Then may I assume that all HA Happy Hooligans will, from this point on and forever, address President Bush as Mr. President?
If the title is for life, then so should be the respect.
Then may I assume that all HA Happy Hooligans will, from this point on and forever, address President Bush as Mr. President?
Does anyone catch the irony in this moronic bleat?
*** NOW ENTERING AN IRONY-FREE ZONE ***
Call me moron all you wish – it’s the best you have to offer, after all, and does test the limits of your creativity – but President Bush is, and will always remain, President Bush.
Will you follow Brian Williams’ lead and accord him the respect due his status in our national life?
re 1: As soon as he is legally elected. Even if you skate by all the 2004 shenenigans the Rethugs pulled, George W. Bush never would have even running for president in 2004 if the supreme court had not illegally appointed him president.
Geoge W. Bush is NOT a legally elected president. And there is going to be a payback on Scalia. He should be impeached.
Consistent with the third hour on my show last night, I will from now on refer to President Bush as “Mr. S.O.B.”.
Under the Constitution, President George W. Bush is the President of the United States.
Can you name a single court holding to the contrary? Or find a single public official of consequence in any party who will contend otherwise?
Simply because your nose is still bent out of shape over events that happened seven-years ago doesn’t erase of eviscerate both historic and legal fact. George W. Bush is the President of the Uniteded States, and he’s entitled to all the emoluments, perquisites, and honorifics to which holders of that office are accorded both by law and custom.
Payback on Scalia? Is that a threat? Something you’re willing to go on record as having said? Such that the FBI might be interersted in questioning you?
BTW…you ought to read my favorite SCOTUS opinion, In re Neagle, 135 U.S. 1 (1890), in which the Court (you accord it the respect of capitalization) held that it’s within the power of the Attorney General of the United States (ditto) to protect Justices of the Court (again, ditto) by having U.S. Marshalls act as bodyguards while individual Justices were out riding circuit, a duty they used to perform.
Marshall Neagle, in the furtherance of his duty to protect Justice Stephen Field, shot and killed one David Terry, a disgruntled litigant who held animus toward Mr. Justice Field, when Terry threatened Justice Field’s life.
The 1889 gunfight was held on a train in California, a classic Western scenario.
When California, where Terry had some political power and noteriety (he once served as chief judge of the California Supreme Court), sought to have Marshall Neagle arrested and tried for murder, the federal courts intervened holding that Marshall Neagle, acting under color of the Constitutional mandate of the Executive Branch – U.S. Marshalls were then and are now employees of the Executive Branch – to ensure that the law is “faithfully executed,” was immune from California state law.
Interestingly, a few years back, a brace of dueling pistols (the correct appelation for two of them) used by Terry and then U.S. Senator David Broderick to settle a political quarrel over slavery – both Democrats, Terry favored it, while Broderick opposed it – was auctioned off in San Francisco for $34,500.
Terry won the duel, but lost the greater argument – not unusual for many Democrats – since his political career in California was ruined. Eventually, he joined the Confederacy, serving as a brigadier general during the Civil War.
Now, whether any descendents, literal or figurative, of Marshall Neagle are around these days, just be mindful that threatening Mr. Justice Scalia isn’t something anyone ought to do unless they’re prepared to be held singularly accountable.
And President George W. Bush is and remains and will forever be addressed as Mr. President.
There is not a single thing of consequence you can do about that!
i have no problem adressing HW Bush as Mr. Prez…nor did i have any problem adressing Ray-guns the same.
the title is an honor and i think all deserve it til death…by problem with ever adressing W in that way is obvious…he was never elected.
Since none of us are particularly likely to ever have a personal, face-to-face encounter with Mr. Bush, this is much ado about nothing. But on the off chance you’d want to be polite in such a situation, what is the “only polite way” to address a war criminal? “Your Luciferness”? “Mr. Defendant”? “Prisoner 8729983″?
It would take a few calls, but such an encounter could be arranged.
At least with President Bush, you don’t have to bring him a box of pre-moistened cigars as a gift. As I recall, isn’t President Clinton’s favorite brand of stogie, Hav-a-Tampon?
