Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Examiner)   The non-voting congressional delegate from Washington D.C. proves why she should remain a non-voting delegate   (washingtonexaminer.com ) divider line
    More: Dumbass, Eleanor Holmes Norton, House Oversight, District of Columbia  
•       •       •

4175 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Jul 2014 at 8:53 AM (1 year ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



122 Comments   (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-07-26 05:53:47 AM  
Oh oh oh!  I got this.  Is it because she's a democrat?  OH!!! No, wait, it's because she's black?!

Here is what Ms Norton said:

"You don't have a right to know everything in a separation-of-powers government, my friend. That is the difference between a parliamentary government and a separation-of-powers government,"

It sounds like she was referring to congress not having the right to know EVERYTHING the executive branch is doing because of separation of powers.  But the article implies that she's referring to the public and/or that congress shouldn't be "asking questions in the first place".  No, that's not what she said.

Normally I would not neccessarily agree with that statement but since she's directing it to Darrell Issa, yah, he can go EABOD as far as I'm concerned.  He's been on a witch hunt from the moment he got the chair of the oversight comittee and he's made no secret about it. He has made it his mission to (figuratively) hang Obama on whatever he can find, and failing badly. So fark him.  If he wants to be taken seriously he needs to stop acting like an idiot child.
 
2014-07-26 05:58:12 AM  

Ambivalence: Oh oh oh!  I got this.  Is it because she's a democrat?  OH!!! No, wait, it's because she's black?!

Here is what Ms Norton said:

"You don't have a right to know everything in a separation-of-powers government, my friend. That is the difference between a parliamentary government and a separation-of-powers government,"

It sounds like she was referring to congress not having the right to know EVERYTHING the executive branch is doing because of separation of powers.  But the article implies that she's referring to the public and/or that congress shouldn't be "asking questions in the first place".  No, that's not what she said.

Normally I would not neccessarily agree with that statement but since she's directing it to Darrell Issa, yah, he can go EABOD as far as I'm concerned.  He's been on a witch hunt from the moment he got the chair of the oversight comittee and he's made no secret about it. He has made it his mission to (figuratively) hang Obama on whatever he can find, and failing badly. So fark him.  If he wants to be taken seriously he needs to stop acting like an idiot child.


Done in one.
 
NFA [TotalFark]
2014-07-26 06:36:15 AM  

enry: Ambivalence: Oh oh oh!  I got this.  Is it because she's a democrat?  OH!!! No, wait, it's because she's black?!

Here is what Ms Norton said:

"You don't have a right to know everything in a separation-of-powers government, my friend. That is the difference between a parliamentary government and a separation-of-powers government,"

It sounds like she was referring to congress not having the right to know EVERYTHING the executive branch is doing because of separation of powers.  But the article implies that she's referring to the public and/or that congress shouldn't be "asking questions in the first place".  No, that's not what she said.

Normally I would not neccessarily agree with that statement but since she's directing it to Darrell Issa, yah, he can go EABOD as far as I'm concerned.  He's been on a witch hunt from the moment he got the chair of the oversight comittee and he's made no secret about it. He has made it his mission to (figuratively) hang Obama on whatever he can find, and failing badly. So fark him.  If he wants to be taken seriously he needs to stop acting like an idiot child.


Done in one.


enry: Ambivalence: Oh oh oh!  I got this.  Is it because she's a democrat?  OH!!! No, wait, it's because she's black?!

Here is what Ms Norton said:

"You don't have a right to know everything in a separation-of-powers government, my friend. That is the difference between a parliamentary government and a separation-of-powers government,"

It sounds like she was referring to congress not having the right to know EVERYTHING the executive branch is doing because of separation of powers.  But the article implies that she's referring to the public and/or that congress shouldn't be "asking questions in the first place".  No, that's not what she said.

Normally I would not neccessarily agree with that statement but since she's directing it to Darrell Issa, yah, he can go EABOD as far as I'm concerned.  He's been on a witch hunt from the moment he got the chair of the oversight comittee and he's made no secret about it. He has made it his mission to (figuratively) hang Obama on whatever he can find, and failing badly. So fark him.  If he wants to be taken seriously he needs to stop acting like an idiot child.


Done in one.


