It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Regenmacher
If it quacks like a dictator....then it probably is.
"If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier - just so long I'm the dictator."
George W Bush - December 18, 2000
•Virtrol is still effective means of displacement and relegation.
•Vitriol strips the enemy of his personality, prominency and prestige.
•Vitriol erodes the enemy's claim to justice and exposes their carnality.
•Vitriol eliminates the enemy's image of invincibility and fortitude.
•Vitriol weakens the conscience and political capital of the enemy.
So here's to vitriol, knock them off of their stinkin' high ponies,
serve it up raw and in their face Sun Tzu style!
Less complacency and more vitriol is good for America,
but bad for big egos.
Thanks for laying out the specifics of the law though!
Originally posted by The Vagabond
I'm not just trying to be contrary. My point is that vitriol breeds intellectual complacency. A calm, composed, intellectual approach is generally favorable to the superior position. Pathos is what you resort to when the facts aren't on your side, and in this case, it turns out that some of the facts are on your side. I think going negative with Bush was the biggest favor anyone could have done for him. l
Here's to not hating eachother... if only for the moment.
In battle, there are not more than two methods
of attack--the direct and the indirect; yet these two
in combination give rise to an endless series of maneuvers.
The direct and the indirect lead on to each other in turn.
It is like moving in a circle--you never come to an end.
Who can exhaust the possibilities of their combination?
If the enemy leaves a door open, you must rush in.
Reduce the hostile chiefs by inflicting damage
on them; and make trouble for them, and keep them
constantly engaged; hold out specious allurements,
and make them rush to any given point.
Rouse him, and learn the principle of his
activity or inactivity. Force him to reveal himself,
so as to find out his vulnerable spots.
Therefore the clever combatant imposes his will on
the enemy, but does not allow the enemy's will to be imposed on him.
Sun Tzu
Originally posted by Regenmacher
What have you submitted to say you have any experience in the matters?
Originally posted by Regenmacher
Yeah, you just speak from the halls of no experience while waxing hypocrisy.
You have voted The Vagabond for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have used all of your votes for this month.
Originally posted by The Vagabond
Bottom line my friends, at the end of the day, these signing statements are irrelevant because their ends are unconstitutional. If the court were to actually recognize them, and defend them against all legislative recourse, they could hypothetically render the legislative branch all but obsolete for the purpose of passing laws. In the worst case scenario, which I do not consider likely, the people, through the legislative branch, may actually have to fight a legal war to pull the judiciary back to the middle so that the executive branch can be put in its place. I'm not going to call it imminent fascism, as some would, but I do call it a dang bad idea and a butt-load of problems just begging for a chance to happen.
Originally posted by WestPoint23
Anyone who wants to read about Signing Statements and about a few precedents set by previous Presidents, I recommend reading this.
The Legal Significance of Presidential Signing Statements
Such a Presidential statement could be analogized to a Supreme Court opinion that upheld legislation against a facial constitutional challenge, but warned at the same time that certain applications of the act would be unconstitutional. Cf. Bowen v. Kendrick, 487 U.S. 589, 622-24 (1987) (O'Connor, J., concurring)
Originally posted by Jaryn
[I'll finish reading this whole thread in a few minutes, but for right now, I felt I had to stop and say:
I disagree completely with Agent47's viewpoint, but how much he has posted has nothing to do with whether his opinions/statements are valid or not! To try to argue against someone using this viewpoint is ridiculous and makes you seem petty and childish.
Originally posted by Jaryn
I disagree completely with Agent47's viewpoint, but how much he has posted has nothing to do with whether his opinions/statements are valid or not! To try to argue against someone using this viewpoint is ridiculous and makes you seem petty and childish.
Originally posted by WestPoint23
Anyone who wants to read about Signing Statements and about a few precedents set by previous Presidents, I recommend reading this.
The Bicameral Clause of the United States Constitution states that “every bill [must] have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate” before it becomes a law. Because the president signed a bill that was passed only by the Senate, the act is unconstitutional.
Originally posted by Regenmacher
Talk is cheap
Direct experience is the master teacher. Don't have any experience, then don't expect me to consider your prose as relevant as those who have actually took the time and effort to walk the talk. Same reasoning goes into job positions, experience counts.
World has plenty of inexperienced blowhards, why you think that is?
Originally posted by Agent47
I've spent a good number of days on ATS making my points in threads, the fact I don't use ATSNN to a degree doesn't add up to a hill of beans.
And really prose? What are you a poet?
Originally posted by grover
I love agent 57's deny ignorance bub banner...is he urging us to deny ignorance or is he denying his own? I suspect the latter.
before the supreme court and i suspect will be shot down. Sounds like from some of agents posts he wants to be living under a dictatorship...because that is what you get if you concede final authority to the excuetive branch.
Originally posted by Regenmacher
Considering you don't moderate ATSNN nor have submitted to it and then claim you know the reasoning behind why this story was shuttled, doesn't add up to a hill o' beans either.
Originally posted by The Vagabond
Regenmacher:
There has been no subtlty, no mix of the indirect with the direct, in the attacks on Bush. As a result, this method has not worked.
Originally posted by df1
Originally posted by Regenmacher
I am wondering why this story was shuttled from ATSNN to ATS?
Someone have an agenda?
Me too.
Count me as another former ATS news poster. The news posting system is too cumbersome for me to waste my time jumping through those hoops only to have a valid story canned.
PS: I have no desire to debate this issue or to receive any explanation.
Originally posted by Agent47
Sorry I don't have a lame ass photo to upload to retort....