Model
kiana's place
Posts: 572
Citrus Heights, California, US
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060627/ap_ … statements WASHINGTON - Sen. John McCain thought he had a deal when President Bush, faced with a veto-proof margin in Congress, agreed to sign a bill banning the torture of detainees. Not quite. While Bush signed the new law, he also quietly approved another document: a signing statement reserving his right to ignore the law. McCain was furious, and so were other lawmakers.
Rather than give Congress the opportunity to override a veto with a two-thirds majority in each house, he has issued hundreds of signing statements invoking his right to interpret the law on everything from whistleblower protections to how Congress oversees the USA Patriot Act.
"It means that the administration does not feel bound to enforce many new laws which Congress has passed," said David Golove, a law professor at New York University who specializes in executive power issues. "This raises profound rule of law concerns. Do we have a functioning code of federal laws?" I just cant believe people still defend him. It isn't the torture issue, it is his willfully lying and lack of integrity. To sign a bill then turn around and sing a secret document saying he will not uphold the law. I wonder how many other bills he has signed then violated. So typical of Bush to sign a bill for everybody to follow else but him.
Photographer
W__
Posts: 170
Bloomfield, Connecticut, US
Photographer
Alexis_Kennedy
Posts: 1308
Portland, Oregon, US
As much as I can't stand Bush, I'm almost more afraid of who will be next. Bush has set a new low standard for the office of the president (as if it was ever that high) and proved just how much a person can get away with saying half truths to get what they want.
I'm very much afraid this trend will continue and just get worse and worse until people are tired of fighting it.
Photographer
Mike Lynch
Posts: 436
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US
Schwarzenegger & Ventura?
Photographer
Archived
Posts: 13509
Phoenix, Arizona, US
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060113.html "By Cooper's count, George W. Bush issued 23 signing statements in 2001; 34 statements in 2002, raising 168 constitutional objections; 27 statements in 2003, raising 142 constitutional challenges, and 23 statements in 2004, raising 175 constitutional criticisms. In total, during his first term Bush raised a remarkable 505 constitutional challenges to various provisions of legislation that became law." ...during his first term...
Photographer
photographybyStavros
Posts: 5402
Bainbridge Island, Washington, US
No matter who takes the oath of office January 20th 2009 .. I hope they mean it when they say.
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.
preserve,protect,defend...Those three words have been over looked the past six years.
Body Painter
BodyPainter Rich
Posts: 18107
Sacramento, California, US
IT appears once again, that I have misunderstimated the amount of damage that has been done by this administration. Has anyone else read that the cost of war in Iraq is now approaching half a TRILLLION dollars?
Photographer
Tim Baker-fotoPerfecta
Posts: 9877
Portland, Oregon, US
BodyPainter Rich wrote:
IT appears once again, that I have misunderstimated the amount of damage that has been done by this administration. Has anyone else read that the cost of war in Iraq is now approaching half a TRILLLION dollars? www.costofwar.com is showing it at just under $300 billion (as of June 27, 2006) but, hey, what's a few trillion among Helliburton and friends? Instead, we could have provided 14,132,920 students four-year scholarships at public universities (Bush seems to support the Leave No Cronie Behind program rather than that Child program of a similar name). That figure doesn't count the cost of war in Afganistan, however. Sigh. /tim
Photographer
Mike Cummings
Posts: 5896
LAKE COMO, Florida, US
kiana's place wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060627/ap_on_go_co/bush_signing_statements
WASHINGTON - Sen. John McCain thought he had a deal when President Bush, faced with a veto-proof margin in Congress, agreed to sign a bill banning the torture of detainees. Not quite. While Bush signed the new law, he also quietly approved another document: a signing statement reserving his right to ignore the law. McCain was furious, and so were other lawmakers.
Rather than give Congress the opportunity to override a veto with a two-thirds majority in each house, he has issued hundreds of signing statements invoking his right to interpret the law on everything from whistleblower protections to how Congress oversees the USA Patriot Act.
"It means that the administration does not feel bound to enforce many new laws which Congress has passed," said David Golove, a law professor at New York University who specializes in executive power issues. "This raises profound rule of law concerns. Do we have a functioning code of federal laws?"