THIS
 
NFA [TotalFark]
2014-07-26 06:37:19 AM  
Weird, that double quote wasn't there when I pressed the "Add Comment" button.
 
2014-07-26 07:36:15 AM  

NFA: Weird, that double quote wasn't there when I pressed the "Add Comment" button.


What I said was so nice you quoted me twice.
 
2014-07-26 07:36:55 AM  

Ambivalence: Oh oh oh!  I got this.  Is it because she's a democrat?  OH!!! No, wait, it's because she's black?!

Here is what Ms Norton said:

"You don't have a right to know everything in a separation-of-powers government, my friend. That is the difference between a parliamentary government and a separation-of-powers government,"

It sounds like she was referring to congress not having the right to know EVERYTHING the executive branch is doing because of separation of powers.  But the article implies that she's referring to the public and/or that congress shouldn't be "asking questions in the first place".  No, that's not what she said.

Normally I would not neccessarily agree with that statement but since she's directing it to Darrell Issa, yah, he can go EABOD as far as I'm concerned.  He's been on a witch hunt from the moment he got the chair of the oversight comittee and he's made no secret about it. He has made it his mission to (figuratively) hang Obama on whatever he can find, and failing badly. So fark him.  If he wants to be taken seriously he needs to stop acting like an idiot child.


So the executive branch gets to decide what everybody else gets to know about what is doing and how it is doing it?

Let us look at the rest of the article shall we.

It was, to put mildly, a significant departure from the more traditional liberal stance that openness and transparency are must to prevent abuses of power by government official

So what you are saying is coverups and secrecy are OK as long as it is your guy, that promised to have the most transparent  administration in history,  who is doing it.

The persons question , Mr. SImas, is being paid and is using tax dollars. Those tax dollars are appropriated by Congress.  The American people through their elected representatives have a right to know how those tax dollars are being used and that they are being used correctly.

We are nto taling about secret government intelligence programs here or an on going law enforcement investigation but the activities of the office of Political Strategy and Outreach in an administration with a history of Hatch Act violations

Let us take this a step further with a related article:Simas Ignores Subpoena Again as White House Defies Issa

Republicans said they were standing up for the principle that no one is above the law, and Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa quoted a long list of Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California, who have backed Congress' right to subpoena top administration officials.

Democrats, led by ranking member Elijah E. Cummings of Maryland, said they strongly disagree with the White House's claim of absolute immunity
but also strongly disagree with Issa's push to press the issue, warning it could hurt the institution if they take a case to court



Also as far as fishing expeditions go the Democrats established the precedent, that the seriousness of "allegations alone" to launch investigations ie "the October Surprise".



And finally let us look at the White House's claim that Simas has absolute immunity from a subpoena from Congress.


Really? Absolutely no accountability is what they are saying.
But it is OK as long as it is your guy , right?
 
2014-07-26 07:55:28 AM  

hasty ambush: So what you are saying is...


I'm going to stop you right there, because anyone ever begins a sentence with these words, whatever follows is almost always complete and utter bullshiat.

I am saying no such thing.  Transparancy is one thing, but that doesn't mean congress has the right to know EVERYTHING (and certainly the public doesn't).  For example, congress doesn't have the right to know about real time military situations or to be appraised of what the military is doing in the present moment.  Congress is not the commander in chief. Congress also doesn't have the right to ask for testimony on top secret matters in public hearings, obviously.

And the same is true in reverse, the President and the executive branch doesn't have the right to know EVERYTHING congress is doing (which right now amounts to jack shiat). ditto for the judicial branch.  That is what separation of powers means.  Each branch has their responsibilities and while they have checks on each branch's power, that is not carte blanche to dominate any other branch.

But the core of this issue is that the oversight committee, under Darryll Issa is not operating in good faith. They aren't trying to get to the truth, they're on a witch hunt.  Issa is not even hiding it, that is what he's doing. hence my comment that he can EABOD.
 
2014-07-26 08:24:03 AM  
What a compete 180 from an article juuuuuuust yesterday where one of the quotes from the speaker was "We do not trust our liberty to a particular branch. We need one branch to check the other."

Oh and FWIW Ambivalence. That speaker was also a black democrat.
 
