Right, looks like…*
What do you get when you somehow manage to crank up the stupid beyond 11? Frank “Stanton Carlisle’s Editor” Salvato:
This being understood, why did each and every one of the undecided Democrats in Frank Luntz’s Nevada focus group blame President Bush for things that only Congress has the authority to enact? The answer is simple. They are unschooled on the constitutional authorities of our government and the governmental process and they are reacting emotionally rather than in an educated manner. […] Granted, it is the president who most often signs legislation into law[.]
Most often?
Now is the time when we dance score an own goal:
It is important because every time you hear someone blaming George W. Bush for giving “tax-cuts to the rich,” they are demonstrating their ignorance, their constitutional illiteracy.
Since the Clinton tax increase, individual income taxes (excluding Social Security) have climbed from 7.8% of GDP to more than 10%. That’s the highest rate in U.S. history. Following the Reagan tax cuts of the early 1980s[.]
The Reagan tax cuts […] The 1993 Clinton tax increase appears to having the opposite effect on the willingness of wealthy taxpayers to expose income to taxation.
The State and District Impact of the Clinton Tax Increase
For all his flaws, President Clinton’s major policy mistake was the 1993 tax increase.
Not sure which is worse — constitutional illiteracy or intentional obtuseness.
Don’t be silly. Republican presidents enter into a quantum blame singularity in which everything bad they do is the responsibility of Congress, and everything right they do is because they are posessed by the Ghost of Ronald Reagan.
“…why did each and every one of the undecided Democrats in Frank Luntz’s Nevada focus group blame President Bush for things that only Congress has the authority to enact? The answer is simple. “
It’s because they’re a bunch of liberal fascists.
The left are the ones who are Constitutionally illilterate. The income tax is un-Constitutional, our Founding Fathers would never have approved of it but the left is too stupid to realize that because they are Constitutionally illiterate. The Constitutional illiteracy of the left is made manifest in their appointment of judical activists to the Federal Court System, their citing of foreign law to decide America’s future and judical fiat. All of which are un-Constitutional.
Survey sez….
It’s because they’re a bunch of liberal fascists.
Liek Mussolini!1!
There you go again, using “facts.” That way lies madness.
why did each and every one of the undecided Democrats in Frank Luntz’s Nevada focus group blame President Bush for things that only Congress has the authority to enact?
hmmm… it also sort of seems to me that for most of Bush’s reign, it was the Republicans who controlled Congress. That is, for most of this worst of all presidencies the Congress was a rubber stamp for Bush’s whim. Further, even since the Dems have taken over Congress, they’ve constantly – virtually without exception – continued to serve as a rubber stamp for Bush’s whim. They do bleat about it a little more, but when the votes come in the Democrats are generally more than willing to give Bush everything he demands too. So, uh, am I missing something here? Blaming Congress to get Bush off the hook doesn’t seem like much of an argument if you ask me.
The sixteenth amendment is un-Constitutional due to the fact that our Founding Fathers hated direct taxation and never would have approved of it. Its called the doctrine of original intent my liberal friends.
Somebody tell Jonah Goldberg the liberal fascist New Deal was all Congress’ fault and FDR had nothing to do with it.
Bingo! Most of my card filled up quickly when Joberg Goldnads’ book came out, but still I’d been waiting for someone to say that the Constitution is unconstitutional. Honestly, I didn’t think I had much of a chance, but now . . . gosh, I wonder what I won?
Single dumbest thing i have seen anyone say today…
By definition .. an amendment to the Constitution is constitutional .. because …. IT IS NOW PART OF THE FUCKING CONSTITUTION
sorry .. but I feel much better now
Oh, some idiot pulls this one out of his ass every six months or so. Never gains any traction because if it did they wouldn’t be able to take credit for shit that congress is empowered to do.
But theres always an outrider who didn’t get the memo…
mikey
Rob is correct. But there are many layers to Booger’s idiocy, so let’s dissect this a little more.
For the sake of argument, let’s pretend that Constitutional amendments don’t, in fact, amend the Constitution (as this is what Booger asserts). Even so, you cannot say that any given law is unconstitutional solely because the founding fathers would have hated it. Even putting aside that the founding fathers agreed on surprisingly little, something is only unconstitutional is the Constitution prohibits it. Seems obvious.