I just cant believe people still defend him. It isn't the torture issue, it is his willfully lying and lack of integrity. To sign a bill then turn around and sing a secret document saying he will not uphold the law. I wonder how many other bills he has signed then violated. So typical of Bush to sign a bill for everybody to follow else but him. Yep so typical for Bush to use the same thing every President from Andrew Jackson all the way through to President Clinton has used, just to piss of the Lefties.
From your article "Signing statements don't carry the force of law, and other presidents have issued them for administrative reasons, such as instructing an agency how to put a certain law into effect. They usually are inserted quietly into the federal record."
"There's less here than meets the eye," Cornyn said. "The president is entitled to express his opinion. It's the courts that determine what the law is."
There you have it, Congress writes, President signs, Courts change.. errr I mean interpet the laws. Just like it is supposed to be.
Photographer
Tim Baker-fotoPerfecta
Posts: 9877
Portland, Oregon, US
Mike Cummings wrote:
Yep so typical for Bush to use the same thing every President from Andrew Jackson all the way through to President Clinton has used, just to piss of the Lefties.
From your article "Signing statements don't carry the force of law, and other presidents have issued them for administrative reasons, such as instructing an agency how to put a certain law into effect. They usually are inserted quietly into the federal record."
"There's less here than meets the eye," Cornyn said. "The president is entitled to express his opinion. It's the courts that determine what the law is."
There you have it, Congress writes, President signs, Courts change.. errr I mean interpet the laws. Just like it is supposed to be. True. Except Clinton wouldn't have done it - assuming he did - to piss of lefties.
Actually, the President uses an Executive Order when directing federal agencies.
I'm not sure what he's signing as stated in the post, above, but it wouldn't be a law as Congress makes law, not the president. He can veto, sign, or send it forward without signature. He can't make law, however he can ignore it - he'd be out of office before any court heard a challenge to his latter action.
/tim
Photographer
FKVPhotography
Posts: 30064
Ocala, Florida, US
This does not come as any big surprise to me.......it's the culmination of years of electoral indifference by the American public....voting percents are still very low in practically all local, state and national elections......
And a cohesive plan by corporate America and the party of their choice, Republican.
While the Democrats have been running around playing "social engineers"......corporate America has been looking for a figurehead leader....and they found one in Bush.....
I'm 59....been voting since I was of legal age.....and Bush is a dangerous combination of moron, gullible, delusional, and manipulative.....the perfect foil for corporate global stratgies....they pumped him up....propped him up....and served him up to a fairly uncaring, minority participating electorate as a leader of major proportions......
Bush has been the only president elected by using "marketing" campaigns alone.....he has no personal charisma....like JFK.....he has no political chrisma....like LBJ....from seeing him in action he mouths speeches about issues that even he has difficulty understanding....hence the stupid smirk.....he just doesn't have a clue.
The real power behind the "throne" is Cheney......now is he definitely scary.....and well connected in the corporate world....when Cheny wants something.....he gets it!!!....like the non-bid contracts in Iraq for Halliburton......or convening an "energy summit" in secret only attended by big oil interests.....and you just know those "interests" are not ours......he answers to no one.....not even to the puppet president....
So now the Republicans supported by their ultra-right wing religious minority....and funded by corporate coffers are poised to literally control this country for many years....perhaps decades.....do you think little things like "laws" will get in their way???....
The laws are only meant for the masses....US!.....it's really a control issue....break a law...you go to jail.....they break a law.....they're saving us from terrorists....which by the way is a tenet of any terrorist handbook......somehow in their rush for power corportate America has forgotten that.....greed tends to blind people to the obvious....
Terrorism is has it's own rules.....simple ones.....first of all....you can't stand toe to toe with superior firepower.....you nibble away at it....make them split their forces into smaller more defeatable segments.....
You carry on a protracted campaign......by avoiding major battles....you slowly sap the strength or your enemy....
You begin to infiltrate your opponents home ground.....forcing their government to become more oppressive in order to "protect" them....while at the same time taking away their civil liberties causing unrest among the population that is being "protected"....
At some point....terrorist force the "protecting" government into becoming so oppressive it's own population begins to create "homegrown" terrorists....
I've gone on long enough....but I hope everyone begins to think about whats going on.....posting here might make you feel good....but it doesn't help in reality....check up on your Congressman and Senators.....see if they really represent your interests.....it's easy to do on the internet.....and next election.....GO VOTE!!.....but make it count.....don't fall for the "marketing"
....because if we go down the path we're on now.....there will be no difference between an all Islamic world.....or the world corporate state now being created......they both will oppress in their own fashion....and we will be the ultimate victims.