2014-07-26 08:26:02 AM  
F*ckwits like Bachmann, Gohmert, and Stockman say sh*t more stupid than that on a daily basis and no one suggests they shouldn't be allowed to vote

/although they clearly shouldn't be
 
2014-07-26 08:40:42 AM  

hasty ambush: Ambivalence: Oh oh oh!  I got this.  Is it because she's a democrat?  OH!!! No, wait, it's because she's black?!

Here is what Ms Norton said:

"You don't have a right to know everything in a separation-of-powers government, my friend. That is the difference between a parliamentary government and a separation-of-powers government,"

It sounds like she was referring to congress not having the right to know EVERYTHING the executive branch is doing because of separation of powers.  But the article implies that she's referring to the public and/or that congress shouldn't be "asking questions in the first place".  No, that's not what she said.

Normally I would not neccessarily agree with that statement but since she's directing it to Darrell Issa, yah, he can go EABOD as far as I'm concerned.  He's been on a witch hunt from the moment he got the chair of the oversight comittee and he's made no secret about it. He has made it his mission to (figuratively) hang Obama on whatever he can find, and failing badly. So fark him.  If he wants to be taken seriously he needs to stop acting like an idiot child.

So the executive branch gets to decide what everybody else gets to know about what is doing and how it is doing it?

Let us look at the rest of the article shall we.

It was, to put mildly, a significant departure from the more traditional liberal stance that openness and transparency are must to prevent abuses of power by government official

So what you are saying is coverups and secrecy are OK as long as it is your guy, that promised to have the most transparent  administration in history,  who is doing it.The persons question , Mr. SImas, is being paid and is using tax dollars. Those tax dollars are appropriated by Congress.  The American people through their elected representatives have a right to know how those tax dollars are being used and that they are being used correctly.We are nto taling about secret government intelligence programs here or an on going law enf ...


Actually: This
 
2014-07-26 08:43:42 AM  
Setec Astronomy.
 
2014-07-26 08:59:03 AM  
Washington Examiner full of shait? Shocking.
 
2014-07-26 09:03:10 AM  
Rep. Issa has gotten to the point where if he is asking the question, I am uninterested in the answer.  He lost all credibility a long time ago and every utterance by him costs the Congress whatever credibility it has left.
 
2014-07-26 09:04:24 AM  
I still don't curr
 
2014-07-26 09:04:35 AM  
The Examiner may actually be a newspaper in DC, but other places it only physically appears before elections, funded by GOP. It's like a weekly shopper throwaway with scare tactics..
 
2014-07-26 09:05:48 AM  
I think we should lock all public officials into one house together and film them 24/7 Big Brother style.
 
2014-07-26 09:06:07 AM  
Done in one.
 
2014-07-26 09:08:28 AM  

hasty ambush: Ambivalence: Oh oh oh!  I got this.  Is it because she's a democrat?  OH!!! No, wait, it's because she's black?!

Here is what Ms Norton said:

"You don't have a right to know everything in a separation-of-powers government, my friend. That is the difference between a parliamentary government and a separation-of-powers government,"

It sounds like she was referring to congress not having the right to know EVERYTHING the executive branch is doing because of separation of powers.  But the article implies that she's referring to the public and/or that congress shouldn't be "asking questions in the first place".  No, that's not what she said.

Normally I would not neccessarily agree with that statement but since she's directing it to Darrell Issa, yah, he can go EABOD as far as I'm concerned.  He's been on a witch hunt from the moment he got the chair of the oversight comittee and he's made no secret about it. He has made it his mission to (figuratively) hang Obama on whatever he can find, and failing badly. So fark him.  If he wants to be taken seriously he needs to stop acting like an idiot child.

So the executive branch gets to decide what everybody else gets to know about what is doing and how it is doing it?

Let us look at the rest of the article shall we.

It was, to put mildly, a significant departure from the more traditional liberal stance that openness and transparency are must to prevent abuses of power by government official

So what you are saying is coverups and secrecy are OK as long as it is your guy, that promised to have the most transparent  administration in history,  who is doing it.The persons question , Mr. SImas, is being paid and is using tax dollars. Those tax dollars are appropriated by Congress.  The American people through their elected representatives have a right to know how those tax dollars are being used and that they are being used correctly.We are nto taling about secret government intelligence programs here or an on going law enforcement investigation but the activities of the office of Political Strategy and Outreach in an administration with a history of Hatch Act violations

Let us take this a step further with a related article:Simas Ignores Subpoena Again as White House Defies Issa

Republicans said they were standing up for the principle that no one is above the law, and Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa quoted a long list of Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California, who have backed Congress' right to subpoena top administration officials.