If Booger’s idea were truth, however, then most of what the Republicans have done since the time of Reagan would be considered unconstitutional. Hmmm, maybe htat’ not such a bad idea…
All I know is that we’re going to get another Republican president if we nominate Hillary and they will issue more signing statements that subvert the constitution than Bush. Damn it!!
Fuck NevAHda!!
I move we replace all the members of the Supreme Court with Bastion Booger and a Ouija board.
All in favor, say “aye.”
Jay – And if Hillary is elected President, then the minority Republican Congress will have the right to write its own signing statements invalidating whatever the majority Democratic congress passes.
That’s the way Madison would have wanted it.
The sixteenth amendment is un-Constitutional due to the fact that our Founding Fathers hated direct taxation and never would have approved of it. Its called the doctrine of original intent my liberal friends.
Then they should have included something specifically stating that the federal government did not have the ability to levy and collect income taxes. It’s not like the idea of using the Constitution to limit governmental power over the citizens would have been a strange concept to them – I mean, that’s a description of basically the entire Bill of Rights, more or less.
And with that, The Booger goes into the kill file . . .
Jay sez:
Objection, your honor. Assumes facts not in evidence.
Bastion Balthazar Butts thinks black folks should still be counted as 3/5ths persons. Original intent, motherfuckers!
#
Overruled! And your out of order for not producing a poll that doesn’t show Hillary being beaten in the general by any of the leading Republicans.
Nobody (except wingnuts)wants 4 more years of blowjob jokes instead of TCB. The Clintons are not good enough to get the job done and re-fight the 90’s. What kind of people would hitch their wagon to the Clinton administration? Not the best, that’s for sure and we need the best right now.
Here’s some polls for you.
Looks like Clinton beats everyone but McCain.
Not that it matters much. It’s way too early to be calling a race, and I think the turnout shows a difficult-to-calculate tide. “Likely voter” is going to be really hard to guess this year.
I’m a Hillary agnostic. I agree she’ll be able to “hit the ground running” faster than Obama or the now-possibly-defunct Edwards, who is my choice of course, but it is going to take some fantastic levels of luck and clumsiness to lose the general, though I think odds are best that she could do it.
(Not for entirely rational reasons, either, but hasn’t the American electorate already established itself as highly irrational?)
Anyway, today means little to nothing on the Dem side. Go, Huck!
Bastion, you’re just phoning it in. I’m not even buying it any more. Where’s the heart? Where’s the love of craft?
Although, looking at the numbers, it looks like Obama is more “electable” than Hillary and the soon (and sadly) defunct Edwards does better than Obama. But nobody loses to the Straight Talk Express.
I think we better hope it’s Romney.
That is nobody beats the Straight Talk Express.
Walter Matthau wasn’t an option, apparently.
The press will Gore Romney. The cool kids klatch hates him. At least that’s what I read on Hullabaloo — my surrogate for reality.
Return with me, if you choose door number 2, to the earlier point that it is the president who “most often” signs bills into law. Could this possibly mean unka dick, or the f-ing king of Saudi Oilrabia, or perhaps the leather-clad chick running the state department get a shot at this signing shit too?
You are absolutely right….well….except for the Founding Fathers that slipped this puppy in:
President John McCain.
Could be worse. Could be any other Republican.
Heck, this time in 2006, we thought it was going to be George Allen or Rick Santorum.
They are unschooled on the constitutional authorities of our government and the governmental process and they are reacting emotionally rather than in an educated manner.
Someone please, pleeeeeze tell me this wankstain has written endless screeds on the pretzledent’s lack of schooling on the constitutional authorities of our government.
Surely his scorn burnt a hole in the internons when the DoJ reacted emotionally to the threat of terrorism and decided we really didn’t need the Bill of Rights because THEY WANT 2 KILL US!!1
And of course, he must have exploded in anger when Cheney declared the OVP was a fourth branch of the government.
If not, he can shut right the fuck up about the Constitution.
As a veteran primary/caucus watcher, I would have to say McCain wins SC.
Sort of an, “We’re sorry” vote for 2000, IMHO.