Please go to http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2000/members.html
After you’ve reviewed the information at that website, tell me again how President Bush wasn’t elected.
Piper: please put down your damn pipe.
You may refer to any President as “Mr. President” but he’ll be going by a number some day.
He’ll be in the dock at The Hague. It’ll happen some day.
I think you guys immediately slipped away from the point of the entry. It is not debatable that all people once president have a right to the title for their lives. The e-mail indicates a kind of campaign, apparently by Fox, to create a petty insult to President Clinton. It shows the level and quality of their minds that they attempt to get away with this stupidity; it shows the level of the minds who watch them that they believe such stupidity.
I personally believe that both the 2000 and the 2004 elections were stolen, but to put attention on calling GWB “Mr. President” after 2008 is silly.
And Piper is too smart to descend to the insulting entry @10. The Democrats have never exposed the personal sexual pleasures of GWB, having some manners in that area, but cigars may be part of his pleasure. Moreover, he is an admitted one time alcoholic and drug user, so maybe we should find some humiliating nickname for him, eh? So what should we bring GWB? A bottle of whiskey? Some cocaine in a velvet box? Ugh, what a waste of a topic of discussion.
As I recall, isn’t President Clinton’s favorite brand of stogie, Hav-a-Tampon?
No problem. Should I ever meet President Clinton, I’ll simply be sure to have you by my side. That should suffice.
He’ll be in the dock at The Hague. It’ll happen some day.
Somehow, I doubt it.… Ten straight Battleground Polls over more than five years, and the between fifty-nine and sixty-three percent of Americans, when given six different choices, four of which did not have “conservative,” chose to be identified as conservative. Only thirty-six percent of Americans called themselves “very liberal” or “somewhat liberal.”
‘Payback on Scalia? Is that a threat? Something you’re willing to go on record as having said? Such that the FBI might be interersted in questioning you?’
If pushing for Scalia’s impeachment is something you feel you must inform the FBI about, then by all means, do so. If not, then stop trying to intimidate me and curtail my free speech.
KMA, Piper, you fucking pussy. You are like Winston Smith’s neighbor.
I am going to skip commenting about gun control, etc. But what the Hell does a title has to do with Respect. The shrub can have all the titles he wants, but deserves no more respect than a pediphile priest.
@17…i’m sure there are many pedophile priests that would be insulted by the comparison
@1 I think we should treat chimpface with the same respect you guys exhibited (and continue to exhibit) toward President Clinton.
@4 “Will you follow Brian Williams’ lead and accord him the respect due his status in our national life?”
No. We respect the office (a lot more than he does), but the Current Occupant deserves no personal respect. Respect is something you have to earn.
So…if we’re wrong, that gives you license to be wrong, too?
Didn’t your late and quite unlamented mother teach you that two wrongs don’t make a right?
@7 No, he’s a pretender and a usurper. But even if he had been legitimately elected, in light of his numerous violations of the Constitution and oath of office, his official title should be “ex-President” (as in, impeached and removed for “treason [and] and high crimes and misdemeanors”).
@15 How did that work out for you guys in the 2006 midterms?
HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
@21 “So…if we’re wrong, that gives you license to be wrong, too?”
I’m not asking you to give us anything — I’m taking it.
Got any more stupid questions?
@21 (continued) To further clarify my answer @24, my policy is to mimic wingnuts — so, whatever they do, I’m gonna do. Therefore, the answer to your question is “yes” — if your side takes such license, so will I. When your side stops, I’ll stop. Since your side started it, your guys have to stop first.
If what you allege is so conclusive, why hasn’t the action you espouse come to pass? Or is it because the only “evidence” you have to offer is grassy-knoll and Kool Aid induced in nature?
Treason? I didn’t know we were discussing disgrace-to-his-uniform, Ehren Watada.
So many topics…hard to keep them straight!
Again, I refer you to http://www.archives.gov/federa l-register/electoral-college/2 000/members.html
So…if “my side” starts dissing liberals, you’ll diss them too?
Hey! Have you ever heard me contend the 2006 mid-terms weren’t anything but an unmitigated disaster for Republicans? Well, duh!
