Um…he ain’t dictator. Abortion ain’t illegal. There is no prayer in school. Religions other than Christianity are still legal to practice in the US. Terri Schiavo is still dead.
Whats your point exactly?
-XT
Bush + Republicans = evil.
That’s always the point.
You forgot the Dems. They’re not very different on most issues, despite the bluster, and they’re weak kneed enablers when they disagree on anything of import.
Anyway, this reminds me of when the AM radio righties were afraid that Clinton was going to suspend elections and declare himself president for life in 2000. At least he had the public approval rating in the 70s or some such to make the idea of such a move not completely insane. Well, OK, it was still insane, but you know what I mean. Bush is attempting to set a record for lowest rating and he still has two years with which to work.
I don’t think Bush really wants to be President anymore anyway, ever since Katrina. You can see it on his face at each press conference. He is so very, very tired. Almost as tired as the American people…
That all the checks and balances in the world mean nothing when a large part of the government, which is supposed to implement those checks and balances, gets all weak in the knees every time they hear from their party leader.
But…well, they didn’t. Even when they controlled the house and senate, even when Bush appointed folks to SCOTUS…even then Bush didn’t get his way, didn’t become dictator, etc etc. Which was the point I was making. Checks and balances STILL worked, even with Bush the Evil™ at the helm, even with the Evil Republican Senate/Congress™ in control…even THEN they were pretty much limited to what they could and could not do…right? And so, NOW the claim that suddenly Evil Bush ™ is going to take over is even more, well, ludicrous. No? 
-XT
So Bush is dictator-for-life already?
Why doesn’t anyone tell me these things?
Regards,
Shodan
You seriously need to check your inbox. I sent you a memo on it last week…
-XT
So, this little bit of Bushwah doesn’t mean anything, not really. Then why do it? If it doesn’t put more power into the damp and clammy hands of The Leader, well, then, what does it do? And if it does put more power in the hands of a fool or a scoundrel, then it is a Bad Thing. Why in the world should I approve of a plan to put more power into the hands of the Hero of Katrina? The Architect of the New World Ordure?
As far as being patted upon our fuzzy little heads by tighty rightys, we hasten to remind you than, for several years now, we have been consistently correct in our assessments, whereas your assessments have been proven to be stuffed brown.
The directive states its purpose:
Do you really imagine that clarifies something? In your mildest dreams?
Do you imagine this statement is anything but completely ridiculous? You’ve been correct in your assessments for several years now? Which assessments are those? The paranoid fantasy ones where Bush et al takes over??
And if you think I’M a ‘tighty righty’ you have serious perception issues.
-XT
Not a bit of it! A tighty righty will fling bald insults, you always add a smiley at the end, so it is magically transformed into hearty jocularity.
As government-ese goes, it’s actually pretty understandable. If you have a problem with the directive, why don’t you quote the sections you don’t like and explain what the problem is. So far, all I can see is that you think it’s “Bushwah”, whatever that is supposed to mean.
If you want to regard suspicion of and disdain for GeeDubya as “paranoid”, you are free to do so. To my gimlet eye, he has given us every reason to believe that his self-regard is galactic: he really does believe that he is, and has been, doing the Right Thing. And it necessarily follows that he believes that he should have extraordinary powers In Time of War. Or in a Time of National Catastrophe.
Defined by whom? Now, as you point out, I haven’t read the whole thing, I’ll definitely cop to shooting from the hip on this. But I’ll bet you dollars to duck biscuits it calls for that definition to be made by him, or by somebody he can overrule.
These people always present their devious plans as being chocked full of crunchy goodness, inspired by the loftiest goals, the kinds of goals pursued by the best and the brightest, why, the very notion of oversight is absurd, if not downright insulting to such impeccable integrity. Why, its the Patriot Act! How can anybody object to patriotism, except for paranoid lefties?
I, for one, have had quite enough of them peeing down my neck and telling me its raining.
Not all Republicans are evil, just Neocons. ;p
If you want to put words in my mouth, you are not free to do so-- at least not around here. Let me repeat: If you have a specific objection to this, with specific reasons for the objection, let’s hear it. It’s not paranoia to object to what you haven’t read, it’s ignorance.
Is Bush the person one would want to recognize an emergency (coughiraqcough)?
Is Bush the person one would want to respond to an emergency (coughkatrinacough)?
Might be a better thing to elect better persons to do better work on an ongoing basis, rather than elect an incompetent and give that incompetent extraordinary powers, despite that incompetent neither being able to properly recognize or respond to emergencies.
Quite simply, it is unwise to give a screw-up greater power to screw-up even futher.
John, you should get over the idea that all of my remarks are directed to you.
And no, I don’t need the specifics in the presence of an abundance of evidence as to the character of the man. Unless this document can be demonstrated to be a peerless paragon of transparency and oversight, so that no shadowy loophole exists to be exploited by the Forces of Darkness, your goddam right I’m agin it! I object to the very idea of the thing, due entirely and unabashedly to its source.
In your opinion, does it, or does it not, expand the power of the President? And if the answer is no, is it innocent of any possibility of being misinterpreted to such an end? Is it rigorous and resolute in its constraints, is it invulnerable to arrogation?
Why am I so suspicious? You kidding? In case you haven’t noticed, these people have been busy little legal termites, turning the foundation of the Republic into Swiss cheese. But in this instance, you expect I should turn a benign and indulgent eye, and…what? Trust them? Sooner hire Hannibal Lecter for a daycare.
Because the only person who might want to talk to you is Bill O’Reilly? And he wouldn’t be caught dead here?
In my opinion it does nothing to expand any executive powers. What clauses would you put forth as exceeding the current powers of the presidency?
Nothing is invulnerable to arrogation. Bush has, with the collusion of his carefully selected Attorneys General, already taken this country too far in the direction of stomping on the rights of humans. However, I have not yet seen anything pointed out in the current document that expands that overreaching beyond the ways that they have already run afoul of the Constitution (while the Supreme Court very slowly reins them back in).