But if he doesn’t win FL? Still a cluserf**k on the GOP side.
Also, on topic, right on, Arky. Well put.
“Granted, it is the president who most often signs legislation into law[.]”
If I felt like giving this guy the benefit of the doubt, I would note that legislation can become law without the President’s signature. But I don’t, and anyway, his sentence clearly implies that someone else can sign legislation into law. Maybe this is a function of the Cheney Branch of Wingnut Government, or something like that, which us reality-based folks cannot ever possibly understand, even if we cared enough to try.
I often think we need a new constitution, anyway.
But then, we would have people who voted for Huckabee involved in drafting it.
So I thank the Founding Fathers for their work and forget about it.
Maybe this is a function of the Cheney Branch of Wingnut Government, or something like that, which us reality-based folks cannot ever possibly understand, even if we cared enough to try.
Think calvinball.
OT: Apparently McCainiac & pHuckabee are battling down to the wire in SC. Pray, cross your fingers, sacrifice a domestic animal that pHucker wins. It would spoil a lot of Romney-centered wank sessions.
I’d like to see Huckabee win just to spoil some Dave Broder-centered wank sessions.
Sorry, McCain is too far up with 3/4 of the vote in. Simple math, unless they’re counting the votes in some extremely weird ways.
The Man always wins.
I want the GOP candidate to be so crazy, that if he “wins,” revolution will follow fast upon disaster.
That means Huckabee. Or Romney. Or Giuliani. Or Grandpa Fred. Or McCain. Or Giuliani.
Viva la revolucion!
Well isn’t it obvious?! Article I Section 2 Clause 3 is “un-Constitutional”. C’mon you aren’t even trying here!
Holy crap, either my watch is wrong, or I’m posting from the future!
On GOP side I sooooo totally want to see the “values voters” – that is, the radical right-wing evangelicals and their “faith based initiatives” that the Bush administration has been dumping millions of US tax dollars into – rally around Huckabee and take over the party from the ruling “corporatations and multimillionaire” elite. S,N! has been calling for this and I’m with them – I Like Mike! Of course he would stand zero chance of winning in a national race, but he could seriously destroy the GOP.
On the Democratic side, I am completely anti-Hillary; she might as well be a Republican as far as all the issues I’m primarily concerned (anti-war/imperialism, fair trade over free trade, workers over business, &c.) are concerned. Beyond Hillary, I’d be willing to give any of the others the benefit of the doubt – despite many, many concerns – which I guess makes me effectively an Obama man since he’s the only other one that seems to have a chance against Hillary’s insider corporate fast-track.
“The sixteenth amendment is un-Constitutional due to the fact that our Founding Fathers hated direct taxation and never would have approved of it. Its called the doctrine of original intent my liberal friends.”
While you are up there as far as teh st00pit is concerned, Booger, not even you could be so stupid as to actually believe such an asinine premise. Congratulations for affirming your assumed status as a smelly troll.
Holy crap, either my watch is wrong, or I’m posting from the future!
I confess, I’ve never figured out the time stamp on this board. I’m pretty sure it’s not Greenwich Mean Time, and it sure as hell ain’t my time.
Anyone?
I want the GOP candidate to be so crazy, that if he “wins,” revolution will follow fast upon disaster.
I want the next GOP president to have an economy so bad that he’ll be forced into promoting some big government “stimulus” plan as the solution, thereby proving once and for all that when the chips are truly down, conservatives will abandon their supposed “ideals” in a heartbeat.
Wait a second…what’s that you say?
I want the next GOP president to have an economy so bad that he’ll be forced into …
It has been suggested that the GOP long-term strategists – the Neo-Cons and the party functionaries, as opposed to the actual elected officials (who are certainly not on board with such a scheme) – are deliberately going to lose in 2008 because whoever comes next is going to be stuck with – and blamed for – the enormous mess Bush has created. Then in 2012 or 2016 the GOP can turn around and say “remember the good ole days of Bush? Back when you could afford cheap crap from WalMart and silly things like food? Well, vote Republican and we’ll bring those days back! Jeb 2012!”
It’s Central European Time. Berlin, basically.
It’s Central European Time. Berlin, basically.