Just like my perfect and award winning 12 and 0 on Postman’s election prediction contest, I pegged the 2006 election, too. Of course, much of what I thought would happen was because I’m a pretty stout fan of the Prince of Darkness, Bob Novak, who has about the best political instincts among members of the pundit class, but also, when Republicans start acting like Democrats (spending, corruption, political pandering instead of principled leadership), then the voters will opt for real Dems instead of RINO’s.
Just remember…the tide rolls in…but then it always rolls out.
but then it always rolls out.
and it’s rolling out for Republicans for a very long time…
Given the chance, I would happily address G.W. Bush as “Mr. President,” as in, “Mr. President, I consider you a sham and a fool and a disgrace to your office. If there were any justice, you’d be on trial for war crimes along with your Vice President. January of 2009 could not come soon enough.”
I consider that a nice balance between my respect for the office and my opinion of the man, don’t you?
I’ll play ball. should I ever find myself face to face with the man I will say, “Mr. President, I think you are a lying sack or sh**. Thanks for 8 years of utter worldwide disaster.
In fact, I wouldn’t cross the street to piss on you if you were on fire, Mr. President.”
Is that respectful enough?
re: Thanks for 8 years of utter worldwide disaster.
Well, since Muslims are only killing or attempting to kill everyone and everything in their path in the MIDDLE EAST instead of here, the USA is doing waaaaay better than when “Mr. Wanna-see-Mr-Happy-Little-Girl?” left office. As everyone recalls, “he” left us in a recession after inviting ALL the 9-11 highjackers into the country.
As everyone recalls, he was DISBARRED for his little shenanigans (that’s CRIMES for you leftys).
Where to start? There was no recession as Mr. President took office. (Look it up on Wall Street Journal, not the editorial, but the actual financial data.)
Did North Korea have a nuke before Mr. President took office?
Was the dollar at about 65% of the Euro before Mr. President took office?
Did the CIA and FBI investigate the terrorists pre-911 or were they busy chasing down dress stains?
Did any other president or his cabinet members fail to take seriously a memo stating, “Bin Ladin determined to strike within the U.S.” before Mr. President?
As everyone recalls, “he” left us in a recession after inviting ALL the 9-11 highjackers into the country.
911 happened your Chimpanzee’s watch, silly right winger.
Dumbbshit broad must be Pee-Dookie’ sister.
#33: Wow. Where to start?
The GDP fell “off a cliff” starting in Summer, 2000. All the lying, cheating, stealing for the dotcoms gave that a healthy start. Thankfully, the Dow has more than recovered from Clinton.
As far as N Korea, you moron, CLINTON GAVE THEM THE TECHNOLOGY! Or don’t you believe even what HE said? (Probably not to serve yer own leftist, miserable, anti-American agenda.)
And thanks to the Clinton admin (Gorelick, et al), the FBI and CIA were PROHIBITED from communicating. (Thanks again, BJ!) ‘Freeh says: “The problem was with Bill Clinton — the scandals and the rumored scandals, the incubating ones and the dying ones never ended. Whatever moral compass the president was consulting was leading him in the wrong direction. His closets were full of skeletons just waiting to burst out.”‘ Too busy taking care of his own immorality to care about the USA!
9-11 Commission report: “But the United States did not, before 9/11, adopt as a clear strategic objective the elimination of al Qaeda.” Oh. Ow. Unless yer pinker than a pig that one sticks bad! The mantra is true: Clinton (BJ) was too busy worryin’ about getting a bj he blew off (nice term) Al Qaeda!
As far as the memo: Is it any less true today? You’d have to be a commie-demo to think otherwise. Until every muslim is dead, America will be under attack.
Sorry, I had a life to live last night but man you’re easy (use the google!!!)
U.S. GDP at end of 1999 (in billions):
nominal – $9268
per capita in 1999 dollars – $33215
end of 2000:
nominal – $10128
per – $34785
So the GDP “Fell off the Cliff?” Just for fun, here’s a quarterly breakdown…
So as to point #1, you are completely, utterly and fantastically wrong. Did you pull the figures you seem to beleive from the U.S. Deparment of Making Shit Up or have you seen them in print somewere?
