3
The Best Part Of Being Rick Moran Is That You Never Have To Be Right About Anything
The Rickster gets another one wrong:
Last time I looked, Bush wasn’t ruling by decree.
Rick, meet signing statements. Signing statements, meet Rick:
President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.
Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ”whistle-blower” protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research.
Legal scholars say the scope and aggression of Bush’s assertions that he can bypass laws represent a concerted effort to expand his power at the expense of Congress, upsetting the balance between the branches of government. [...]
In October 2004, five months after the Abu Ghraib torture scandal in Iraq came to light, Congress passed a series of new rules and regulations for military prisons. Bush signed the provisions into law, then said he could ignore them all. One provision made clear that military lawyers can give their commanders independent advice on such issues as what would constitute torture. But Bush declared that military lawyers could not contradict his administration’s lawyers.
Oh wells. I guess Rick should stick to doing what he does best, i.e., leveling baseless accusations of pedophilia against his fellow bloggers.
SamFromUtah said,
December 3, 2007 at 21:34
Last time I looked, Bush wasn’t ruling by decree.
This may not be wrong – he might not have “looked” since 1970 or so.
spencer said,
December 3, 2007 at 21:50
But see, Deciderin’ is diff’rent from Decreein’. It’s harder work, for one thing.
a different brad said,
December 3, 2007 at 21:53
Why must you test the love Ricky and I feel for each other with this taunting, bradrocket?
Isn’t it bad enough he had to close comments?
Soon he’ll have to make it an invite only blog, like Ilyka did.
Heartless bastards, stop getting in the way of our love.
mikey said,
December 3, 2007 at 22:02
I really liked how, in the previous thread, he figures we’re a bunch of unpatriotic traitor commie scum because we had the temerity to actually consider (compare and contrast, I believe it said) the behavior of our president and that of the leader of another nation.
You know, like suggesting there’s a reason that those doods attacked US in 2001 instead of, say, Italy…
mikey
Arky - Cthulusexual said,
December 3, 2007 at 22:06
Please allow me to polish up the title for this post:
“Being Rick Moran means never having the wattage to realize you’ve got anything to be sorry about.”
You’re welcome.
Legalize said,
December 3, 2007 at 22:16
Meh, just another “joke” “misinterpreted” by teh moonbats who hate America.
Kathleen said,
December 3, 2007 at 22:20
“Being Rick Moran means …”
Feh. I never want to even try to imagine what that might be like.
RIck Moran said,
December 3, 2007 at 22:27
Not that the facts ever mattered at this stink hole of a blog but perhaps you can list chapter and verse every time Bush cited those signing statements to negate the law.
And are you seriously comparing the personal decrees of a dictator with a signing statement?
Hyperobole, ignorance, and wild exaggeration get you pretty far in the lefty blogosphere. But trying to pull that crap in the real world only makes people laugh at you.
SamFromUtah said,
December 3, 2007 at 22:28
But trying to pull that crap in the real world only makes people laugh at you.
Do you speak from experience?
a different brad said,
December 3, 2007 at 22:31
Ricky, I love you, but that was pretty fuckin dumb. Ever heard of torture, fer one?
The Hon. Dr. St. Rev. Bradley S. Rocket, Esq, PhD, MD said,
December 3, 2007 at 22:37
And are you seriously comparing the personal decrees of a dictator with a signing statement?
Yes. In both cases, you have an executive authority proclaiming himself to be the law. Bush is asserting that he can unilaterally interpret the Constitution and selectively choose which laws he will and will not obey. Let’s run down some of the examples of Bush’s signing statements:
Bush’s signing statement: The president, as commander in chief, can waive the torture ban if he decides that harsh interrogation techniques will assist in preventing terrorist attacks.
Translation: we don’t torture unless I say it’s OK.
Bush’s signing statement: The president can tell researchers to withhold any information from Congress if he decides its disclosure could impair foreign relations, national security, or the workings of the executive branch.
Translation: ah, using “the workings of the executive branch” as a qualification! In other words, “I can do whatever I want, neener, neener, neener.”
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.”
Which is, of course, nonsense. Congress has the power to make war.
Bush’s signing statement: All military attorneys are bound to follow legal conclusions reached by the administration’s lawyers in the Justice Department and the Pentagon when giving advice to their commanders.
Anyway, you gets teh idea.
Basically, Bush’s little signing statements are his way of exerting executive power over Congress and saying, “Rule of law for thee, not for me.” Does this make Bush a dictator? No, but it does make him an executive authoritarian. And so far, no one in this country has done a damn thing to stop him from doing whatever the hell he wants.
Righteous Bubba said,
December 3, 2007 at 22:38
Not that the facts ever mattered at this stink hole of a blog but perhaps you can list chapter and verse every time Bush cited those signing statements to negate the law.