Photographer
studio36uk
Posts: 22898
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna
BodyPainter Rich wrote:
IT appears once again, that I have misunderstimated the amount of damage that has been done by this administration. Has anyone else read that the cost of war in Iraq is now approaching half a TRILLLION dollars? WTF... it's only money. Best part for Bush is that it's not HIS money.
Studio36
Photographer
photographybyStavros
Posts: 5402
Bainbridge Island, Washington, US
I highly doubt this is a photo shop trick. In which case every reasonable thinking person should be a shamed. very a shamed. ![https://sitebuilder.know-name.com/adjoining/images/bush_finger.jpg]()
Photographer
Mike Cummings
Posts: 5896
LAKE COMO, Florida, US
stavrophotography wrote:
I highly doubt this is a photo shop trick. In which case every reasonable thinking person should be a shamed. very a shamed.
![https://sitebuilder.know-name.com/adjoining/images/bush_finger.jpg]() Of course anyone that disagrees with you CAN'T be a reasonable thinking person.
![https://panzo.org/pboardimg/outside/bush_finger.jpg]()
![https://www.thepolemicist.com/uploaded_images/bush_finger-796193.jpg]()
This last one is a vid capture and is real.
Photographer
Brian Diaz
Posts: 65617
Danbury, Connecticut, US
Photographer
Farenell Photography
Posts: 18832
Albany, New York, US
kiana's place wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060627/ap_on_go_co/bush_signing_statements
[i]WASHINGTON - Sen. John McCain thought he had a deal when President Bush, faced with a veto-proof margin in Congress, agreed to sign a bill banning the torture of detainees. Not quite. While Bush signed the new law, he also quietly approved another document: a signing statement reserving his right to ignore the law. McCain was furious, and so were other lawmakers. Does this really surprise you?
Photographer
W__
Posts: 170
Bloomfield, Connecticut, US
stavrophotography wrote:
No matter who takes the oath of office January 20th 2009 .. I hope they mean it when they say.
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.
preserve,protect,defend...Those three words have been over looked the past six years. Did you read the part where it says "to the best of my ability"? That is where we as Americans failed. We should have looked a little closer at his abilities.
Photographer
qphotonyc
Posts: 15650
New York, New York, US
Mike Cummings wrote:
Yep so typical for Bush to use the same thing every President from Andrew Jackson all the way through to President Clinton has used, just to piss of the Lefties.
From your article "Signing statements don't carry the force of law, and other presidents have issued them for administrative reasons, such as instructing an agency how to put a certain law into effect. They usually are inserted quietly into the federal record."
"There's less here than meets the eye," Cornyn said. "The president is entitled to express his opinion. It's the courts that determine what the law is."
There you have it, Congress writes, President signs, Courts change.. errr I mean interpet the laws. Just like it is supposed to be. The Constitutional and Practical Problems With Bush's Use of Signing Statements
"Given the incredible number of constitutional challenges Bush is issuing to new laws, without vetoing them, his use of signing statements is going to sooner or later put him in an untenable position. And there is a strong argument that it has already put him in a position contrary to Supreme Court precedent, and the Constitution, vis-Ã -vis the veto power.
"Bush is using signing statements like line item vetoes. Yet the Supreme Court has held the line item vetoes are unconstitutional. In 1988, in Clinton v. New York, the High Court said a president had to veto an entire law: Even Congress, with its Line Item Veto Act, could not permit him to veto provisions he might not like.
"The Court held the Line Item Veto Act unconstitutional in that it violated the Constitution's Presentment Clause. That Clause says that after a bill has passed both Houses, but "before it become[s] a Law," it must be presented to the President, who "shall sign it" if he approves it, but "return it" - that is, veto the bill, in its entirety-- if he does not.
"Following the Court's logic, and the spirit of the Presentment Clause, a president who finds part of a bill unconstitutional, ought to veto the entire bill -- not sign it with reservations in a way that attempts to effectively veto part (and only part) of the bill. Yet that is exactly what Bush is doing. The Presentment Clause makes clear that the veto power is to be used with respect to a bill in its entirety, not in part."