As to point #2, allowing North Korea to have nuclear power reactors built by Russia is WAY different from giving weapons technology. I know, it’s science so it’s hard to grasp but it really is extraodinarly differnt. But isolating a county diplomatically while making saber rattling statements like, “I loath Kim Jong Il.” might, just might, make a country want to build a nuke as a deterrent to U.S. attack. Quick, which world leader gave ACTUAL weapons technology to Pakistan in a move that now seems collosally stupid?
For Evidence, you go to Louis Freeh? Wasn’t he the guy in charge during the FBI’s greatest failure. Now why would he want to deflect blame?
Why did Mr. President ignore the findings of the Hart Rudman commission, after being warned by the outgoing administration that terrorism in general and Osama bin Laden particularly would be their greatest problem? But by blowing off, do you mean trying to kill Bin Laden with cruise missles in an “Aspirin Factory?” after the U.S.S. Cole incident?
And finally, are you really arguing that ignoring the National Intellegence Briefing in the summer of 2001 wasn’t an act of gross negligence? I can accept the arguement that Clinton could have done more but trying to hold Mr. President blameless is just ignorant. There’s no other word for it.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.” — Theodore Roosevelt
Nuff said…. Piper, note the word, ‘servile’, because it fits you to a tee.
“the stock market started to decline in March of 2000, business investment began to fall in the third quarter of 2000, and initial jobless claims began to rise at the end of 2000 — more evidence that the U.S. economy in late 2000 was in fact “on the front end of a recession” ”
“President Clinton’s policies increased the federal tax burden as a share of our national economy from 17.5 percent in 1992 to 20.9 percent in 2000.”
“Largely as a result of the president’s tax-rate cuts, the recovery has moved into higher gear. The economy grew 6.1 percent in the second half of 2003, and 4.3 percent over the four quarters of 2003 — well above potential GDP growth. Business fixed investment in the fourth quarter of 2003 was revised upward to a 9.6 percent annual rate from 6.9 percent. The stock market has now returned to the level it was at when President Bush took office, which means that all the losses that occurred since March 2000 happened under President Clinton.”
So. Point #1. The Conservative is right.
“During the early Clinton years, hard-liners and so-called conservative hawks advocated a pre-emptive strike to halt North Korea’s nuclear weapons development before it could field an atomic bomb. Instead of taking the hard line, President Clinton elected to rely on former President Jimmy Carter and decided to appease the Marxist-Stalinist dictatorship.
Carter met with North Korean leader Kim Jong-il in Pyongyang and returned to America waving a piece of paper and declaring peace in our time. Kim, according to Carter, had agreed to stop his nuclear weapons development.
The Clinton appeasement program for North Korea included hundreds of millions of dollars in aid, food, oil and even a nuclear reactor. However, the agreement was flawed and lacked even the most informal means of verification.
In return, Kim elected to starve his people while using the American aid to build uranium bombs. The lowest estimate is that Kim starved to death over 1 million of his own people, even with the U.S. aid program.”
Wow. Conservative guy wins again. 2 for 2.
‘…And finally, are you really arguing that ignoring the National Intellegence Briefing in the summer of 2001 wasn’t an act of gross negligence?…’ The NIE? This the same NIE that said the Soviet Union would outlast the USA? (Took a MAN to defeat the CCCR. Nobody on the left has a sack, let alone the testicles to have defeated the CCCR. Hell, Jimmy Carter was waving a white flag.)
Certainly, I know that only an idiot would believe that Iran quit building nukes, even though the most recent NIE says they “quit”. Actually, that phrase was cherry-picked , ’cause they only “quit” for the w/e once back in ’03.
You’re so cute. Confronted with a fact that you made something up (re: GDP) you come back with a National Review OpEd quote:
Prove me wrong with ACTUAL FINANCIAL DATA not opinion. You either tried to bullshit your GDP data or you just plain lied. Changing the arguement from GDP to the stock market doesn’t get you off the hook.
