I acknowledged that the President acts through his subordinates however, it is clear enforcement is NOT taking place on our borders or to enforce out tax laws. Thus, the President's subordinates such as Homeland security Sec., Secretary of the treasury and the Attorney General are not doing their job. How many of these people have Bush removed for their failure to enforce our laws? Answer NONE. That means Bush is NOT DOING his job!

Those people are in fact enforcing the laws. Your gripe is that they aren't doing it to the degree to which you would like for them to. If you were in any way in touch with reality you might have a slim hope of understanding the difference as well as why your article here is total bunk.

But you don't so you won't. You're far too lost in your psychosis.

3 million illegal last year does not seem like enforcement to me!

You saying I am wrong mean NOTHING. PROVE IT? I have sighted the basis for my comments.

>>sigh<< I have proved it, over and over again. And again, and again, and again. I have gotten upset with you, patted you on the virtual head, foresworn ever coming to your blog again, everything except rise above the arguments that you love to bring out of people.

And in response you simply repost everything you said originally. Without ever acknowledging that anyone could be even a little bit right.

I am open-minded. I have brains enough to trust the valid claims of others. I have enough humility to realize when I am mistaken. You, on the other hand, are mistaken all the time, and therefore I cannot say any more to you than I have already said. It merely falls on deaf ears. It's deaf ears and the steady drum of your "Hate Bush" tomtoms.

You ask me to prove it, then I prove it. At least to my satisfaction. And apparently the satisfaction of everyone else, since no one comes on to blast me into the netherworld... they seem to do that to you. Coincidence? I think not.

Your grasp of foreign policy is abysmal. Your lack of understanding about domestic policy, security and economics is appalling, especially since you claim to have an MBA. (How old is that MBA, COL? Read anything good lately except Dem-leaning Bush hate-blogs? Picked up a Wall Street Journal or an Economist recently?) I especially love how you think you have any grasp as to constitutional law. Your naive attempts to dictate military policy and troop strength to current, professional soldiers are LAUGHABLE. I thank God I didn't have to go to war with you, COL.

You see, it's not about truth for you. You just love your soapbox, as all bloggers do. For you, it's all about spewing mindless rants about nothing and everything. You claim to want to be disproven, but that's not what it's about for you. And we all fall for your trickery.

You are unable to see when you have been out-brained and out-classed. You're just not smart enough to understand when you're beat.

Today the news documents what may be signs that America is in trouble. Cheney tells us that we need to expand Executive Power and defends the Bush actions of failing to obtain court orders to spy on Americans. Bush claims that his authority as Commander in Chief of our military gives him the power to ignore the law. The AP learned that Tom DeLay received 48 visits to Golf Clubs, 100 flights in corporate jets, 200 stays in world-class hotels and 500 meals at restaurants where dinner for two is about $200 - ALL this paid by corporations that want access and special treatment from our government.

And you are OH SO WRONG! Wrong enough that 5 of the FISA judges have come out and stated publicly that Bush has done nothing wrong! Here's just one of them, read it and weep!

Thursday, March 30, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST FISA Judge: Bush Wiretapping Broke No Law In a significant vindication for President Bush, a judge who co-authored the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act said Tuesday that the president was duly authorized under the Constitution to order the wiretapping of suspected terrorists - without getting a warrant from the FISA Court. Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, former FISA Court Judge Allan Kornblum said that president's Constitutional powers supersede the FISA law, which critics claim the Bush program violated. "If a court refuses a FISA application and there is not sufficient time for the president to go to the court of review, the president can under executive order act unilaterally, which he is doing now," said Kornblum, in quotes picked up by the Washington Times

FISA Judge: Bush Wiretapping Broke No Law

He will not listen to that guy. It's only one opinion... of a constitutional scholar!

QUICK QUIZ: Who knows more: Gene Abel, retired reservist colonel from Florida or Allan Kornblum, Federal FISA Judge?

I know who Gene's gonna side with. Gene.

drmiler -

That can't possibly be true!! No MSM outlet has said squat about it so, it can't possibly be so! No FISA judge is going to be objective & side with the President! Bush is a criminal - just ask around!

How do you guys do this and not tear your eyeballs out. People say I'm relentless, but sheesh. Read the writing on the wall, this is just about the Col enjoying the bumpage now...

The legal question about Bush and FISA can only be decided by the Supreme Court. All the other talk is just talk. Even lower courts can not settle this issue. I hope the case that has started about this issue ends up in the Supreme Court. However the reason I posted that section from my earlier Blog was because of DeLay comments not FISA.