Democrats, led by ranking member Elijah E. Cummings of Maryland, said they strongly disagree with the White House's claim of absolute immunity but also strongly disagree with Issa's push to press the issue, warning it could hurt the institution if they take a case to court


Also as far as fishing expeditions go the Democrats established the precedent, that the seriousness of "allegations alone" to launch investigations ie "the October Surprise".

And finally let us look at the White House's claim that Simas has absolute immunity from a subpoena from Congress.


Really? Absolutely no accountability is what they are saying.
But it is OK as long as it is your guy , right?


Common sense would suggest that had she had said anything controversial or at least worthy of some kind of retort from the GOP, it would be included in the article, especially one obviously slanted to gin up some kind buzz.

There was no response during the proceedings according to the journalist, despite Cummings hanging his hat on the quoted non voting representative, which would put some actual blood in the game.

Read it again.

There's no "there" there.
 
2014-07-26 09:08:54 AM  
hasty ambush:  So what you are saying is coverups and secrecy are OK as long as it is your guy,

Right.  And only democrats are partisans.
 
2014-07-26 09:09:02 AM  
I believe the (correct) point folks are trying to make is that while you don't have to agree with what Ms. Norton said (I don't entirely), the headline and article completely misconstrue what she actually did say. Her point was about the separation of powers and the extent to which the legislative branch can constitutionally make demands on the executive. What she said has nothing to do with "government transparency" or the right of the people to know what the government is doing.
 
2014-07-26 09:11:00 AM  

Destructor: Setec Astronomy.


COOTES RAT SEMEN
 
2014-07-26 09:11:16 AM  
Subby you linked an examiner article,  proving why you should lose the franchise, and be forcibly removed from the gene pool.
 
2014-07-26 09:15:47 AM  

EngineerAU: Destructor: Setec Astronomy.

COOTES RAT SEMEN


Tastey nose corm
 
2014-07-26 09:16:16 AM  

Ambivalence: Oh oh oh!  I got this.  Is it because she's a democrat?  OH!!! No, wait, it's because she's black?!

Here is what Ms Norton said:

"You don't have a right to know everything in a separation-of-powers government, my friend. That is the difference between a parliamentary government and a separation-of-powers government,"

It sounds like she was referring to congress not having the right to know EVERYTHING the executive branch is doing because of separation of powers.  But the article implies that she's referring to the public and/or that congress shouldn't be "asking questions in the first place".  No, that's not what she said.

Normally I would not neccessarily agree with that statement but since she's directing it to Darrell Issa, yah, he can go EABOD as far as I'm concerned.  He's been on a witch hunt from the moment he got the chair of the oversight comittee and he's made no secret about it. He has made it his mission to (figuratively) hang Obama on whatever he can find, and failing badly. So fark him.  If he wants to be taken seriously he needs to stop acting like an idiot child.


Pretty much. The public doesn't have a right to know everything. The President and staff and the nation itself have state secrets. In fact, we've even created a whole raft of laws to protect many of those secrets from ever getting out, making it a point to make revealing such secrets punishable by law, and even classified as treason. And Mr. Issa knows this, and was quite happy when previous Administrations claimed Executive privilege to protect advisers from being called in to testify to conversations that may or may not have had to do with what goes on behind closed doors.
 
2014-07-26 09:18:46 AM  

advex101: Rep. Issa has gotten to the point where if he is asking the question, I am uninterested in the answer.  He lost all credibility a long time ago and every utterance by him costs the Congress whatever credibility it has left.


yeah at this point he could have some valid point, a demonstrated truth from one of the multiple fishing expeditions he's put us through and it wouldn't matter. you are right that he has nada creditability.
 
2014-07-26 09:19:42 AM  
There are separation of powers and then there is checks and balances. The legislative branch has oversight power. It's kind of what they do.
 
2014-07-26 09:30:35 AM  
"Under President Obama, the White House has asserted sweeping executive powers, including the right to ignore pretty much all congressional inquiries. The administration has regularly ignored subpoenas from congressional committees."


No prior administration has ever done anything like this. Especially after outing a CIA agent.