Okay, so it’s totally random, just like I figured.
No, because Republicans are in favor of the military in a totally different way than the Nazis, who were fascist and therefore of the left. The Republicans are for the troops in the good patriot American conservative freedom way, but the Nazis were for the troops who were not Americans and were like grade school teachers who are of the left.
whoever comes next is going to be stuck with – and blamed for – the enormous mess Bush has created.
Maybe. But there is precedent to the contrary. FDR comes to mind. So does Bill Clinton, in a lesser sense.
The only poor shlub I can think of who was thoroughly tarred by the sins of his predecessors was Jimmy Carter. He was handed a truly shitty situation, and to this day people insist it was all his fault.
Maybe. But there is precedent to the contrary. FDR comes to mind. So does Bill Clinton, in a lesser sense.
I hope one of these people running is an FDR or better then, because it looks like Bush is going to leave a mess that will make Hoover look like a piker at creating an economic debacle. In addition to the two or more wars that will be going on that is.
It’s ANGRY PARTY TIME!
Grrrrr! Smash!
fauxmaxbaer said: I hope one of these people running is an FDR or better then, because it looks like Bush is going to leave a mess that will make Hoover look like a piker at creating an economic debacle.
I don’t see any FDRs in the race, but then again, FDR wasn’t really “an FDR” in the way we think of him today. Okay, I know that sounds very Jonah Goldberg-esque; but what I mean is that FDR came from the highest levels of the political/economic elite of his day and only made the concessions to the poor & exploited that he did because he was forced into it by an enormous economic crisis (the Great Depression) AND the rising of the poor & exploited around the world (mostly through variations of Marxism: Russia, Germany, China, and so on).
The economic crisis wasn’t enough in of itself, but the crisis coupled with the very real threat of revolution is what did it. I personally don’t think there is a very real threat of revolution in the US today, so I wouldn’t expect any of the ruling multimillionaire/billionaire elites (regardless of party affiliation) making any meaningful changes within the immediate future.
But then again, as a liberal fascist I have to be pessimistic…
I realize that it’s shooting fish in a barrel, but Booger has a point… if you consider the Constitution itself to be unconstitutional:
… Oh sure, it sounds official, but it doesn’t so much as mention the Founding Fathers(tm), let alone spell out what they want from the future. How can they be expected to rule from beyond the grave at all? I’m beginning to question the legitimacy of this “Constitution.” Why, I can’t find Ludwig von Mises’s signature anywhere on it!
But there IS HOPE if we can all get our act together and campaign for an “original intent” amendment. I imagine it’d get a lot backing from the seance lobby.
So the notorious liberal website is on Berlin time, eh? I seem to remember another notorious liberal trying to rule the world from Berlin 70 years ago.
Jonah, I never doubted you. And now we have teh incontrovertible proof!!!11!!11!
Holy crap, either my watch is wrong, or I’m posting from the future!
12, 18, 32, 43, 47, 58. For the love of God, quote these numbers back to us in a reply as soon as you can…
Okay, so it’s totally random, just like I figured.
No, it’s not.
If it can’t be Chuckleberry, I’m actually rooting for McCain so I can listen to Rusty Limpballs head asplode. From a safe distance, where I can’t get no Oxycontin splatters or ass-cyst pus on me.
James Earl gets tha last word:
It’s a dream of mine to have a Huckabee v. Hillary election. “True conservative” heads exploding everywhere as they either vote for Hillary or abstain from voting, knowing that in so doing they are contributing to a HRC victory all the same.
The President submits a budget to Congress, that’s his Constitutionally mandated job. Bush’s budget included “tax cuts for the rich”, which the Republican Congress approved. It’s pretty simple, really, except for a few dolts.
But the right has never been too good at playing “Connect the Dolts”.
Ronald Reagan is dead?
Ronald Reagan is still dead.
Actually, in my opinion, if the right has anything down pat, it’s playing ‘Connect the Dolts’.
But that’s at least partly because they’re basically a bunch of nuts and dolts anyway.
-fred
> Ronald Reagan is dead?
Ronald Reagan died about thirty years ago. (And no, if you look closely, there is nothing in the constitution that says that you have to be alive to be president.)
-fred