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060113.html
Photographer
STUDIOMONA PHOTOGRAPHY
Posts: 33697
Avon, Minnesota, US
****SM unwittingly walks into a Democratic Convention LOL ****  ![https://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j133/tinbird_01/smiley-lmaoBig.gif]()
Photographer
Voice of Reason
Posts: 8741
Anaheim, California, US
StudioMona wrote:
****SM unwittingly walks into a Democratic Convention LOL ****
![https://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j133/tinbird_01/smiley-lmaoBig.gif]() ROFLMAO!!
Photographer
ZKWC
Posts: 548
Malibu, California, US
FKVPhotoGraphics wrote:
This does not come as any big surprise to me.......it's the culmination of years of electoral indifference by the American public....voting percents are still very low in practically all local, state and national elections......
And a cohesive plan by corporate America and the party of their choice, Republican.
While the Democrats have been running around playing "social engineers"......corporate America has been looking for a figurehead leader....and they found one in Bush.....
I'm 59....been voting since I was of legal age.....and Bush is a dangerous combination of moron, gullible, delusional, and manipulative.....the perfect foil for corporate global stratgies....they pumped him up....propped him up....and served him up to a fairly uncaring, minority participating electorate as a leader of major proportions......
Bush has been the only president elected by using "marketing" campaigns alone.....he has no personal charisma....like JFK.....he has no political chrisma....like LBJ....from seeing him in action he mouths speeches about issues that even he has difficulty understanding....hence the stupid smirk.....he just doesn't have a clue.
The real power behind the "throne" is Cheney......now is he definitely scary.....and well connected in the corporate world....when Cheny wants something.....he gets it!!!....like the non-bid contracts in Iraq for Halliburton......or convening an "energy summit" in secret only attended by big oil interests.....and you just know those "interests" are not ours......he answers to no one.....not even to the puppet president....
So now the Republicans supported by their ultra-right wing religious minority....and funded by corporate coffers are poised to literally control this country for many years....perhaps decades.....do you think little things like "laws" will get in their way???....
The laws are only meant for the masses....US!.....it's really a control issue....break a law...you go to jail.....they break a law.....they're saving us from terrorists....which by the way is a tenet of any terrorist handbook......somehow in their rush for power corportate America has forgotten that.....greed tends to blind people to the obvious....
Terrorism is has it's own rules.....simple ones.....first of all....you can't stand toe to toe with superior firepower.....you nibble away at it....make them split their forces into smaller more defeatable segments.....
You carry on a protracted campaign......by avoiding major battles....you slowly sap the strength or your enemy....
You begin to infiltrate your opponents home ground.....forcing their government to become more oppressive in order to "protect" them....while at the same time taking away their civil liberties causing unrest among the population that is being "protected"....
At some point....terrorist force the "protecting" government into becoming so oppressive it's own population begins to create "homegrown" terrorists....
I've gone on long enough....but I hope everyone begins to think about whats going on.....posting here might make you feel good....but it doesn't help in reality....check up on your Congressman and Senators.....see if they really represent your interests.....it's easy to do on the internet.....and next election.....GO VOTE!!.....but make it count.....don't fall for the "marketing"
....because if we go down the path we're on now.....there will be no difference between an all Islamic world.....or the world corporate state now being created......they both will oppress in their own fashion....and we will be the ultimate victims. Yes, yes and yes again. The truth is better than sex, but not better than chocolate.
Photographer
kickfight
Posts: 35054
Portland, Oregon, US
Mike Cummings wrote:
Of course anyone that disagrees with you CAN'T be a reasonable thinking person. "Please do not throw poop back at the monkeys."
Photographer
Tim Baker-fotoPerfecta
Posts: 9877
Portland, Oregon, US
StudioMona wrote:
****SM unwittingly walks into a Democratic Convention LOL **** I'm sure you won't have any trouble finding your way out ... just follow your leader ...
![https://www.radicalruss.net/blog/images/bush-door.jpg]()
![https://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j133/tinbird_01/smiley-lmaoBig.gif]()
Photographer
David Gregg
Posts: 49
Mission Viejo, California, US
FKVPhotoGraphics wrote:
....because if we go down the path we're on now.....there will be no difference between an all Islamic world.....or the world corporate state now being created......they both will oppress in their own fashion....and we will be the ultimate victims. Seriously, how can you compare the United States with any Islamic nation - especially those we are currently engaging?
In the USA women are cherished, in some of these Islamic nations, women are merely property and treated like dogs.
