubt rethug voters can ever be smart enough to begin

rejecting the so-called low taxes means more investment nonsense.

 

You do make the mistake of thinking tax cuts are only needed at

the start of a new industry. Nope. Globalization/outsourcing

means tax policy must always make outsourcing more expensive.

 

>

>

>>>>Pretty sweet. You more excitable types need to toss some

>>>>bombs their way to wake them up

>>>

>>> At this point, the "Throw the bastards out" movement

>>> might indeed be revived, with a vengence. Neither GOP

>>> or DNC is the answer to our problems. Clean house.

>>

>>Your judgement on the better replacements is, like every

>>rethug, obviously piss poor.

>

> The "replacements" ARE the main problem. They'd be a bunch

> of know-nothings at the beginning ... and where do they

> COME from anyway ? Get GOP/DNC certified candidates and

> you'll just be getting more of the same.

>

>>> Of course that's no guarentee that the new guys won't

>>> be just as corrupt as the old guys within a few years.

>>>

>>> There's something about politics that takes the best

>>> of intentions and twists them into greedy self-interest

>>> practically overnight. Seems to have always been that

>>> way. Maybe it's the nature of politics ... meaning

>>> it's something about OUR nature, human nature ?

>>

>>Well gee, did a light dawn?

>

> Gee, I've know this stuff for 40 years ... how long

> did it take you to catch on ? Oh wait, maybe you

> haven't. I'll bet you still think Democrats are

> somehow "better" ... :-)

 

Of course I do. More greedy old perverts have gone to prison or

resigned in disgrace in every rethug administration than

democratic since Eisenhower.

 

>

>>The empowering element is the lack of public financing of

>>campaigns. Ya see, when yer buying a politician, you have'ta

>>pay more for an honest one.

>

> Campaigns are just the tip of the proverbial iceberg ...

> and even then "special interest" money can be slipped into

> the pouch marked "public funding" or simply left in a

> brown paper bag under a bridge at midnight. Face it, the

> wealthy interests will ALWAYS be able to buy or bully

> politicians. One way or another, they'll reel them in and

> make them serve.

 

Hogwash, audits of officeholders' finances for every year in

office and five years after leaving would go far to prevent

bribery...as would ten year prison sentences for briber and

bribee. Plus, if a bribee decides to wait out the five year post-

office audits...put no statute of limitation on the crime.

Accepting a bribe in public office should be only a lesser crime

than treason.

 

(Afterthought: an audit of the two years prior to running for

office may be necessary too. May sound harsh, but look where we

are and where we're going.)

 

>

> As Churchill observed, 'democracy' is the worst system of

> government imaginible - except for all the others. The

> 'democratic' system can be corrupted in SO many ways, bent

> to SO many purposes, that it's simply impossible to cope

> with. Perhaps it's best to quit whining about the

> corruption you can't fix and instead learn how to use the

> existing system ?

 

"Perhaps"? Perhaps, but perhaps not. Nothing like long, long,

long prison sentences to keep a wobbly politican on the straight

and narrow. And white collar business crime needs sentences at

least equal to armed robbery. Enron proves white collar crime is

neither amusing nor minor.

 

I've recommended that lobbyists only contact an officeholder in

an official office and all such meeting be recorded and "YTubed"

on a government website. Let the public see what lobbyists and

officeholders discuss.

 

But there is another issue you've ignored or missed. The problem

we have today isn't the mere existence of corruption...it's how

endemic it has been in the republican party and White House.

There is venality in a number of democrats...but only Jefferson

seems to have risen to the GOP level. And, I think, only in some

petty business deals having to do with African telecommunications

businesses. Not national defense issues like Cunningham.

>

>

>>> This MAY be as good as it gets. Mull THAT bitter

>>> possibility for awhile ...

>

>

[Guest liberalhere@yahoo.com]

David Johnston <david@block.net> wrote in

news:ed7e83hpdcmrfck2aki79qq4cjsk5dg8ef@4ax.com:

> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 22:15:48 -0400, "Sid9"

> <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>

>>>> No executive has that power...

>>>

>>> http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/exampl

>>> es_of_the_presidents_signing_statements/

>>>

>>> One example:

>>>

>>> Dec. 23, 2004: Forbids US troops in Colombia from

>>> participating in any combat against rebels, except in cases

>>> of self-defense. Caps the number of US troops allowed in

>>> Colombia at 800.

>>>

>>> Bush's signing statement: Only the president, as commander

>>> in chief, can place restrictions on the use of US armed

>>> forces, so the executive branch will construe the law ''as

>>> advisory in nature."

>>

>>

>>Meaningless unless tested in court.

>>

>

> Who chose the last two justices? The fact is, I doubt they'd

> dare test it in court right now, for fear of getting a ruling

> that would entrench their powerlessness.

>

 

No. It isn't who chose the justices, it's the justices they

chose. Eisenhower wanted a conservative justice on the Supreme

Court. He chose Earl Warren. The problem is that criminally

conservative judges like Scalia, Thomas, and now Roberts

understood they needed to hide the kind of conservative thoughts

they had. I believe it was Scaila who, when Congress was

considering limiting the number of appeals for convicted

prisoners was asked what his position would be regarding a

prisoner facing execution who, after exhausting his number of

appeals, suddenly discovered completely exculpatory evidence.

Scaila said he'd have no problem with the execution of an

innocent man if sentenced by a legal jury.

[Guest David Hartung]

liberalhere@yahoo.com wrote:

> No. It isn't who chose the justices, it's the justices they

> chose. Eisenhower wanted a conservative justice on the Supreme

> Court. He chose Earl Warren. The problem is that criminally

> conservative judges like Scalia, Thomas, and now Roberts

> understood they needed to hide the kind of conservative thoughts

> they had. I believe it was Scaila who, when Congress was

> considering limiting the number of appeals for convicted

> prisoners was asked what his position would be regarding a

> prisoner facing execution who, after exhausting his number of

> appeals, suddenly discovered completely exculpatory evidence.

> Scaila said he'd have no problem with the execution of an

> innocent man if sentenced by a legal jury.

 

Criminally conservative? I s this yet another example of liberal "tolerance"?

[Guest Mitchell Holman]

David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in

news:a7SdnTDCIv1tHhrbnZ2dnUVZ_vDinZ2d@comcast.com:

> liberalhere@yahoo.com wrote:

>

>> No. It isn't who chose the justices, it's the justices they

>> chose. Eisenhower wanted a conservative justice on the Supreme

>> Court. He chose Earl Warren. The problem is that criminally

>> conservative judges like Scalia, Thomas, and now Roberts

>> understood they needed to hide the kind of conservative thoughts

>> they had. I believe it was Scaila who, when Congress was

>> considering limiting the number of appeals for convicted

>> prisoners was asked what his position would be regarding a

>> prisoner facing execution who, after exhausting his number of

>> appeals, suddenly discovered completely exculpatory evidence.

>> Scaila said he'd have no problem with the execution of an

>> innocent man if sentenced by a legal jury.

>

> Criminally conservative? I s this yet another example of liberal

> "tolerance"?

>

 

Err...Scalia DID say that federal courts should

have no power to overturn the death sentences of innocent

people. Herrera v. Collins, 1993