I feel confident that the Bush administration would release the information required to put an exact figure on it.
Nevertheless, every act of torture committed by the US since December 2005 can be considered to be torture by decree.
Snowwy said,
December 3, 2007 at 22:38
This is the essence of the Winger Way,
Subvert the substance while leaving the appearance of propriety.
Done properly, your enemies will rail ineffectually at the subversion.
Done artfully, they’ll never even notice the extent of your perversion.
Cleave ye to the Winger Way in all things,
That ye bring not shame upon your Nation.
–Scrolls of the Right Wing Tao
Arky - Cthulusexual said,
December 3, 2007 at 22:38
Who is RIck Moran?
Whoever he is, he’s overloading the circuits on my IronyMeter(TM)
Righteous Bubba said,
December 3, 2007 at 22:38
Oh. Beaten to it. Thanks Brad.
The Hon. Dr. St. Rev. Bradley S. Rocket, Esq, PhD, MD said,
December 3, 2007 at 22:45
Another classic:
”We are not going to ignore this law,” the official said, noting that Bush, when signing laws, routinely issues signing statements saying he will construe them consistent with his own constitutional authority. ”We consider it a valid statute. We consider ourselves bound by the prohibition on cruel, unusual, and degrading treatment.”
But, the official said, a situation could arise in which Bush may have to waive the law’s restrictions to carry out his responsibilities to protect national security. He cited as an example a ”ticking time bomb” scenario, in which a detainee is believed to have information that could prevent a planned terrorist attack.
”Of course the president has the obligation to follow this law, [but] he also has the obligation to defend and protect the country as the commander in chief, and he will have to square those two responsibilities in each case,” the official added. ”We are not expecting that those two responsibilities will come into conflict, but it’s possible that they will.”
But I’m sure, after all, the preznit just wanted to reserve this right just in case something super-wicked-awful bad was about to happen. We can trust him. Along the same lines, wouldn’t it be wise to give Hugo Chavez the right to declare perpetual states of mergency? Not for the sake of claiming ever-more executive power, mind you, but to protect Venezuela from imperialist swine.
The Hon. Dr. St. Rev. Bradley S. Rocket, Esq, PhD, MD said,
December 3, 2007 at 22:46
Dammit, I’ll try to close the tag.
Better?
MrWonderful said,
December 3, 2007 at 22:48
Oh, and Rick?
Have the intellectual honesty to ask yourself how you would react if a Dem president issued the same “signing statements.”
Jezuss, you people. Braying on and on about “tyranny,” and when it happens under your nose, you make excuses.
Well said, Bradrocket.
Candy said,
December 3, 2007 at 22:53
Seems like the Moran always pops in, hurls some poorly thought out invective, and then runs away.
Hoosier X said,
December 3, 2007 at 22:55
Try using examples in the real world and the right wing blogosphere just laughs at you.
Dan Someone said,
December 3, 2007 at 22:58
Jezuss, you people. Braying on and on about “tyranny,” and when it happens under your nose, you make excuses.
Well, duh. As long as it’s their tyrant, why should they care about it?
Arky - Cthulusexual said,
December 3, 2007 at 23:01
4 Candy:
When danger reared its ugly head
Sir Moran turned his tail and fled.
Brave, brave, brave Sir Moran…
Rufus said,
December 3, 2007 at 23:03
Its rare that the subject of a post comes here and demonstrates the truth of the post’s title so succinctly. Well, played, Moran.
The Hon. Dr. St. Rev. Bradley S. Rocket, Esq, PhD, MD said,
December 3, 2007 at 23:04
Funny thing is, I kinda like Rick, despite the fact that he’s called me a Hezbollah toady and an authoritarian left-wing thug.
Candy said,
December 3, 2007 at 23:05
Arky:
That made me smile! Thx
(: Tom :) said,
December 3, 2007 at 23:34
RIck Moran said,
December 3, 2007 at 22:27
Not that the facts ever mattered at this stink hole of a blog
…as opposed to the ‘facts’ presented at Reich wing nut house blogs? Man, that’s some good projectorin’ there. What color is the sky in your world, anyhow?
a different brad said,
December 3, 2007 at 23:43
Don’t you be puttin moves on my man, bradrocket. I’ll cut you, bad.
Marco said,
December 3, 2007 at 23:48
“Being Rick Moran means …”
you’re the only one who has a mirror that actually winces.
How long will it take for the Rickster to come back with a fact-filled reply to the smack down laid upon him?
Hoosier X said,
December 3, 2007 at 23:58
Don’t hold your breath.
Wait. “fact-filled”?
Heh. Heh heh heh.
Right.
Fats Durston said,
December 4, 2007 at 0:01
Seems like the Moran always pops in, hurls some poorly thought out invective, and then runs away.