Tough luck, derpbags. This is what you get when you cry wolf every single day for five and a half years.
 
2014-07-26 09:36:20 AM  
Someone once challenged me in a thread when I said that the Right Wing has cried wolf so much, that when they cry wolf I can't really muster the energy to respond, even if there is signs of there actually being a wolf.

If there's foxes in the henhouse, gophers in the fields, the grain mill is broken down, the bridge is washed out, Old Harry is getting drunk and falling in the river nightly, and there's refugees from the kingdom next over that need food and shelter, and all you keep doing is yelling about the wolves that nobody else can see sign of, while neglecting the foxes, gophers, the mill and bridge, Harry and the refugees...

I'm not really going to care what you say about Wolves ever, because I'm just tuning you out from all the false positives.

This is a "There's totally a wolf after the sheep, just trust me!" moment. And yes, there is a limit on what information one branch can reasonably grab from another branch. There's oversight as intended, and then there's oversight as a means to beat on the other branch.
 
2014-07-26 09:38:35 AM  

Epic Fap Session: No prior administration has ever done anything like this. Especially after outing a CIA agent.

Tough luck, derpbags. This is what you get when you cry wolf every single day for five and a half years.


Play back the movie that offended all the Muslims... The one where we wait a couple months to find out that the emails we wanted were "gone" because Rosen accidentally bumped into Lerner's machine with his fast and furious butt while he was wire tapping the AP trying to find out why Sebellis and the Black Panthers violated the Hatch act funding Solyndra.
 
2014-07-26 09:39:16 AM  

Ambivalence: Oh oh oh!  I got this.  Is it because she's a democrat?  OH!!! No, wait, it's because she's black?!

Here is what Ms Norton said:

"You don't have a right to know everything in a separation-of-powers government, my friend. That is the difference between a parliamentary government and a separation-of-powers government,"

It sounds like she was referring to congress not having the right to know EVERYTHING the executive branch is doing because of separation of powers.  But the article implies that she's referring to the public and/or that congress shouldn't be "asking questions in the first place".  No, that's not what she said.

Normally I would not neccessarily agree with that statement but since she's directing it to Darrell Issa, yah, he can go EABOD as far as I'm concerned.  He's been on a witch hunt from the moment he got the chair of the oversight comittee and he's made no secret about it. He has made it his mission to (figuratively) hang Obama on whatever he can find, and failing badly. So fark him.  If he wants to be taken seriously he needs to stop acting like an idiot child.


You, like the non-voting Representative, lack understanding about the reason for the Separation of Powers doctrine.
 
2014-07-26 09:44:24 AM  
EH Norton rocks. She was on of the few who could hold her own against Stephen Colbert (and the Asshole Issa), repeatedly. Good for her.
 
2014-07-26 09:47:34 AM  
Yeah, done in one. TFA is just more out of context quote mining bullshiat to give more masturbatory material to republicans. As if we didn't get enough of that crap already...
 
2014-07-26 09:49:33 AM  

Ambivalence: hasty ambush: So what you are saying is...

I'm going to stop you right there, because anyone ever begins a sentence with these words, whatever follows is almost always complete and utter bullshiat.


You know, you could have simply looked at who you were quoting, and arrived at the very same conclusion.

badhatharry: There are separation of powers and then there is checks and balances. The legislative branch has oversight power. It's kind of what they do.


Gary-L: You, like the non-voting Representative, lack understanding about the reason for the Separation of Powers doctrine.


The thing that made these posts so persuasive was their copious citations to constitutional provisions and respected works of legal analysis.
 
2014-07-26 09:50:38 AM  

Summercat: Someone once challenged me in a thread when I said that the Right Wing has cried wolf so much, that when they cry wolf I can't really muster the energy to respond, even if there is signs of there actually being a wolf.

If there's foxes in the henhouse, gophers in the fields, the grain mill is broken down, the bridge is washed out, Old Harry is getting drunk and falling in the river nightly, and there's refugees from the kingdom next over that need food and shelter, and all you keep doing is yelling about the wolves that nobody else can see sign of, while neglecting the foxes, gophers, the mill and bridge, Harry and the refugees...

I'm not really going to care what you say about Wolves ever, because I'm just tuning you out from all the false positives.

