Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law.

Funny, I think it is in the Constitution... :-)

Uh, that's not what I was talking about. I was talking about executive orders, which he uses to blatantly defy congress.

And just because a man is a poor public speaker doesn't make him a bad president. I'd rather have a man with a list of gaffs as long as my arm, but who's heart was in the right place, to Bill Clinton, who can make wonderful speaches, that have only one flaw: not a shred of them are true. It doesn't take speaking ability to think about and sign/veto a bill.

------------------
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."
- George Bernard Shaw

[Ignore]

quote:

---

Chicken Pot Pie For All!

---

I think you need to go to a LSD treatment centre, Frank.

------------------
"What happens if a big asteroid hits the Earth? Judging from realistic simulations involving a sledge hammer and a common laboratory frog, we can assume it will be pretty bad."
- Dave Barry

"George (W) Bush, and all his Texas buddies, are sleaze bags ... I shall never look at him directly in the face ever again."

But that's if I don't consider the 1988 speach by Gore to tobacco farmers "I have tilled the soil with you ..." to the 1996 one condemming smoking. How I love hypocritical politicians ...

------------------
-Small Computer Systems Interface "Scuzzy" Emperor

Operator of the Goulag Hotel, maintainer of the workhouses.

Operator of Cargill Conglomerate Publications, http://www.cargillconglomerate.com

"Woman is deprived of rights from lack of education, and the lack of education results from the absence of rights. We must not forget that the subjection of women is so complete, and dates from such distant ages, that we are often unwilling to recognize the gulf that separates them from us."

Heck, "Reckless Endangerment" is a crime afterall.

On a slightly related tangent: I find it cute that the North American "Indians" managed to get Europeans (and most the world) hooked on tobacco, while they were being slaughtered and otherwise eliminated.
Its poetic revenge, is it not? It almost makes "Motezuma's Revenge" look like childsplay.

Fabrux: I said Chicken Pot pie for all. Nothing there about 15. I'm 16 myself.

------------------
"What happens if a big asteroid hits the Earth? Judging from realistic simulations involving a sledge hammer and a common laboratory frog, we can assume it will be pretty bad."
- Dave Barry

Cocaine wouldn't produce the effects you're looking for. It would make more sense if you suggested marijuana (for the effect on memory) or LSD (for obvious reasons).

You can't do anything right, can you?

You say that speech and suffrage are two different things, that women can have the right to free speech, but not the right to vote. Voting is a way to express free speech. If one were to take away women's right to vote, then women's right to free speech won't matter. Why bother listening to a woman who doesn't have the right to vote anyways? She's not going to vote him out of office, what's there to worry about. Repeal women's civil rights. There's nothing to worry about. After all, women can't vote. Who would care? And don't think that the men will. There are some men who think women are nothing more than baby-spitting housewife slaves.

If this were to happen, we'd all plunge backwards into middle-age politics where women are simply second-class citizens. So what if you believe that Clinton was a bad president. Blaming one group who voted for him is plain discriminatory. That's the mark of a sore loser. (BTW: I think that Clinton is a good President, despite the Zippergate Controversy. I'd pick him over Dole, or Bush any day.)

I am reminded of the Quebec Referendum on Separation about 5 years ago, when a separatist named Jacques Parizeau tried putting for a vote for sovereignity. The separatists barely lost, and Parizeau would say that it was the "Ethnic Vote" that was to blame. So if he wants to have a vote for separation, the ethnic people's right to vote should be removed, right? Same with the US election. Bill Clinton gets reelected. You don't like the result? Remove the women's right to vote. Some solution. And we elect a moron who doesn't give a rat's ass to women's rights.

I believe the rest of my comments were spoken by TSN and Tora Ziyal.

Oh and BTW, I've sent your comments to several friends of mine. I have yet to receive comments from them. When I do, I'll be sure to post them here.

I'm not finished with you yet.

------------------
"My Name is Elmer Fudd, Millionaire. I own a Mansion and a Yacht."
Psychiatrist: "Again."