Go to An Unfortunate Outburst of Intense Patriotism
- Add a comment
- Go to Senator Boxer Proves Democrat Contempt for Bush and Constitution
Okay, Xenox, that's more like it.
Not much better in content, but a great improvement in form.
Seems to me that if you want to think if a regal President, you'd look at Kennedy and Nixon. You may be on to something about getting away from checks and balances; Lord knows Bush has not been any kind of a check, as it were, on Congressional spending. 
Help me out here. Go back through the Boxershorts transcript and point out step by step where what I say is at odds with what she says. She is entirely right in speaking her mind. I am in no way disputing that, and you're not being honest if you say I am. I am disputing what she is saying. Frankly, she should keep talking like this, because she is undermining the entire Democrat agenda by doing so.
One more point - look back at your history. Congress authorized Bush - and Clinton, for that matter - to take military action.
posted by
WriterofLight
on April 17, 2006 at 6:13 PM
| link to this | reply
we've gotten away from the checks and balances
to a Presidential Regality, where the President is answerable to no one.
or haven't you noticed?
I mean -- you accuse me of empty rhetoric -- I look at this transcript of the Boxer interview and I see where she has not said anything as you attempt to describe it -- this is the conservative way -- you take a simple statement like "love one another" and begin to lie about it, saying things such as "how can this nincompoop tell us what do so? who does he think he is? Jesus Christ or something? I mean, there is no way we can love each other. Do you see what these other people are doing? Love them??? Like hell!!!!" -- that's conservative thinking.
so you do the same here -- Ms. Boxer thinks we are going down the wrong road.,
so everyone that disagrees with Herr Bush, ergo, you, should be silenced?
they are stupid, you say?
you attribute to those who disagree the same attributes that I and many see in the admininstration -- egomania, tending to dictatoral thinking -- etc.
and yes congress has plenty of power agains a president.
maybe the president is commander in chief, but he is not given power to declare war -- congress is.
my take on this is that the president indeed does lead the military, but the choice to attack another country does indeed rest with congress.
a president decides to go to war as he pleases? -- where can that lead us?
posted by
Xeno-x
on April 16, 2006 at 1:20 PM
| link to this | reply
Thanks, Xenox the Warrior Princess, for a well-reasoned argument!
I guess with Glennb taking a hiatus, you're going to fill in for him on ad hominem attacks. Have at it, my friend. But aside from that: You do realize, don't you, that if you do "get Bush out of there" you will still have an evill, wicked, mean and nasty conservative Republican in the White House until 2008? Thanks for proving my point about Ms. Boxershorts and her ilk.
posted by
WriterofLight
on April 15, 2006 at 6:33 PM
| link to this | reply
Ms. boxer is right
Rush Limbaugh is a master prevaricator.
and we do need to get Bush out of there
two more years is two more years too many
of course you love being on a collision course with disaster don't you?
writer of light my ass
you are so steeped in a mire of utter darkness that greater darkness seems like light to you.
you are so full of yourself -- "writeroflight" -- do you know what your pseudonym really says about you?
posted by
Xeno-x
on April 15, 2006 at 3:50 PM
| link to this | reply
WofL, Boxer is not eve living on the same planet with us!
posted by
kingmi
on April 13, 2006 at 8:39 PM
| link to this | reply