This is a "There's totally a wolf after the sheep, just trust me!" moment. And yes, there is a limit on what information one branch can reasonably grab from another branch. There's oversight as intended, and then there's oversight as a means to beat on the other branch.


Say, friend,
Do you have foxes in your henhouse?
And gophers in your field?
And the grain mill broke down?
And Old Harry got drunk and fell in the river?
And there's refugees from the next kingdom over that need food and shelter?
Is that's what's bothering you, friend?

WELL, LIFT YOUR HEAD UP HIGH AND TAKE A WALK IN THE SUN WITH DIGNITY AND STICK-TO-IT-NESS AND YA SHOW THE WORLD, YA SHOW THE WORLD WHERE TO GET OFF! YOU'LL NEVER GIVE UP, NEVER GIVE UP, NEVER GIVE UP THAT SHIP!

/obscure?
 
2014-07-26 09:50:40 AM  
Oh, and the Washington Examiner sucks weasel balls.
 
2014-07-26 09:55:42 AM  
Hey, look at that!  Even the Examiner can be on the correct side of an issue...so long as they can attack a Democrat for it.

What Holmes-Norton SHOULD have said was that Congress' right to know what the Executive Branch is doing, like all rights (ignoring for the moment that this isn't a "right" in the same sense as those a person has) , is balanced against the harm caused by exercise of that right.  There are no absolute rights.  In anything.  For anyone.
 
2014-07-26 09:58:51 AM  

hasty ambush: So the executive branch gets to decide what everybody else gets to know about what is doing and how it is doing it?


us v nixon:
Whatever the nature of the privilege of confidentiality of Presidential communications in the exercise of Art. II powers, the privilege can be said to derive from the supremacy of each branch within its own assigned area of constitutional duties. Certain powers and privileges flow from the nature of enumerated powers; the protection of the confidentiality of Presidential communications has similar constitutional underpinnings.
 
2014-07-26 09:59:47 AM  
She called Issa's subpoena a "showcase fishing expedition."

To his face? Cos I might have to buy her a beer for that.

/We were done in one here so in closing I'd just like to agree with the earlier poster who made the observation that the Washington Examiner sucks balls.
 
2014-07-26 10:00:41 AM  
Issa's reasoning for calling Silas is that the office in question has done shady things under past administrations, therefore Silas must testify.

That's not how it works. If you have PROOF there was wrongdoing, then you may issue subpoenas. You don't summon people before you on the off chance they're hiding something.

Issa can go fark himself.
 
2014-07-26 10:01:23 AM  

Epic Fap Session: "Under President Obama, the White House has asserted sweeping executive powers, including the right to ignore pretty much all congressional inquiries. The administration has regularly ignored subpoenas from congressional committees."


No prior administration has ever done anything like this. Especially after outing a CIA agent.

Tough luck, derpbags. This is what you get when you cry wolf every single day for five and a half years.


b..b..b.b.uttt..Busssh!
 
2014-07-26 10:02:18 AM  
We've got one of those non-voting congress critters in representing the VI, who happens to be a democrats in a room full of republicans, and for the record I'll just say that its probably the most useless job ever invented by politics.

Its kind of like electing a cheer leader, except they can't sing or dance or do anything of value and no one really cares what they say.
Seriously, who the hell thought that was an acceptable deal?

...That aside, you'd think they'd spend some of that free time to practice their politicking a bit. It sounds real bad to have an administration run on the idea of transparency and then say that no ones got a right to know what a branch of their government is up to.

We had this right from long before. Its troubling to think this is now considered a temporary offer that can be withdrawn.
 
2014-07-26 10:03:07 AM  
i.chzbgr.com
 
ecl
2014-07-26 10:03:25 AM  
We're gonna prosecute Bush/Cheney and company?
 
2014-07-26 10:07:17 AM  
If idiocy on the part of a representative was a reason for them not to vote, then most districts would not have voting representation. The bottom line is that it is disgusting that DC has no true Congressional representation (despite being saddled with the presence of the assholes sent by everyone else).
 
2014-07-26 10:07:24 AM  

Tyrone Slothrop: Summercat: Someone once challenged me in a thread when I said that the Right Wing has cried wolf so much, that when they cry wolf I can't really muster the energy to respond, even if there is signs of there actually being a wolf.

