Cheney flips out

[Portlander 0]

hahahahaha Thats hilarious! Actually, I think they're being offered up here. They are a major liability for the Republicans for the upcoming elections. If they get impeached that may work to deflect a lot of anti-Bush sentiment.

Personally, I hope both parties fracture and lose BIG TIME in the next elections. Its about time we got some independent parties going on. This 2 party system isn't all that much better than a 1 party system ( except that less gets done! thats better!! ) and they are bopth corrupt. (However, BushCo is raising corruption to unheard of levels, for anyone, anywhere. )

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Tee hee...

House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel

issued the following statement regarding his amendment to cut funding

for the Office of the Vice President from the bill that funds the

executive branch. The legislation -- the Financial Services and General

Government Appropriations bill -- will be considered on the floor of

the House of Representatives next week.

"The Vice President has a choice to make. If he believes his legal

case, his office has no business being funded as part of the executive

branch. However, if he demands executive branch funding he cannot

ignore executive branch rules. At the very least, the Vice President

should be consistent. This amendment will ensure that the Vice

President's funding is consistent with his legal arguments. I have

worked closely with my colleagues on this amendment and will continue

to pursue this measure in the coming days."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/06/23/c...-e_n_53479.html

That would be called wanting your cake and eating it.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Tee hee...

House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel

issued the following statement regarding his amendment to cut funding

for the Office of the Vice President from the bill that funds the

executive branch. The legislation -- the Financial Services and General

Government Appropriations bill -- will be considered on the floor of

the House of Representatives next week.

"The Vice President has a choice to make. If he believes his legal

case, his office has no business being funded as part of the executive

branch. However, if he demands executive branch funding he cannot

ignore executive branch rules. At the very least, the Vice President

should be consistent. This amendment will ensure that the Vice

President's funding is consistent with his legal arguments. I have

worked closely with my colleagues on this amendment and will continue

to pursue this measure in the coming days."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/06/23/c...-e_n_53479.html

That would be called wanting your cake and eating it.

I can't wait for Gary's response.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Cheney is a tosspiece.

[GaryC 7]

Tee hee...

House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel

issued the following statement regarding his amendment to cut funding

for the Office of the Vice President from the bill that funds the

executive branch. The legislation -- the Financial Services and General

Government Appropriations bill -- will be considered on the floor of

the House of Representatives next week.

"The Vice President has a choice to make. If he believes his legal

case, his office has no business being funded as part of the executive

branch. However, if he demands executive branch funding he cannot

ignore executive branch rules. At the very least, the Vice President

should be consistent. This amendment will ensure that the Vice

President's funding is consistent with his legal arguments. I have

worked closely with my colleagues on this amendment and will continue

to pursue this measure in the coming days."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/06/23/c...-e_n_53479.html

That would be called wanting your cake and eating it.

I can't wait for Gary's response.

The Huffingtpost. Nothing else needs said.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Tee hee...

House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel

issued the following statement regarding his amendment to cut funding

for the Office of the Vice President from the bill that funds the

executive branch. The legislation -- the Financial Services and General

Government Appropriations bill -- will be considered on the floor of

the House of Representatives next week.

"The Vice President has a choice to make. If he believes his legal

case, his office has no business being funded as part of the executive

branch. However, if he demands executive branch funding he cannot

ignore executive branch rules. At the very least, the Vice President

should be consistent. This amendment will ensure that the Vice

President's funding is consistent with his legal arguments. I have

worked closely with my colleagues on this amendment and will continue

to pursue this measure in the coming days."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/06/23/c...-e_n_53479.html

That would be called wanting your cake and eating it.

I can't wait for Gary's response.

The Huffingtpost. Nothing else needs said.

The meat of Steven's post is in House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel explicit quote. At least address the point raised rather than dismissing it because you don't like the publication its been printed/reprinted in...

[GaryC 7]

The meat of Steven's post is in House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel explicit quote. At least address the point raised rather than dismissing it because you don't like the publication its been printed/reprinted in...

Ok, so some Bush bashing nutcase is trying to make a point. Lets see him do it. Nothing but window dressing.

[Jamie76 0]

Come on now guys, stop with the fighting....You know what would fix this? You all get together with Mr. Cheney and have a relaxing day of bird hunting.

[Portlander 0]

hahahahahahaha

I hope it passes. Thats hilarious

[GaryC 7]

hahahahahahaha

I hope it passes. Thats hilarious

They won't. The dems mouth is bigger than their balls. Just a bunch of crying babies.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

hahahahahahaha

I hope it passes. Thats hilarious

They won't. The dems mouth is bigger than their balls. Just a bunch of crying babies.