You analasys of North Korea is pretty weak. (and should be in quotes unless you want to own up to plagiarizing NewsMax.com, Charles W. Smith, Wed. Jan.8th 2003 also and OpEd BTW.) See Russia (you know, a nuclear powered ally) wanted to sell North Korea the energy reactors. Through diplomacy the Clinton administration dropped their objections in exchange for verifyable monitoring of N.K.s weapons program. There’s no way of knowing if that round of diplomacy would have been ultimately sucessful since Mr. President abandoned diplomacy and labled NK an “Axis of Evil.” What we do know is that North Korea’s weapons program was under U.N. monitoring until Mr. President took office. I don’t know about you, but I consider inspectors up Kim Jong Il’s ass better than calling him names while he builds a bomb.
In case you need it, here’s an actual JOURNALISM story about NK expelling the IAEA inspectors in 2002. If the Clinton agreement “lacked even the most informal means of verification.” then why were inspectors in the country? Oh, you read it on NewsMax that there were no inspections so it MUST be true.
BTW, the expulsion of inspectors came almost a full year AFTER the “axis of Evil” speech.
Again, you have proven that you are utterly, completely and factually WRONG. But feel free to dig out a few more OpEd’s that argue, but not prove, your points.
re: Numbers. Here ya go. Notice how the economy was already sloooooowing by 3rd quarter 2000 and continued through 2001. Also, note who was el Presidente on 01/01/2001. Yer boy, BJ. So, he’s responsible for 2001. His budget. His @ss fer a target!
Also, please note above. Those little marks around the paragraphs I used as quotes: Those are QUOTE MARKS. You musta gone to public school. Notice I lifted it in its entirety, so I correctly applied them.
Russia an ally? Never. Hell, even the bible has Gog and MaGog getting together to fight us (and Israel).
Finally. Diplomacy? Yeah, that always works for you libs. Two words to haunt you folks ’til doomsday (which’ll happen a lot sooner with a commie-demo in the Casa Blanca): Neville Chamberlain. Mr. Surrender himself. Of course the name could be Clinton or Osama or Edwards or ???
You still haven’t addressed your LIE about the GDP falling staring in March. And slowdown does not equal recession. But take a look at table 7 closely. It only breaks down by year, not by quarter so did you pull you Q4 ’00 number out of your ass? A whole lot can happen in Q1-4 ’01 (including tax cuts by Mr. President) that will change the bugetary assumptions from 2000. Including Terra! Did 9/11 effect final 2001 economic indicators as Mr. President has been insisting? (you thought those charts were too long for me to actually look. C’mon admit it.)
Did you miss ALL of the Yeltsin years? Ally may be a strong word but certainly not an adversary in the 90′s.
And if you want to look it up, Neville Chamberlain was a member of Britain’s CONSERVATIVE party, not labor. Holy Jeebus, how hard would it be to get that FACT right?
Stupid, stupid, stupid! I think I’ll go have a drink now. Keep digging, but I’ll just relax for the rest of the day. You’re 0-3.
I forgot to mention, when you move from one quoted source to another, it is customary to close the quotes on the first and re-open them. Your style indicates that you lifted everything from one source. Paragraph one is an open close quote. The rest should have been quoted seperately. BTW, they’re still OpEds, not facts. But you don’t need to address that little failure of logic right?
#37 Mr. Smartypants says:
But by blowing off, do you mean trying to kill Bin Laden with cruise missles in an “Aspirin Factory?” after the U.S.S. Cole incident?
So clinton lied about WMDs and innocent people died?
Regardless of all the data thrown around here, and regardless of “looming” economic problems in 2000, there is an old phrase called “carrying the can.” This means that the president in office gets the credit and blame, no matter what. Lincoln carries the can for the Civil War, no matter how incompetent Buchanan might have been. And the truth is that Bush carries the can for all the economic issues of his day and for the 9/11 debacle (which he specifically and personally ignored in order not to take a warning from the Clinton team). And Clinton carries the can for eight years of unprecedented prosperity, pretty much for all of us. And for masterful management of the military, leaving with very few casualties under his watch. And lucky man, he slipped out before the horrors of the current administration. Though one wonders, had he stayed, perhaps those horrors might never have come to pass.