If there's foxes in the henhouse, gophers in the fields, the grain mill is broken down, the bridge is washed out, Old Harry is getting drunk and falling in the river nightly, and there's refugees from the kingdom next over that need food and shelter, and all you keep doing is yelling about the wolves that nobody else can see sign of, while neglecting the foxes, gophers, the mill and bridge, Harry and the refugees...

I'm not really going to care what you say about Wolves ever, because I'm just tuning you out from all the false positives.

This is a "There's totally a wolf after the sheep, just trust me!" moment. And yes, there is a limit on what information one branch can reasonably grab from another branch. There's oversight as intended, and then there's oversight as a means to beat on the other branch.

Say, friend,
Do you have foxes in your henhouse?
And gophers in your field?
And the grain mill broke down?
And Old Harry got drunk and fell in the river?
And there's refugees from the next kingdom over that need food and shelter?
Is that's what's bothering you, friend?

WELL, LIFT YOUR HEAD UP HIGH AND TAKE A WALK IN THE SUN WITH DIGNITY AND STICK-TO-IT-NESS AND YA SHOW THE WORLD, YA SHOW THE WORLD WHERE TO GET OFF! YOU'LL NEVER GIVE UP, NEVER GIVE UP, NEVER GIVE UP THAT SHIP!

/obscure?


To me, at least, it's obscure.
 
2014-07-26 10:12:42 AM  

Dog Welder: If you have PROOF there was wrongdoing, then you may issue subpoenas. You don't summon people before you on the off chance they're hiding something.


Why do you think that?  In the past it was Democrats who established the policy of requiring answers to "serious allegations" without having any evidence of wrongdoing.
 
2014-07-26 10:12:45 AM  

Ambivalence: It sounds like she was referring to congress not having the right to know EVERYTHING the executive branch is doing because of separation of powers.


Yes, and that's hilariously incorrect to the point of stupidity.

Congress has 100% complete, infinitely overriding supervisory authority over quite literally everything the executive branch does, limited only by informational throttles that the congress sets on  itself.  The executive has authority to conceal things from the  citizenry, yes.  But it very much does  not have authority to restrict congress' access to information and it also cannot conceal things legally from the USSC if a formal court order is filed.

This isn't to say that a specific congressman can get any information they want, because congress  does limit its own access, primarily through the committee system (e.g. you have to be on the intelligence committees to see military intelligence).  But congress in general has no such limited access, subject to their own procedures any correctly filed request for information form the executive  must legally be fulfilled with no delay beyond that allowed by their procedures.

And, notably, if there is a law or procedure restricting access in the way, congress has the authority to  change that, whereas the executive  does not.

What I'm trying to get at here is that this is not some nuanced, subtle, and obscure point of interpretation.

// Issa can fark off, but it's because the laws and procedures of congress don't allow for him to randomly harass the employees for the hell of it.  It's not because the executive is actually allowed to hide shiat from congress.  They aren't, and it's absolutely horrifying that anyone genuinely believes that.  The internal rules of  congress are what don't allow political fishing expeditions, mostly as a result of the trouble with McCarthy in the 50s.
 
2014-07-26 10:13:15 AM  

Cataholic: Epic Fap Session: "Under President Obama, the White House has asserted sweeping executive powers, including the right to ignore pretty much all congressional inquiries. The administration has regularly ignored subpoenas from congressional committees."


No prior administration has ever done anything like this. Especially after outing a CIA agent.

Tough luck, derpbags. This is what you get when you cry wolf every single day for five and a half years.

b..b..b.b.uttt..Busssh!


Historical comparisons are just liberal tricks.
 
2014-07-26 10:13:44 AM  

mrmopar5287: Dog Welder: If you have PROOF there was wrongdoing, then you may issue subpoenas. You don't summon people before you on the off chance they're hiding something.

Why do you think that?  In the past it was Democrats who established the policy of requiring answers to "serious allegations" without having any evidence of wrongdoing.


Such as?
 
2014-07-26 10:17:38 AM  
Dont worry. Democrats will change their tune under the Christie administration and they will do a 180 and claim a right to know and that executive privilege is bad.

Someone will then post a response of B..b..bbbut Obama. And democrats will claim thats not a proper response.


hypos keep criteing.
 
Displayed 50 of 122 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report