That's just one issue, we can go on...
Photographer
FKVPhotography
Posts: 30064
Ocala, Florida, US
David Gregg wrote:
Seriously, how can you compare the United States with any Islamic nation - especially those we are currently engaging?
In the USA women are cherished, in some of these Islamic nations, women are merely property and treated like dogs.
That's just one issue, we can go on... I think you missed my point entirely....
I'm not comparing us to Islam......all I'm saying the each is a controlling power structure with it's own set of rules and laws....it dosen't make a difference who they are....the results will pretty much be the same.....the subjection of free speech...the ability to determine your own future.....as I stated.....each will oppress in their own fashion......
Photographer
STUDIOMONA PHOTOGRAPHY
Posts: 33697
Avon, Minnesota, US
Free speech? Did anyone mention free speech??? free speech at its finest right here in the US of A... ![https://www.radicalruss.net/blog/images/bush-door.jpg]() --posted originally by Tim B. - see if you can pull one like that in Iraq ..feel free to substitute any of their "leaders" in lieu of Bush's image
Photographer
Bob Helm Photography
Posts: 18916
Cherry Hill, New Jersey, US
Kinda like the War Powers Act, which every president since its passage has said is unconstitutional and does not apply, but then kinda applies.
Might want to read Marbury v Madison and Worchester v Georgia ( President Jackson held he had no constitutional power to enforce a judicial decision)
Because of the separation of powers every president has been firm in defending their interpertation of the integrety of the Office of the Presidency. Clinton used it as a justification for his numerous claims of Executive Privilige which while often turned down by the courts was sometimes upheld.
An incursion on the Presidents constitutionaly delagated authority cannot be abridged by an act of Congress. No one is obligated to obey an illegal law and govenments pass them knowing that some people will obey and others will not and if challanged they will back down on prosecution because they know they will lose.
Photographer
qphotonyc
Posts: 15650
New York, New York, US
Mike Cummings wrote:
Yep so typical for Bush to use the same thing every President from Andrew Jackson all the way through to President Clinton has used, just to piss of the Lefties. nah, i think he's workin on the legacy thing:
"Bush has issued more signing statements than all previous presidents combined. But he has never vetoed a bill, depriving Congress of any chance to override his judgment. If Congress had the power to sue Bush, Specter said, the Supreme Court could determine whether the president's objections are valid under the Constitution."
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washi … challenge/
Photographer
STUDIOMONA PHOTOGRAPHY
Posts: 33697
Avon, Minnesota, US
--- "Congress voted overwhelmingly to outlaw all forms of abusive interrogation techniques by US officials. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney fought the ban, asking Congress to allow the president to waive the ban under certain circumstances to preserve the president's ``flexibility" in the war on terrorism. But Congress rejected the waiver, passing an absolute ban in all circumstances.
When it became clear that the torture ban would pass, Bush called a press conference and said he supported it. But later, he issued a signing statement saying that he had the constitutional power, as commander-in-chief, to waive the ban in a situation where he felt harsh interrogation techniques were necessary to protect national security." - Seems fair enough to me. I could see it now...what if someone says being away from his/ her kids is " torture enough", then what can you say to that? Clearly there is a fine line here somewhere. What will prevent someone from coming up with creative torturous scenarios to present to bleeding hearts eh? Bush sure doesn't seem like an idiot after all
Photographer
Kevin Connery
Posts: 17824
El Segundo, California, US
StudioMona wrote:
---"Congress voted overwhelmingly to outlaw all forms of abusive interrogation techniques by US officials. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney fought the ban, asking Congress to allow the president to waive the ban under certain circumstances to preserve the president's ``flexibility" in the war on terrorism. But Congress rejected the waiver, passing an absolute ban in all circumstances.
When it became clear that the torture ban would pass, Bush called a press conference and said he supported it. But later, he issued a signing statement saying that he had the constitutional power, as commander-in-chief, to waive the ban in a situation where he felt harsh interrogation techniques were necessary to protect national security."
-
Seems fair enough to me. I could see it now...what if someone says being away from his/ her kids is " torture enough", then what can you say to that? Clearly there is a fine line here somewhere. What will prevent someone from coming up with creative torturous scenarios to present to bleeding hearts eh? Bush sure doesn't seem like an idiot after all Ignore the specific instance, however, for now.