I love it what you say you have proven ME WRONG when I sight data from the Treasury, dept of labor etc. You have done nothing of the kind since it is not ME you must prove incorrect but my sources and you have NOT DONE ANYTHING like prove that data to be incorrect. You just do not like the factual changes that have taken place since Jan 2001. I agree they are VERY NEGATIVE. They clearly show that the policies we are following either CAN NOT solve existing issues or in some cases like the annual budget deficit, were CREATED by the policies we are following. Those policies were proposed by Bush and passed by his supporters in Congress. For the most part, the majority of Americans DO NOT SUPPORT the Bush/GOP POLICIES!!!

The legal question about Bush and FISA can only be decided by the Supreme Court. All the other talk is just talk. Even lower courts can not settle this issue. I hope the case that has started about this issue ends up in the Supreme Court. However the reason I posted that section from my earlier Blog was because of DeLay comments not FISA.

So according to you the judges that actually sit on the FISA panel know "nothing" of the legality of what President Bush is doing?

See when we say we prove you wrong, this is EXACTLY what we're talking about. I show you documented and printed facts. And the "best" you can do is poo-poo the facts given and say they don't mean anything. That's because the facts do not support your position. And this happens a LOT with you! Here's another one:

For the most part, the majority of Americans DO NOT SUPPORT the Bush/GOP POLICIES!!!

Bullshit! How many times do you have to be "shown" that this is incorrect? Polls mean NOTHING unless you query EVERYONE!

Drmiler

Polls properly constructed are valid. YOU ARE WRONG. If you believe the Bush policies are resolving the issues at hand and are what the majority want for America you are living in the world you WANT not the WORLD the exists.

In our legal system, especially on a question such as presidential authority, the only final decision maker is the Supreme Court. Time after time lower courts are reversed when the very same issue comes to the highest court. Thus until the wiretapping issue is decided by the Supreme Court, none of us know if what Bush has done is within the law!

Polls properly constructed are valid. YOU ARE WRONG.

Bullshit, Col. There is NO WAY to properly represent MY opinion without asking ME...and I wager a fair sum that's true of the majority of Americans.

Even though I'm Libertarian, I'm not "party line" on this issue, nor are the vast majority of Libertarians I know in border states. A poll can't sum up what I think on the issue.

I am not sure where you went to Business School but polls are designed to predict the attitude of the population for which it was designed within the error limits which for most polls is + or- 3%. Each person does not need to be asked and the imperial evidence has shown that polls do describe the overall opinion within the error limits set by the way in which the poll was constructed. You just do not like what they show with regard to King George! The proof is in the fact that in the past most scientifically constructed polls do predict the outcome within the error range.

Except that the polls you constantly cite have no "outcome" to predict. The only measuring stick against which to judge polls is an election. There is no other event which will validate any opinion poll on anything. Not to mention that opinion polls are simply snapshots of a moment in time - like trying to understand the plot of an entire movie from a single frame. Do you seriously believe a random sample of 600 people tells you what the other 300 million think? Or will think next month?

You invest way too much faith in polls, which can be easily designed to obtain any pre-determined result you want and for which there are no scientific controls. And that plus or minus 3 percent crap is always thrown in to give the poll a false sense of validity. Polling is simply junk science, with the one exception of predicting election outcomes (the only time polls are "tested"), and they've been notoriously bad at that.

I am not sure where you went to Business School but polls are designed to predict the attitude of the population for which it was designed within the error limits which for most polls is + or- 3%. Each person does not need to be asked and the imperial evidence has shown that polls do describe the overall opinion within the error limits set by the way in which the poll was constructed. You just do not like what they show with regard to King George! The proof is in the fact that in the past most scientifically constructed polls do predict the outcome within the error range.

Oh REALLY? Then explain the exit polls for the 2004 elections. They were VERY wrong, weren't they? You place "entirely" too much faith in your vaunted polls. Like Gideon, no poll can even begin to assume to know what I think on ANY given subject, whether or nor Bush is even involved! The entire "poll thing" is based on someones "assumption" that they know how to figure out what someone is thinking. It's been proven time and again that you can NOT use a mathematical formula to figure out a persons thoughts! Math formulas are too rigid to be applied to humans. Go read "The Foundation Trilogy" by Issac Asimov. Find some other drum to beat, you know-nothing political hack!