Gary, you are like a brick wall...except your cracks are showing.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The meat of Steven's post is in House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel explicit quote. At least address the point raised rather than dismissing it because you don't like the publication its been printed/reprinted in...

Ok, so some Bush bashing nutcase is trying to make a point. Lets see him do it. Nothing but window dressing.

How exactly is it window dressing?

I'll refer to my previous question. If this story is true - and if Cheney is for whatever reason outside the remit of the executive, is this something you agree with and think is good for this country?

Also ET's point:

how exactly Cheney was exempted from this written executive order. Typically, to change something that's been executed in writing, it takes something in writing to amend it. Is there a properly executed written exception that dates back to 2002 that has been produced yet? I haven't seen it. Nor has Bush or Cheney claimed that said exemption exists in writing.

[GaryC 7]

The meat of Steven's post is in House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel explicit quote. At least address the point raised rather than dismissing it because you don't like the publication its been printed/reprinted in...

Ok, so some Bush bashing nutcase is trying to make a point. Lets see him do it. Nothing but window dressing.

How exactly is it window dressing?

I'll refer to my previous question. If this story is true - and if Cheney is for whatever reason outside the remit of the executive, is this something you agree with and think is good for this country?

Also ET's point:

how exactly Cheney was exempted from this written executive order. Typically, to change something that's been executed in writing, it takes something in writing to amend it. Is there a properly executed written exception that dates back to 2002 that has been produced yet? I haven't seen it. Nor has Bush or Cheney claimed that said exemption exists in writing.

Cheney didn't want to do it and Bush backed him up. That is the bottom line. There does not need to be a written exception unless the wacky left insists. Bush could do that and make it retroactive if he wants. Would it make you feel better if he did that? Lefties, jeez!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The meat of Steven's post is in House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel explicit quote. At least address the point raised rather than dismissing it because you don't like the publication its been printed/reprinted in...

Ok, so some Bush bashing nutcase is trying to make a point. Lets see him do it. Nothing but window dressing.

How exactly is it window dressing?

I'll refer to my previous question. If this story is true - and if Cheney is for whatever reason outside the remit of the executive, is this something you agree with and think is good for this country?

Also ET's point:

how exactly Cheney was exempted from this written executive order. Typically, to change something that's been executed in writing, it takes something in writing to amend it. Is there a properly executed written exception that dates back to 2002 that has been produced yet? I haven't seen it. Nor has Bush or Cheney claimed that said exemption exists in writing.

Cheney didn't want to do it and Bush backed him up. That is the bottom line. There does not need to be a written exception unless the wacky left insists. Bush could do that and make it retroactive if he wants. Would it make you feel better if he did that? Lefties, jeez!

Gary - how do I qualify as a "lefty" just because I ask a reasonable question about the vice president being outside the remit of the executive branch of government. It essentially means that Cheney can do his own thing on his own dime - which in addition to giving Cheney Carte Blanche to do whatever he likes (like exert a heavy big-business favouring influence over the White House energy policy) also gives GWB plausible deniability for anything he does or gets caught doing.

You ducked out of the question I asked BTW - do you think ####### Cheney's office should be outside the remit of the executive? Do you think this is democratic and/or good for the country as a whole? Two questions the bare minimum answer to which is either a 'yes' or a 'no'. I don't know about you - but a Vice President who uses a legal technicality to keep the running of his office, secret from any public accountability - and even from his own political partner - I would have to say 'no' on both counts.

[Jamie76 0]

The meat of Steven's post is in House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel explicit quote. At least address the point raised rather than dismissing it because you don't like the publication its been printed/reprinted in...

Ok, so some Bush bashing nutcase is trying to make a point. Lets see him do it. Nothing but window dressing.

How exactly is it window dressing?

I'll refer to my previous question. If this story is true - and if Cheney is for whatever reason outside the remit of the executive, is this something you agree with and think is good for this country?

Also ET's point:

how exactly Cheney was exempted from this written executive order. Typically, to change something that's been executed in writing, it takes something in writing to amend it. Is there a properly executed written exception that dates back to 2002 that has been produced yet? I haven't seen it. Nor has Bush or Cheney claimed that said exemption exists in writing.

Cheney didn't want to do it and Bush backed him up. That is the bottom line. There does not need to be a written exception unless the wacky left insists. Bush could do that and make it retroactive if he wants. Would it make you feel better if he did that? Lefties, jeez!

Why is it, when someone questions the executive branch...be they democrat or republican, they get labeled "wacky." Last time I checked our president was not a king with all encompassing authority. I think that is why we are supposed to have checks and balances no?