On Sep 24, 3:46*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:29:06 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:





On Sep 24, 1:05*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 09:14:28 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:

What a difference a (D) makes. (sorry Dinah)

When it was an (R) congress and the president was (R) Gitmo was
blatantly unconstitutional. Now it is fine as long as congress agrees.

congressional oversight has always been an issue, as richard nixon
found out. *and it's SLIGHTLY more complicated than just having
'congress agree'. but that's a first step

If it is truly unconstitutional, congress can't approve it either.

which was not the topic of the article

You folks do have to get your story straight.

you just have to learn to read...and to stop lying. the topic was
whether or not obama continued bush's policies. he didn't.

so now you move the goalposts...

He continued the policies,

which is, of course, meaningless. what 'policies'? the difference is
that he recognizes separation of powers and limits on presidential
powers which the imperial president bush never did

just with a rubber stamp from the (D)
controlled congress.

ah. more goalpost moving. now you're admitting you're wrong in that
he DOES need congressional approval BUT you're saying it's a rubber
stamp congress

gee. why not move the goalposts out of the park completely