Democrats versus Republicans

[erps]

"the democrats are currently in charge"

I know Bush is a complete idiot but he IS the President.

Glad to see you guys are finally able to see how truly useless Bush is. But it begs the question "If Bush isnt in charge who is?

The democrats are currently in charge of congress. That's called the legislative branch. President Bush is in charge of the executive branch.

[TropicCat]

Originally Posted by erps

The democrats are currently in charge of congress. That's called the legislative branch. President Bush is in charge of the executive branch.

Is your point that Bush doesn't have to sign legislation in order for it to become law? Which constitution is that in? Or is it that if it's bad legislation, and he signs it, that it's the Democrats fault?

Chuckles is attempting to say that Bush can't be held accountable, regardless of his signature on a bill, if it's passed by a Democratically controlled congress. That's a contemporary republican view, it would seem, as it sidesteps Bush's accountability. He posted this in reference to my post on a list of Republican initiated Nationalizations. He claimed "Democrats made the Prez do it"

No dice.

If the President signs a bill.. it's his. If he doesn't want his name on it.. he veto's it. This how the system works. Fainting outrage of bad bill which this President signed that was passed by congress is ridiculous, yet somehow expected considering the Republican's lack of accountability these days.

This argument would play much better with a Presidential veto overridden by Congress.

And Bush has proven himself worse than useless. He's proven himself dangerous to American companies, American National Interests, the military, and lastly all Americans.

[PBzeer]

Originally Posted by sck

I know Bush is a complete idiot but he IS the President.

Would a complete idiot be someone who could know a person intimately for 20 years and then claim not to know what they believed in?

[TropicCat]

Originally Posted by PBzeer

Would a complete idiot be someone who could know a person intimately for 20 years and then claim not to know what they believed in?

Are you talking about Chuckles here?

[PBzeer]

Is your point that Bush doesn't have to sign legislation in order for it to become law? Which constitution is that in?

No Mr Facts R Us, Article I, Section 6 says the President doesn't have to sign a bill to make it law. Any bill passed by both Houses of Congress and unsigned by the President within 10 days after passage, and while Congress is in session, becomes law automatically.

Aside from which, Chuck's point wasn't to absolve Bush of accountability, but to show that the Democrats shared in that accountability. A fact you are bound and determined to ignore, regardless of reality.

[US27inKS]

SO correct me if I'm wrong Rick, are you saying that when a democratic controlled congress passes a law bad law, a law conceived by democrats, and the president signs it, that law automatically becomes the presidents policy? Seems to me that as long as these policies are working the democrats are happy to claim them as their own, but when they fail they become part of Bush's failed economic policy.

I would bet every cent I have that deals were being struck between the white house and congress on this. Bush agrees to pass democratic economic policy, if the dems agree to fund the war. Or is this another conspiracy?

Originally Posted by TropicCat

Is your point that Bush doesn't have to sign legislation in order for it to become law? Which constitution is that in? Or is it that if it's bad legislation, and he signs it, that it's the Democrats fault?

Chuckles is attempting to say that Bush can't be held accountable, regardless of his signature on a bill, if it's passed by a Democratically controlled congress. That's a contemporary republican view, it would seem, as it sidesteps Bush's accountability. He posted this in reference to my post on a list of Republican initiated Nationalizations. He claimed "Democrats made the Prez do it"

No dice.

If the President signs a bill.. it's his. If he doesn't want his name on it.. he veto's it. This how the system works. Fainting outrage of bad bill which this President signed that was passed by congress is ridiculous, yet somehow expected considering the Republican's lack of accountability these days.

This argument would play much better with a Presidential veto overridden by Congress.

And Bush has proven himself worse than useless. He's proven himself dangerous to American companies, American National Interests, the military, and lastly all Americans.

[wind_magic]

Originally Posted by PBzeer

No Mr Facts R Us, Article I, Section 6 says the President doesn't have to sign a bill to make it law. Any bill passed by both Houses of Congress and unsigned by the President within 10 days after passage, and while Congress is in session, becomes law automatically.

Aside from which, Chuck's point wasn't to absolve Bush of accountability, but to show that the Democrats shared in that accountability. A fact you are bound and determined to ignore, regardless of reality.

Even if a President veto's a bill, Congress can override it with enough votes.

[chucklesR]

Them, as they say, is the facts Rick.

Please, take a quick course in Constitutional law to back up that Economics back ground you got from a cracker jacker box.

I understand you are about my age, surely you remember those cartoons that went over this? I'm sure they were simple enough that a 6 year old could understand it.

As I see it, since you SAY you aren't a registered Democrat, I'd have to say you are a member of the soon to be majority party - the No-Accountability party. You take after your messiah Nobama on that issue at least.

If you really read my posts instead of just reacting to them you'd know I'm as anti-Bush as the next guy. I'm a true independent who is proud to say I've actually never voted for a straight party line. Can you say that Mr. OneWay? or ar you a independent/no accountability member because you a) like the way it sounded when you were standing in line to register, or b) live the life, so what they heck?

[sck5]

When I am skipper of the boat everything that happens on it is my responsibility.

It is the same with Presidents.

You guys have no problem holding Bill Clinton responsible for everything that happened during his presidency even though he certainly didnt have control of congress during that time. The same logic applies to Bush. He is captain of the ship at the moment (god help us) so he gets credit for what is good and what is bad.

[Drifter2869]

In my opinon, not that anyone probably cares, I think we are pretty much screwed no matter witch one of them win. They seem like a munch of bull sh*ters to me, who knows what they will do once they get in office, they just seem to make up sh*t as they go along. All of them.