Congress passes a bill saying "the government may not do X". The President signs it into law, but writes a statement that he attaches to it, saying it doesn't apply to the President, and that the President CAN do X whenever he shooses. That statement, IN THEORY has no legal basis; it's an advisory for interpretive purposes. In reality--at least in the last few reigns (Bush/Clinton/Bush), it tends to have the force of law, if not actually being law. Creating laws is not one of the prerogatives of the Executive branch, meaning that if the 'note' is used as if it were law, it's a violation of that silly separation of powers thing.
He's welcome to cite that note later on if he wants to ignore the law, but it's not lawful to actually ignore it.
Put yet another way: he's doing something he's allowed to do (write a note), but he's putting things it them that, if exercised are unlawful. That's different than most earlier statements which noted how to execute the law, or "clarified" the law: they didn't claim the law didn't apply to certain people when the law was unambiguous that they were included.
Since this hasn't had much mind-time, and it was last heavily promoted back in January, it's probably going to be another creeping non-issue for the voting public. 
Photographer
STUDIOMONA PHOTOGRAPHY
Posts: 33697
Avon, Minnesota, US
Tim Baker wrote:
StudioMona wrote:
****SM unwittingly walks into a Democratic Convention LOL **** I'm sure you won't have any trouble finding your way out ... just follow your leader ...
![https://www.radicalruss.net/blog/images/bush-door.jpg]()
![https://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j133/tinbird_01/smiley-lmaoBig.gif]() But it's so entertaining..I'll stick around for a while until it gets too boring 
Photographer
ELITE Model Shots
Posts: 319
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
stavrophotography wrote:
I highly doubt this is a photo shop trick. In which case every reasonable thinking person should be a shamed. very a shamed.
![https://sitebuilder.know-name.com/adjoining/images/bush_finger.jpg]() George should take that finger and shove it up his ASS! I don't believe those elections where legit. Too late now!
Photographer
Voice of Reason
Posts: 8741
Anaheim, California, US
fuscophoto wrote:
George should take that finger and shove it up his ASS! I don't believe those elections where legit. Too late now! Are all Canadians so pissy, or just the ones that post on this site?
Photographer
STUDIOMONA PHOTOGRAPHY
Posts: 33697
Avon, Minnesota, US
David Moyle wrote:
Are all Canadians so pissy, or just the ones that post on this site? LOL, heck even my nephew who immigrated to Canada from the Philippines hates me for becoming a Yankee LOL ...
nothing surprises me anymore, especially not the things posted here on MM lol
Photographer
Mike Cummings
Posts: 5896
LAKE COMO, Florida, US
fuscophoto wrote:
George should take that finger and shove it up his ASS! I don't believe those elections where legit. Too late now! Spend some money on your military so we don't have to defend your sorry ass, then you can speak.
Photographer
Voice of Reason
Posts: 8741
Anaheim, California, US
Mike Cummings wrote:
Spend some money on your military so we don't have to defend your sorry ass, then you can speak. They're busy with socialized medicine.
Photographer
FKVPhotography
Posts: 30064
Ocala, Florida, US
qphotonyc wrote:
i think he's workin on the legacy thing: Legacy.....LOL....
Most president's have libraries full of their memoirs....papers....gifts...that sort of thing.....
Bush might get a "Presidential Notebook".....since he's proud of the fact he doesn't read or watch TV!!!.....well...at least it might be a limited edition notebook...should rank right there with Superman comics....
I wonder where he does get his information from???????.....seems he surrounds himself with "yes men".....so if he makes a statement that is total nonsense...they all nod their heads in approval.....
Photographer
STUDIOMONA PHOTOGRAPHY
Posts: 33697
Avon, Minnesota, US
FKVPhotoGraphics wrote:
I wonder where he does get his information from???????.....seems he surrounds himself with "yes men"..... or women?
cut and paste:
Zoe Wiseman wrote:
Yes, yes and yes again. ... ![https://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j133/tinbird_01/smiley-lmaoBig.gif]()
Photographer
Mike Cummings
Posts: 5896
LAKE COMO, Florida, US
David Moyle wrote:
They're busy with socialized medicine. If we could spend just 5% on defense we could have universal healthcare too. Then again if we did that then all our women would look like this.
![https://blogster.com/host/images/74860715921.jpg]()
|
--posted originally by Tim B. 