It’s because he got stinkhole on his fingers!
fardels bear said,
December 4, 2007 at 0:15
So, according to Rick “the” Moran, it is OK for the preznit to claim the power of a dictator and we should just shut up about it unless he actually uses the power of the dictator? Is that the deal?
Why is that exactly? If the preznit isn’t going to use the powers he claims for himself, why claim them at all? P’raps, if Rick “the” Moran ever returns to your stinkhole (did he mean sinkhole?) he could explain to us why the preznit feels it necessary to continually claim for himself dictatorial powers he never intents to use.
Principal Blackman said,
December 4, 2007 at 0:15
Try using examples in the real world and the right wing blogosphere just laughs at you.
Truer words were never spoken.
The Hon. Dr. St. Rev. Bradley S. Rocket, Esq, PhD, MD said,
December 4, 2007 at 0:17
If the preznit isn’t going to use the powers he claims for himself, why claim them at all?
Hey, Chavez never said for certain he wanted to declare a perpetual state of emergency. He just threw that bit in there to amuse himself watching the sufferers of Hugo Derangement Syndrome get all upset.
Gary Ruppert said,
December 4, 2007 at 0:26
The fact is, bias here is off the scale as is BDS. Rick Moran has called you liberals on your bias and hate and all you can do is hurl insults, instead of any “facts” the support your position that Bush is equal to Hitler. No wonder everyone laughs at leftliberal morons.
Gundamhead said,
December 4, 2007 at 2:04
I love this guy! He’s almost as funny as Dough-hammer. Stinkhole! Love it. Moran’s the rising star to watch out for. I think he has it in him to become a Sadly, No! legend, the next Ace O Spades.
comsympinko said,
December 4, 2007 at 2:05
Wow, visits from Moran and Ruppert in the same thread.
It’s not an honor I’d want to wish on anyone, but you gotta admit it’s an honor nonetheless.
I’ve never seen anything here comparing Bush to Hitler, and that is a terrible analogy if it has ever been used here.
Bush is more of a Louis XVI character-a useless, braindead fop ruling by whim and cursing the 76 percenters for the audacity to suggest that he should actually have to take their will into account.
BTW, Best. Picture. Ever.
They say a picture is worth a thousand words.
That one photo says more about the nutters than every word ever written in the history of time.
Righteous Bubba said,
December 4, 2007 at 2:11
I’ve never seen anything here comparing Bush to Hitler, and that is a terrible analogy if it has ever been used here.
I’m not going to check every hit but I’d hazard a guess that someone’s made the specific comparison of the one fascist with the other. Oh well. People don’t like him I guess.
comsympinko said,
December 4, 2007 at 2:11
Gundamhead–
That’s an excellent point.
Where’s the Moran’s thesaurus?
“Stinkhole?”
Pretty juvenile, IMHO.
What about “cesspool?” “Shit lagoon?” “Cloaca?”
All of which are more descriptive of the Moran’s cranium than anything else, but still.
The guy obviously needs a hand.
¡El Gato Negro! said,
December 4, 2007 at 2:14
Joo know, I would just bet on that being Rick’s favorite picture een the whole internet.
Makes me wanna purrr, eet does.
Kevin said,
December 4, 2007 at 2:57
Just for the record, when Moran posted his comment demanding to be shown when the signing statement had overturned a law, he already should have known about the torture signing statement. Why? Because he linked to my post comparing how Bush reacted to the law forbidding torture and how Chavez has so far reacted to this referendum defeat in the same post he linked back to Sadly No!
Simba B said,
December 4, 2007 at 3:06
Um, Kevin, just a friendly bit of advice: you might want to change your screen name here, because a certain troll uses the name “Kevin” too (albeit with a different link) so you may be blocked by people’s killfiles.
Saul said,
December 4, 2007 at 3:06
Shalom gentlemen.
Rightwingsnarkle said,
December 4, 2007 at 3:07
That sign should read, “Get a JOB, Moran.”
The guy just has too much free time on his hands. An idle mind is Satan’s playground, etc.
Saul said,
December 4, 2007 at 3:09
Torture is one of many necessary tools at the Presidents disposal in the war against islamo-facsism. By opposing torturing terrorists you liberals show you care more about the rights of terrorists and criminals than you care about the rights of the 3000 innocent Americans murdered on 9/11. You Islamo-facsist coddling terror apologists make me sick.
Hysterical Woman said,
December 4, 2007 at 3:26
How we know that someone is a terrorist?
Oh, I know, we torture them until they confess to being a terrorist!
Just like all those people who confessed to being a witch under torture or threat of torture in the 17th-18th century.
g said,
December 4, 2007 at 3:47
Wow, now we’re being accused of retroactively suppressing the rights of 3000 dead people.