All the attempts of the conservatives to make Clinton carry the can for miseries after 1/20/1 are wasted. You guys and Bush carry the can, though the symbol is way too small for the bad times we have had since Clinton left.
And, by the way, the best example of being forced to carry the can was poor old Herbert Hoover, who was blamed and hated for the rest of his life, though it was the GOP that created the Depression in the policies of the twenties. And good old Silent Cal slipped away to an admired retirement and is remembered for the glories of the Roaring Twenties.
(I read once that woman came up to Coolidge at a dinner party and said to him, “I have bet my dinner partner that I can get you to say three words, Mr. President.” Cal looked at her and said, “You lose.” Gotta have some affection for him.)
RE: You still haven’t addressed your LIE about the GDP falling staring in March….
Oh, where it says “Stock Market” above, does that mean GDP to you? Funny, that means DJIA to everybody else.
The link shows the GDP being NEGATIVE (that’s MINUS) .5% by the National Bureau of Economic Research. FOR THE 3RD QUARTER, 2000!! http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/newsrel/2003cr_newsrelease.htm
And Chamberlain would be termed a RINO if he were around today. There’s lotsa those around. “Surrender” doesn’t equal “peace”. Only to the liberal mind.
“Did you miss ALL of the Yeltsin years? Ally may be a strong word but certainly not an adversary in the 90’s”
BTW, I saw Mr. Yeltsin in person. When he visited here in ’94. I understood the hands clasped together over his head (generally means “friendship”), but when he shook his fists at us Americans, I could only understand that to not be a friendly gesture. And, when we were supporting the muslims (why?) in the former Yugoslavia in the ’90′s and he was supporting the Serbs, we WERE in conflict.
I’ll leave you and smartypants to debate the political concept of an “enemy,” but your citing the BEA figures can only be properly described as disingenuous.
Yes, the adjusted overall GDP figure for QIII shows a .5% drop. That followed a QII increase of 6.4% (the only quarterly increase that was larger was QIV 1999). More importantly, in terms of your claim that GDP “fell off the cliff,” the QIV 2000 change in GDP was a 2.1% increase.
As for the source who attributes this to a drop-off in business investment related to the Clinton 1993 tax package. You don’t actually cite the source, which is probably a good thing, though it means that you get to be the brunt of all the laughter.
First of all, as the BEA data show, gross private domestic investment fell by 9.9% in QIII 2000, but not due to business investment. A good part of that was from residential investment (i.e. housing), which fell by 8.0%.
As for attributing this to Clinton’s 1993 tax package, pardon me while I recompose myself, but do you really believe that it takes seven years before we see the economic impact of a tax package?
“Call me moron all you wish – it’s the best you have to offer, after all, and does test the limits of your creativity – but President Bush is, and will always remain, President Bush.
Will you follow Brian Williams’ lead and accord him the respect due his status in our national life?”
Nope. Not until he EARNS my respect. I’m not a follower, particularly not of media talking heads whose job is ultimately to anesthetize us to the corporate screwing-over we are all meant to take without saying a peep.
Dubya’s status being due to a stolen election (a stacked SCOTUS, Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris, anyone?) is hardly what I call earning. The only thing he earned on his inauguration day was the eggs and rotten produce that flew at his bulletproof limo. Nothing’s changed since then except to get even worse.
The office means nothing; it’s just a place. Any aura of sanctity it ever had is now thoroughly discredited thanks to Dubya. He called the constitution “just a goddamn piece of paper”, so by that token, the Oval Office is hereby deconsecrated, and so is the status of anyone therein until further notice. I can’t respect a childish, selfish, petty, STUPID drunken fratboy who squats there thinking it’s okay to treat the world as his and his corporate cronies’ personal ATM, and human rights as nothing more than beer cans to be crushed on his forehead. Neither can the vast majority of intelligent people. If that makes you a moron, so be it–you’re a moron!
BTW: Coming in here and referring to readers who disagree with you as “Happy Hooligans” (i.e. cartoonish bums) isn’t respectful either, and if you want respect for you and yours, either show it or blow it.