Well, you certainly showed him.
An approximation.,save your belief system for something that requires it.
Clothahump, in case you’re still looking at this, divested of all the scorn, have you gotten the point that it’s Congress’s job to: (a) declare war or otherwise authorize military conflict, (b) fund it, © raise an army and reserves as needed, (d) investigate to ensure money is being spent and the laws of the land are properly carried out.
It’s the President’s job to be Commander in Chief of the armed forces: to decide on the overall strategy they will use, to set the highest-level strategic and tactical doctrine, to interface the conduct of the war with other governmental concerns, like diplomacy and economic production.
There are some grey edges there, to be sure. But Mr. Bush seems to have a problem with regarding any precedent dealing with limitations on Presidential power as binding him.
No, we do not simply say that. We say that and produce a variety of sources that disagree with what you say. You, in return, post an irrelevant link and say “Corporations our are friend., branwahsing is compplet…;”
True, it is our opinion. And it is an opinion based on our superior knowledge. I’d hesitate to say my knowledge is superior to most people here. To you, however, I’m quite certain that I do. I know for a fact I know more about energy policy than you. That long gas thread has made that fact abundantly clear.
Yes, you claim they are misleading, but you give us no reason to believe that you have any reason to think so. Just because you have a knee-jerk hatred of corporations and think that everything they say is lies does not make it a fact. If you want to convince us, present a rational argument (which you never do) and present cites from a factual source (which you rarely do).
Really? I find that hard to believe.
Of course not. Most people here seem to be to the left of me. I don’t think all of them are “wrong.” I disagree with their opinion, but almost all have facts and reasonable arguments to back up their assertions. You, however, do neither. Be a lefty if you want, but if you want me to respect your opinion, learn how to make a cogent argument.
Renob ,you parrot the gas company site and view it as gospel. You totally ignore the mathematecal incongruety between your simplistic supply and demand mantra and the incredible surge in gas prices and profits. Profits setting records and rapidly running heading where no corporation has gone before. does not even make you question. It simply fails logic. Your programming is complete.
It’s funny how you completely prove his point.
And for the record, I think right now, he’s being more reasonable than you are, even though usually your positions are closer to mine than his are.
Given how often he’s had this explained to him previously, I’m guessing: “no”.
No, I do not. Only one cite I ever used was from an oil company. Most of my views on gas prices comes from energy economists. I’ve heard Daniel Yergin give two briefings on this subject, for instance, and have read a lot of his analysis of energy prices.
I’m fine if others want to disagree on this issue. However, to do so, people need to give some evidence to support their view. On the gas thread, no one has done so. You, especially, simply produce cites that talk about how evil corporatios are.
There is a “mathematecal” issue here? Please crack and egg of knowledge on my head, then, and learn me how, “mathematecally,” supply and demand does not account for the increase in gas prices.
What fails logic is the construction of those “sentences” (at least I think they are supposed to be sentences).
Most people have to take powerful drugs to imagine things that disconnected from the real world.
OK,Renob ,one last time. In the last few months gas prices in my area have gone from a little under $2.00 a gallon to ,at a cheap station approx. $3.15. This is an increase of well over 50 %. To justify this increase there would require an incredible increase in demand or a volatile drop in supply. Neither have occurred. That is if you still maintain the absurd 10 cents a gallon. as the poor gas companies profit margin.
The quarterly profits have been astounding. The 85 billion figure has set records . But , in the era of creative accounting ,I suspect the profits are much higher. The oil companies have generously paid their executives . Some have astronomical salaries and retirements that are stunning.We are talking many millions here. This is another way to hide what they really make.
Their lobbying in congress is enormous and expensive. They have thrown millions into it. They can afford it. But how many dimes would this require. How many dimes would all it require. It just does not follow.
Not to pull this thread too off topic, but your rambling here shows your basic lack of knowledge about energy policy. One, during this time of year the government mandates that gas stations start selling cleaner gasoline. That severely disrupts the market and artificially restricts supply. Furthermore, refineries have had a variety of problems that are also restricting supply. Plus, demand is going up.
You may not be capable of understanding it, but that does not mean there is a conspiracy at work.
Polycarp’s post #103 is right on the money - no pun intended.
Congress’ power of the purse is not absolute. They could not, for example, pass a law restricting payment of federal funds only to judges who voted in favor of a certain federal law being constitutional. That limitation of power is inherent in the separation of powers.
However, since Congress may authorize military force, and has done so here, and may fund it as well, they are certainly entitled to cut off funding or place restrictions on it. This does not infringe on the President’s Article II desmenes; Congress has the sole power to declare war in the first place and I believe that any fair weighing of the issue would concede that Congress may use its purse-power broadly to end the war.
I do not believe Congress could say, “No more funding unless we take the city of Tikrit by June,” or “No funding unless we abandon the northern half of the country.” But can Congress say, broadly, “No more funding for the war unless we withdraw by September?” Sure.
Renob. it is more than a 50% increase. What do they add uranium. It does not float. Plus the Iraqi oil ,I have recently read, is so clean and easy to obtain ,that it can be in the market at 1 to 1.50 a gallon.
gonzomax. consider proofreading before you submit. Can you believe how stupid this makes me look. It is totally crazy. Also ,if you don’t start spacing your commas correctly ,i.e. the opposite of what I’m doing here ,I think I’m going to go insane. I’m serious.
On the positive side, gonzo doesn’t seem to believe that 9) and (0 are complimentary punctuation marks.
-Joe
He picked that up from the Ralph123c School of Creative Typography! 
Woo hoo! I’m going to start compiling lists of names/message board aliases.
And on a lighter note - these Clotathump self-pittings just can’t happen often enough for my entertainment.
A Bush supporter complaining about a violation of the separation of powers is rather like Hugh Hefner protesting skimpy bikinis. You can’t spend six years wiping your butt with the Constitution and then hide behind it when you think it serves your purpose, however incorrect you may actually be. The president does not control the budget, Congress does. Congress is in control of the purse strings, and may attach whatever other strings it may wish to the money. Bush has gotten so spoiled by having a rubber stamp Congress that he has no idea how to function in a divided government. With his job performance, it may not be divided much longer.
What I’ve been wondering lately is, how would such a disagreement between the two branches work out in practice, short of impeachment?
The courts tend to stay out of conflicts over Article I v. Article II powers, so it would come down directly to the two branches. So, suppose Congress funds the war, but dictates that beginning in September, the funds have to be used for bringing the troops home? Or that funding runs out if Tikrit isn’t pacified by June? ISTM that no matter who’s in the right or in the wrong, it comes down to who can get the money, or keep the other party from doing so.
So what happens backstage once Congress appropriates money subject to conditions? What happens when money is appropriated, generally? What, if anything short of impeachment, is to prevent a President from spending money whether or not it’s been appropriated?
I’ve gotten the impression that his shift key doesn’t work properly. I think also sometimes he has lowercase letters rather than capital ones, so I doubt it’s intentional or laziness.