Saul said,
December 4, 2007 at 3:51
Show some respect, “those 3000 dead people” were innocent men, women and children who had done nothing wrong but be at the wrong place at the wrong time ,and those 19 dogs murdered them for no reason other than the fact that they were not muslim.
g said,
December 4, 2007 at 4:06
many of the victims of 9/11 were muslim.
Saul said,
December 4, 2007 at 4:11
But the reason America was attacked on 9/11 was because America is not a muslim nation.
Simba B said,
December 4, 2007 at 4:13
Gee, Saul, that kind of underlines the pointlessness of religious violence, doesn’t it? Now can I ask how you feel about certain actions of the state of Israel?
Saul said,
December 4, 2007 at 4:19
Israel is a nation established by God, that is merely defending herself against the ruthless attacks of her enemies who surround her at all sides and routinely call for her destruction. Israel must take all actions necessary to defend herself and her citizens against the jihadist enemy that wishes her destruction.
Saul said,
December 4, 2007 at 4:21
I painted my bedroom pink today.
g said,
December 4, 2007 at 4:29
enemies who surround her at all sides
The Mediterranean Sea is an enemy of Israel? Man, they REALLY pissed someone off.
Left_Wing_Fox said,
December 4, 2007 at 4:36
You Islamo-facsist coddling terror apologists make me sick.
Yay!
Simba B said,
December 4, 2007 at 4:37
Fake Saul at 4:21 wins this thread for non-sequitur hilarity.
Saul said,
December 4, 2007 at 4:37
Israel’s enemies
1. Islamo-facsist groups: Hamas, Fatah, Hezbollah, al-queada ect.
2. palestinian (not capitalized on purpose) territories.
3. Iran.
4. Egypt.
5. Syria.
6. Lebanon.
7. Sudan.
8. Saudi Arabia.
9. Iraq.
10. Kuwait.
11. Qatar.
12 Bahrain.
13. Oman.
14. United Arab Emirates.
15. Libya.
16. Tunisia.
17. Morocco.
18. Algeria.
19. Pakistan.
20. Afghanistan.
21. Uzbekistan.
22. Turkmenistan.
23. Kazakstan.
24. Azjerbahrian.
25. Tajakstan.
26. Indonesia.
27. Malaysia.
I know alot of these nations don’t exactly border Israel, however the enemies of Israel are all the world’s muslim nations because they all have either publiclly or privately sworn her destruction.
Saul said,
December 4, 2007 at 4:51
And here are my personal enemies:
1. The voices in my head.
2. My persistent backne.
3. Britney Spears (why won’t she answer my letters?)
4. My wife (why won’t she wear the Britney Spears mask?)
5. Ferrets.
6. The Tubai Islands.
Spartakus said,
December 4, 2007 at 5:09
No “the fact is” in this thread, Saul?
Saul said,
December 4, 2007 at 5:17
The fact is facts have a well-known liberal bias!
Doctorb Science said,
December 4, 2007 at 5:28
The fact is, people who use the feminine pronoun to refer to countries are usually douchebags. Likewise civilians who refer to the President as “The Commander in Chief” (or worse, “C-in-C”).
SamFromUtah said,
December 4, 2007 at 5:41
people who use the feminine pronoun to refer to countries are usually douchebags.
Usually, I just think it’s kind of archaic and pretentious. In this case, it astounds me to see such a goober referring to anything even nominally feminine with any shred of respect.
or worse, “C-in-C”
Yeah, that’s pretty pukey. I’d not begrudge soldiers saying that, but in most online cases it’s more military-wannabee chickenhawkery.
Arky - Cthulhusexual said,
December 4, 2007 at 6:44
Which always makes me think of the C&C Music Factory. Because my brain likes to fuck with me.
But if the MC Band played a few bars of “Gonna Make You Sweat,” when the Chimperor swaggered into the room it would make him slightly less intolerable.
g said,
December 4, 2007 at 7:11
23. Kazakstan.
24. Azjerbahrian.
25. Tajakstan.
Upper Westphalia.
Grand Fenwick
Cloud Cuckoo-land
Xanadu
Ruritania
Yoknapatawpha County
Gotham City
Winesburg, Ohio.
Saul said,
December 4, 2007 at 7:14
OH, and I forgot Dubai.
Hysterical Woman said,
December 4, 2007 at 9:39
Saul, do you think the people who confessed to witchcraft under torture were really witches?
kenga said,
December 4, 2007 at 17:35
Jeepers. If Dubai is one of Israel’s “sworn enemies”, that must mean Halliburton has changed sides in Teh Grate War on Terra!
Unless they’re bein’ all hombre secreto and pretendering to be friends with Dubai and Ports World. That Cheney guy is sneaky like that.
Or he got some bad bread.
comsympinko said,
December 4, 2007 at 20:36
Saul–
Dubai is a city in UAE, you moran.
Also, learn to spell:
Kazakhstan
Azerbaijan
Tajikistan